Even MORE Torture

[Korgoth]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....OBKYB0CRBAEKSFEY?type=topNews&storyID=8005978
The defense that abu ghraib was an isolated incident has now officially become useless... This is dispicable behavior, there is no defense for this. Leadership must be punished.

 

[KoreBolteR]

atm the page says "were sorry , this story is not avilable".

EDIT: anotherr blow to the US, possibly the media is once again probably over-exagerating, and im sad too say the iraqi people aint gonna be happy about this.

ffs why are all iraqi papers so pro-terrorist. all following al-jazeera, and do you know why>! because other wise all thier workers awill be shot or beheaded, and thier HQ blown to pieces, Iraq is still a hostage.

 

[Korgoth]

thats not an iraqi paper thats reuters, international news, and second people died, suffered broken bones, etc... I'd hardly say its being blown out of proportion if people are dead.

 

[KoreBolteR]

yeah but can you imagine how iraqi papers are going to take this, pread more hatred for the US, this time there will be shopkeepers shooting US marines for this over exaggeration by international AND iraqi papers.

and yes. the iraqi papers are afraid to say anything anti-terrorist.

 

[Korgoth]

That may be true, but if we didn't get ourselves into these kind of messes we wouldn't have to worry about the resulting backlash... If the higher ups did something about this on going torture, namely put an end to it, we wouldn't have to worry about what the papers say.

We are giving them the ammo they need to fight back at us.

 

[KoreBolteR]

That may be true, but if we didn't get ourselves into these kind of messes we wouldn't have to worry about the resulting backlash... If the higher ups did something about this on going torture, namely put an end to it, we wouldn't have to worry about what the papers say.

We are giving them the ammo they need to fight back at us.

true. i just wish those stupid little minoity of US marines wouldnt do it, they are bringing down the whole US. there are going to be innocent iraqi and US marine deaths because of them now.. .

 

[CptStern]

korebolter have you been paying attention at all? IT"S NOT A "MINORITY OF MARINES". The methods they are using are consistant with US government procedures on torture. The government ordered the torture of the detainees, some soldiers took it too far (in the cases of murder) but most are by the book (the CIA torture books). This is true of every sigle coaltion prison camp, it's just a matter of time for those stories to get out to the press.


BTW to anyone who says only the guilty are being tortured:


"The Mosul investigation began after 20-year-old Salah Salih Jassim had his jaw broken in detention. He was not suspected of any crime but had been arrested along with his father, an officer in Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen militia."

 

[Razor]

Disgusting, utterly disgusting.

 

[dart321]

Yes it is disgusting, yet, I can't help but point out the fact that torture has been a part of just about all major armed conflicts. To single the US out as the only country who does/did this is naive, IMO. I'm not saying it's alright that this was done (by ANY means), I am simply saying that this is not uncommon in wars.

 

[Kebean PFC]

Well, his father was Fedayeen, so i could see where they may have thought he has information, however, i do not agree with torture, it will always happen, regardless if its the US or someone else. The practice to hurt someone else for information is ingrained into us, so i don't see it ending any time soon.

 

[CptStern]

funny how you wouldnt feel that way if you were the one being tortured ...the fact is that people were tortured with no evidence against them. How can anyone say it's justifed when so few have had their day in court

 

[dart321]

funny how you wouldnt feel that way if you were the one being tortured ...the fact is that people were tortured with no evidence against them. How can anyone say it's justifed when so few have had their day in court

Where did I (or Kebean) ever say it was justified?

 

[Kebean PFC]

I didn't say it was justified, and i dont think anyone would say torture was justified if they were going through it. Common sense dictates that that is just stupid. Please read my previous post...

i do not agree with torture

There you go.

 

[Razor]

Yes it is disgusting, yet, I can't help but point out the fact that torture has been a part of just about all major armed conflicts. To single the US out as the only country who does/did this is naive, IMO. I'm not saying it's alright that this was done (by ANY means), I am simply saying that this is not uncommon in wars.

It isn't the fact that people are saying that America is the only country doing it, the thing that pisses people off is that Bush is going round saying that tyrants who torture their people are evil and should be exterminated and replaced by a nicer person, when all the time, American troops and intelligence agency, under the command of Bush, being the Supreme Commander as he is, is doing exactly the same thing, but not only to their own people, but to everyone elses as well.

 

[Korgoth]

Yes hypocrisy, everything about Bush screams hypocrisy. He wants to rid the world of WMD yet has more under his thumb than any nation on this planet. He wants to rid the world of freedom hating tyrants, yet is slowly stripping liberties from his own people in the name of security. He claims God is on his side when he bombs another country and kills thousands of innocent peopl. He claims he is the war president, yet dodged military conflict when it was his time to serve. He claims he is best for our troops, yet humiliates people who proudly served in vietnam for political gain. He claims he is creating a strong economy, yet the deficits and unemployment rates are at record levels. He claims he is best for security, yet his administration presided over the worst intel failure in american history leading to some 3000 dead on 9/11, and, his aggresive foreign policy has actually increased terror around the globe. He is horrible for the enviroment, his policies speak for themselves. I can't stand his hypocrisy, he is the most dangerous person to freedom and safety on the planet right now.

 

[dart321]

It isn't the fact that people are saying that America is the only country doing it, the thing that pisses people off is that Bush is going round saying that tyrants who torture their people are evil and should be exterminated and replaced by a nicer person, when all the time, American troops and intelligence agency, under the command of Bush, being the Supreme Commander as he is, is doing exactly the same thing, but not only to their own people, but to everyone elses as well.

To you this may be the case. The thing is, when the masses (especially Iraqis) hear about how the American Marines did this and that to a poor, helpless, defenseless POW, they don't think: "I hate Bush and his policies regarding foreign relations, his hypocrisy, his treatment of POWs and how he regards torture as an OK means of getting information." They just think: "F*** America."

 

[Nofuture]

Yes hypocrisy, everything about Bush screams hypocrisy. He wants to rid the world of WMD yet has more under his thumb than any nation on this planet. He wants to rid the world of freedom hating tyrants, yet is slowly stripping liberties from his own people in the name of security. He claims God is on his side when he bombs another country and kills thousands of innocent peopl. He claims he is the war president, yet dodged military conflict when it was his time to serve. He claims he is best for our troops, yet humiliates people who proudly served in vietnam for political gain. He claims he is creating a strong economy, yet the deficits and unemployment rates are at record levels. He claims he is best for security, yet his administration presided over the worst intel failure in american history leading to some 3000 dead on 9/11, and, his aggresive foreign policy has actually increased terror around the globe. He is horrible for the enviroment, his policies speak for themselves. I can't stand his hypocrisy, he is the most dangerous person to freedom and safety on the planet right now.

Excellent, one of the best descriptions of Bush and his policies I've ever read.

 

[GhostFox]

I'm not a big Bush fan, and I wouldn't have voted for him if I could have, but come on, this is slightly rediculous.

He wants to rid the world of WMD yet has more under his thumb than any nation on this planet.

Some countries have a right to nukes. Others don't. If you can't understand that I feel sorry for you. I don't mind a police officer having a gun, but I wouldn't want to give one to a mass murderer. Some people/nations have shown they can be trusted and your argument has zero merit so I think we can move on.

He wants to rid the world of freedom hating tyrants, yet is slowly stripping liberties from his own people in the name of security.

Bush alone passed the PA? No one else was involved? The proper checks exist in the US and other countries to prevent the govt. from overstepping it's bounds. I don't know why you guys down there are so worried about this. Anything that is deemed too invasive will be overturned in court. This isn't some slippery slope leading to people being dragged out into the street by storm troopers in the middle of the night.

He claims he is the war president, yet dodged military conflict when it was his time to serve.

I'm pretty sure he means he is a president willing to send the coutry to war if he feels it is necessiary. I don't see how this has anything to do with wheter or not you believe he got out of Vietnam.

He claims he is best for our troops, yet humiliates people who proudly served in vietnam for political gain.

Didn't Bush denounce SBVT, an ad produced by an independant orginization? And regardless of that, people have a right to their opinions. I think Kerry was probably a pretty good soldier, but I also acknowladge that his actions that won him a medal in Vietnam would get him court-martialled today. I think it is a different world so we can't try to apply the same morality to the situation, but people have the right to think what they want about him. I don't see you decrying the other side for trying to paint Bush as an insane religious Nazi.

He claims he is creating a strong economy, yet the deficits and unemployment rates are at record levels.

There are differing theories of economics, and some economists are praising Bush for his actions regarding the economy. You can disagree with the theory behind them, but to disregard all he has done simply because you don't understand it is asinine.

He claims he is best for security, yet his administration presided over the worst intel failure in american history leading to some 3000 dead on 9/11

To blame 9/11 on Bush is so stupid it doesn't even warrent a response.

his aggresive foreign policy has actually increased terror around the globe.

And your evidence of this is? Sure that is your personal opinion, and you are welcome to it. But to present it as fact is idiotic. Many people would 100% disagree with you. Why should you condemn someone based solely on your opinions and no fact?

he is the most dangerous person to freedom and safety on the planet right now.

And this is where everyone will stop listening to you. Why do you extremists have to come up with things that make you sound so crazy that people disregard everything else you have said? Sometimes you might make a good point, and if you expect people to listen to it, you need to stop with the crazy accusations.

 

[Nofuture]

Why do you extremists have to come up ...

Hey, hey, hey, watch your wording. You are seeking a confrontation, aren't you?

 

[KoreBolteR]

Hey, hey, hey, watch your wording. You are seeking a confrontation, aren't you?

GhostFox is right...

there are too many people blaming Bush and not the Terrorists themselves..

sometimes i think that all terrorists have a deal with 90% of media around the world.. you barely ever hear Terrorists kill 300 innocents.. all you hear is, ..

"because of America ..300 innocents are now dead, because they provoked the terrorists.. its all Americas fault yadda yadda"

.. i didnt want bush to win the election, but these accusations are a last attempt for Bush Bashers, to try and twist the real story around, and its simply pathetic .

 

[ComradeBadger]

I'm with GhostFox here - I'm no Bush fan, but seriously guys.

 

[PickledGecko]

Some countries have a right to nukes. Others don't. If you can't understand that I feel sorry for you. I don't mind a police officer having a gun, but I wouldn't want to give one to a mass murderer. Some people/nations have shown they can be trusted and your argument has zero merit so I think we can move on.

Trusted?

Bush alone passed the PA? No one else was involved? The proper checks exist in the US and other countries to prevent the govt. from overstepping it's bounds. I don't know why you guys down there are so worried about this. Anything that is deemed too invasive will be overturned in court.

Isn’t prevention better than a cure? I mean, it’s all very well saying that, but if your life was adversely affected by these laws, wouldn’t you feel pretty pissed off. The fact is, these laws could not have stopped 9/11 because the people in charge knew and did nothing. New laws are not needed, just an awareness of the threat. I think it’s safe to say America has realised that it is now a target.

This isn't some slippery slope leading to people being dragged out into the street by storm troopers in the middle of the night.

Not every punch leads to a beating. Doesn’t make punching people okay though, does it?

I'm pretty sure he means he is a president willing to send the coutry to war if he feels it is necessiary. I don't see how this has anything to do with wheter or not you believe he got out of Vietnam.

What gives him the (moral) right to order a soldier to risk his life if he was not willing to?

To blame 9/11 on Bush is so stupid it doesn't even warrent a response.

The buck stops here

 

[gh0st]

Trusted?

haha. You dont think Hiroshima should have been bombed. Wake up. Yes America is a trusted nation, which is why we and our allies and those who have proven themselves not to crash their airplanes and starve their citizens, can have nukes.

 

[The Mullinator]

What gives him the (moral) right to order a soldier to risk his life if he was not willing to?

He has every right as president. The whole purpose of joining the military is in essence to do whatever the president orders you to do as long as it is within the capability of a military.

A president doesn't have the moral right to order civilians around in such a way but as a soldier your whole purpose is to do what the president tells you to do.

 

[PickledGecko]

haha. You dont think Hiroshima should have been bombed. Wake up. Yes America is a trusted nation, which is why we and our allies and those who have proven themselves not to crash their airplanes and starve their citizens, can have nukes.

9/11 killed 3000+ civilians. Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 300,000+ civilians.

There is still a debate over whether the civilian population of Dresden in Germany should have been bombed so severely. And that was during the height of the war when it was necessary to weaken the Nazi’s for the invasion.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tests. Before the nukes were dropped neither city was bombed by conventional weapons. This was so they could see the effect of a nuke on a complete city. They even purposely flew B-52’s over the cities so the population would get used to them flying by without any danger, so when the nukes were eventually dropped, nobody ran to shelters. Again, because the wanted to see the effect of a nuke on a real city.

America had all but won the war. They were just off the coast of mainland Japan. The war was already over. On top of that, the USSR was no longer fighting the Germans on the Eastern Front, so they were free to attack the Japanese too. America wanted a quick end to the war to stop the USSR from taking any glory in its end. They also wanted to show the USSR and any other potential enemy their new weapon, to scare them into compliance.

And you tell me to wake up!

He has every right as president.

I never said he didn’t have the right as President. I said his moral right was in question. Isn’t there a saying, I don’t know if it comes for somewhere in particular. But it goes something like, “An army officer does not have a right to order his soldiers to do something that he is not willing to do himself.”

Basically, what I meant was, if you dodge military service, is it right that you can then take the position of Commander in Chief?

 

[GhostFox]

“An army officer does not have a right to order his soldiers to do something that he is not willing to do himself.”

Maybe that is a saying in the stupid army. Do you know why Generals don't get killed in wars very often? Because they are too important to risk. War is unfortunately like chess. You can afford to lose the pawns, but there are some pieces you cannot win without. It doesn't mean that the pawns aren't important, only that they are the most expendable.

America had all but won the war. They were just off the coast of mainland Japan.

An invasion of mainland Japan would have cost the Japanese and US millions of lives. When they bomed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it killed 80,000. Yes more died of radiation later on, but that is a whole different issue. Think about what you are saying. If the US wanted too it could have nuked Tokyo flat and killed millions. Why didn't they? Because they realized that bombing a couple small cities would scare people enough to cause Japan to surrender, with the minimum number of both civillian and millitary casualties.

The nuking of Japan ended the war with the least loss of life. It may have been one of the more humane decisions ever made. There were plenty of people who wanted to see Tokyo flattened.

 

[seinfeldrules]

America had all but won the war. They were just off the coast of mainland Japan. The war was already over. On top of that, the USSR was no longer fighting the Germans on the Eastern Front, so they were free to attack the Japanese too. America wanted a quick end to the war to stop the USSR from taking any glory in its end. They also wanted to show the USSR and any other potential enemy their new weapon, to scare them into compliance.

Well you are completely ignoring the other aspect. It is widely accepted that casualties on both sides would have been far higher if an invasion had occured.

Edit: Ghostfox beat me to it :hmph:

 

[PickledGecko]

Maybe that is a saying in the stupid army. Do you know why Generals don't get killed in wars very often? Because they are too important to risk. War is unfortunately like chess. You can afford to lose the pawns, but there are some pieces you cannot win without. It doesn't mean that the pawns aren't important, only that they are the most expendable.

It doesn’t mean a General should lead from the front. It means that a General should not send his Privates into a situation that he himself, if he were a Private, would not follow willingly. What I’m saying is, if a man is not willing to die for his country when duty calls, what gives him the right to be make that decision for others.

An invasion of mainland Japan would have cost the Japanese and US millions of lives. When they bomed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it killed 80,000. Yes more died of radiation later on, but that is a whole different issue. Think about what you are saying. If the US wanted too it could have nuked Tokyo flat and killed millions. Why didn't they? Because they realized that bombing a couple small cities would scare people enough to cause Japan to surrender, with the minimum number of both civillian and millitary casualties.

The nuking of Japan ended the war with the least loss of life. It may have been one of the more humane decisions ever made. There were plenty of people who wanted to see Tokyo flattened.

Or, they could have waited for the USSR to enter the war, when Japan saw that they were at risk from attack from both the East and the West they may have surrendered. If not, then America could have said, “We have these weapons, we’ll give you a demonstration of their power.” Dropped a couple on less populated areas with a greater military use then said, “Surrender or it’s your cities next.”

 

[Calanen]

America had all but won the war. They were just off the coast of mainland Japan. The war was already over. On top of that, the USSR was no longer fighting the Germans on the Eastern Front, so they were free to attack the Japanese too. America wanted a quick end to the war to stop the USSR from taking any glory in its end. They also wanted to show the USSR and any other potential enemy their new weapon, to scare them into compliance.

Absolutely no idea. My grandfather fought with Australian forces. And he said that every1 says, no surrender, last man last bullet. Only the Japanese have every really meant it.

So if you went to Japan you would have just had to kill them all. Women, children, civilians, military. It was only because they were ordered to surrender by the Emperor that they did. And they would not have done so without the atomic bomb.

 

[PickledGecko]

And they would not have done so without the atomic bomb.

And you know this how? My point is, no other option was considered because, among other things, it was seen as a perfect opportunity to test nukes on real targets.

 

[Calanen]

Yes hypocrisy, everything about Bush screams hypocrisy. He wants to rid the world of WMD yet has more under his thumb than any nation on this planet.

Did he use them on New York for not voting for him in the Presidential election? Did he invade Canada and use them on them because he wanted their oilfields?

He wants to rid the world of freedom hating tyrants, yet is slowly stripping liberties from his own people in the name of security.

Tell me who gets to elect a tyrant? And there is no comparision between Saddam's methods and the Talibans and those of the US. None.

He claims God is on his side when he bombs another country and kills thousands of innocent peopl.

Source where he said, God told me to bomb another country? I know he believes in God. I don't recall him saying that his foreign policy was sourced from God's will.

He claims he is the war president, yet dodged military conflict when it was his time to serve.

This lie is so tiring. He was in the national guard. Plenty of people are in the national guard. And a heap of them are in Iraq. Are you saying that these people are 'draft dodgers' because they are in the National Guard, or more accurately that any1 in a US based national guard unit is dodging their military service? The fact that the President's unit was not sent to Vietnam - has nothing to do with him being in it. He served honorably in a unit that could have been sent to Vietnam or anywhere else. That was not up to him to decide. The fact that it was not does not mean he was a coward or that he 'dodged' anything.

As for dodgers, how about Slick Willy aka Bill Clinton? He went into Canada so he did not have to serve.

He claims he is best for our troops, yet humiliates people who proudly served in vietnam for political gain.

President Bush is not on record anywhere, to my knowledge as ever saying anything about military service in Vietnam being dishonourable or humiliating. If you have such a quote - post it and your source.

He claims he is creating a strong economy, yet the deficits and unemployment rates are at record levels.

Deficits are high. They have been high for about 30 years. Unemployment is not at 'record levels' - record compared to what? Certainly not compared to the darkest hours of America's history.

He claims he is best for security, yet his administration presided over the worst intel failure in american history leading to some 3000 dead on 9/11, and, his aggresive foreign policy has actually increased terror around the globe.

The Taliban are gone. There have been no other attacks on American soil since 2001. Despite them saying there would be fire and all the rest raining down on the US. Whereas your policy of do nothing - would have led to no attacks anywhere?

He is horrible for the enviroment, his policies speak for themselves.

I agree that Bush's environmental record is bad - and I'd like to see that improve.

I can't stand his hypocrisy, he is the most dangerous person to freedom and safety on the planet right now.

Thats crap. The fact that you can bitch about his perceived failures is because he had the balls to slam the problem elements in this world hard, including the terrorists. There have been no terrorist strikes on the US since 2001. Why? Because he has gone after them hard and smashed them to pieces. If he had just said, lets have a UN talkfest about it all - there would have been many more attacks on US soil. That said, there still may be more. But a lot less had we done nothing.

You cannot bargain with terrorists. They don't care if you march on the streets or chant a slogan. They don't care if you feel sorry for them or their cause. They will kill you all and laugh about it. Fortunately people like you are just the noisy minority.

*edited for typo

 

[staticprimer]

Did he use them on New York for not voting for him in the Presidential election? Did he invade Canada and use them on them because he wanted their oilfields?

Come now you're just being silly.

Tell me who gets to elect a tyrant?

Anyone can elect a tyrant. The thing is, they don't know he's a tyrant until it is too late. (Read: Germany)

Source where he said, God told me to bomb another country? I know he believes in God. I don't recall him saying that his foreign policy was sourced from God's will.

Please, it doesn't need to be quoted, its common knowlege. If it wasn't late, I would do it myself, but I'm just feeling lazy right now. I'm sure someone can do it for me. If I recall correctly, it goes something like "God told me to strike at them [Iraq] and I did."

President Bush is not on record anywhere, to my knowledge as ever saying anything about military service in Vietnam being dishonourable or humiliating. If you have such a quote - post it and your source.

See, that's the brilliance of the machine he's got. He can have his opponent's reputation destroyed and still maintain plausable deniability. If you notice, there is a pattern... Clark, the CIA agent, etc.

Deficits are high. They have been high for about 30 years. Unemployment is not at 'record levels' - record compared to what? Certainly not compared to the darkest hours of America's history.

Yeah those tax cuts really helped too! I mean, my life has never been the same since I got those few hundred dollars. Basic law of economics: in order to increase your net (deficit is a negative net) either cut costs or increase income. Now, which of these have been done?

There have been no other attacks on American soil since 2001. Despite them saying there would be fire and all the rest raining down on the US. Whereas your policy of do nothing - would have led to no attacks anywhere?

Good job! He has managed to hold off an attack for four whole years. That's like getting struck by lightning, and going out in a storm months later with a Red Sox hat on, not getting struck again, and attributing it to the hat. No, it is far too soon to be giving him credit for 'protecting' us. And note that, shocking as it is, US != the world.

I agree that Bush's environmental record is bad - and I'd like to see that improve.

Bad is an understatement.

Thats crap. The fact that you can bitch about his perceived failures is because he had the balls to slam the problem elements in this world hard, including the terrorists. There have been no terrorist strikes on the US since 2001. Why? Because he has gone after them hard and smashed them to pieces. If he had just said, lets have a UN talkfest about it all - there would have been many more attacks on US soil. That said, there still may be more. But a lot less had we done nothing.

Ah, so you are clarevoyant! This is pure speculation. For all you know, a massive diplomatic push could have caused peace in the middle east. That probably isn't any more likely than an aggressive policy, but still. Our government has chosen its path, which I feel has a dangerous amount of tunnel vision, and that we will have to pay the consequences far down the road.

 

[Nofuture]

Some countries have a right to nukes. Others don't.

No. The best would be, none would have. OK, it's hard to achieve this.
And then what? Should be there priviliged countries? Trusted countries? Who will decide? A country with most nukes, which has aggresive offensive and dangerous policy? No!


A lillte quiz: What country X is the author speaking about?:

"X is suffused for me with a moral meaning absent from the existence of any other nation in the world. If there was a war between the Y and X, I would choose X. Sometimes I think I
am secretly glad for its occasional brutality so that the world will know there is a monster out there -- a monster who will never forget. Although in general I believe in nuclear disarmament, I am glad X has the atomic bomb, and the continued existence of X is the only cause for which I consider it justifiable to use nuclear weapons. Let me put this in its starkest and ugliest light: I am not sure, but I believe that, if the choice were between the survival of X and that of the remaining 4 or 6 billion people of the world, I would choose the ... million ...."

To blame 9/11 on Bush is so stupid it doesn't even warrent a response.

Clarke: Bush didn't see terrorism as 'urgent'
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/911.commission/

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's former counterterrorism chief testified Wednesday that the administration did not consider terrorism an urgent priority before the September 11, 2001, attacks, despite his repeated warnings about Osama bin Laden's terror network."

"Frustrated by what he saw as an inadequate response to terrorism, Clarke sent a memo to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice one week before the deadly attacks, blasting the Defense Department for not doing enough against al Qaeda and criticizing the CIA for holding up a plan to arm Predator drones.

In that memo -- detailed in a commission staff statement -- Clarke told policy-makers to "imagine a day after hundreds of Americans lay dead at home or abroad after a terrorist attack" and to ask themselves, "What else they could have done?"


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml
"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

Check also this (a short video) for
Unanswered Question # 3
Why wasn’t the US military able to intercept the hijacked planes?
and
Unanswered Question # 4
How did the administration respond to the failures of the military and Intelligence agencies on 9/11?


Bush's "concern" about terrorism after 9/11:

"KERRY: Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."
BUSH: Bush: Gosh, I just don' think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.

FACT CHECK: Bush stumbled when he denied making some remarks about Osama bin Laden that Kerry had accurately paraphrased. In fact, Bush said almost exactly what Kerry quoted him as saying. It was in a news conference at the White House on March 13, 2002, after US forces had overturned the Taliban regime in Afghanistan:

Q: (March 13, 2002): Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that?

BUSH: So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him , to be honest with you. I truly am not that concerned about him. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country.

Source: Analysis of Third Bush-Kerry debate (FactCheck.org) Oct 14, 2004"

And your evidence of this is? Sure that is your personal opinion, and you are welcome to it. But to present it as fact is idiotic. Many people would 100% disagree with you. Why should you condemn someone based solely on your opinions and no fact?

And this is where everyone will stop listening to you.

his aggresive foreign policy has actually increased terror around the globe.

he is the most dangerous person to freedom and safety on the planet right now.

These two statements are linked. But it's not only Bush alone.

I would say, the New World Order policy of Neoconservatives is extremely dangerous. This kind of ideology: We no longer need friends, we don't need international law etc.

Wolfowitz (working for Bush senior): For years had been advancing the idea that US should reconsider its commitments to international treaties, int. law and multilateral organisations such as the UN. In 1992 Wolfowitz working in the dept. of Defence was asked to write the first draft of a new national security strategy ("Defence planning guidance"). Wolfowitz doctrine: US should dramatically increase defence spending. Should be willing to take pre-emptive military actions. Should be willing use military force unilaterily with or without allies. According to Wolfowitz, that was necessarily to prevent the emergence of any rivals to American power and to secure access to vital raw materials, primarily PERSIAN GULF OIL.

Later (Sept. 2000) right wing calling themselves the Project for the New American century issued a document called "Rebulding America's defenses" http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf, about 90 pages (Here is a summary of it: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm): At it core the document revived the Wolf. doctrine.

Btw, in that document is written: "A process of transformation even it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor".

Hmm, as we all know, such event was 9/11. How convenient...


A very important aspect of US freign policy is the Blowback (Audio). The impact of the U.S. actions. Discussed e.g. by Chalmers Johnson.
Some excerpts from his book.
"The term "blowback," which officials of the Central Intelligence Agency first invented for their own internal use, is starting to circulate among students of international relations. It refers to the unintended consequences of policies that were kept secret from the American people. What the daily press reports as the malign acts of "terrorists" or "drug lords" or "rogue states" or "illegal arms merchants" often turn out to be blowback from earlier American operations."

On War & Peace: Clarke: Bush Iraq policy generates Islamic hatred of America
[Clarke says, "Ideological infiltrations by al Qaeda] would not inflame Islamic opinion and further radicalize Muslim youth into heightened hatred of America in the way invading Iraq has done. We and our values needed to be more appealing to Muslims than al Qaeda is. Far from addressing the popular appeal of the enemy that attacked us, Bush handed that enemy precisely what it wanted and needed, proof that America was at war with Islam, that we were the new Crusaders come to occupy Muslim land."
Source: Against All Enemies, by Richard Clarke, p.245-6

 

[Razor]

http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm

The Japanese were willing to accept surrender before the declaration of war by the Soviet Union and before Hiroshima, all they wanted was a guarentee by the allied forces that the Emperor would keep his position. The emperor in Japan is not looked up like the Queen is in England, the Queen is looked up as a mere figure head, the Emperor at the time was looked up on as god. The Japanese couldn't take the risk of losing their emperor as it would be like denouncing god and living without god. The Japanese were hoping that the Soviet Union, the only neutral party in the war to the Japanese, to help negotiate a peace treaty with the allies on their terms i.e. all Japanese military activity will stand down, an official surrender would be signed and the emperor kept to keep his job. Unfortunately, the Soviet Union rejected this and sent a message to the Japanese on August 8th telling them that the following day, the Soviet Union will be at war with Japan. The following morning, Soviet troops invaded Manchuria, then controlled by Japan and swept the troops aside with ease. With the loss of any neutral partner that could help them negotiate a peace treaty on their terms, the Japanese doves had to try to force through surrender with the Emperor, the Emperor being the only person who could over rule the Japanese military and the civilian government. If the American's had given the Japanese time and met with the Japanese and agreed to a Japanese "un-conditional" surrender, the only condition being the guarenteed safety of the emperor and the emperor's position, peace would of come about without any atomic weapons.

No matter how you look at it, if American intelligence and the American government had listened to what the Japanese were saying to the Soviet Union, they had intercepted communications between Tokyo and Moscow reporting that a surrender might be possible but that they didn't like that the unconditional surrender terms layed about by America and Britain made no mention of the Emperor, an invasion and any the use of atomic weapons could of been bypassed entirely, saving hundreds of thousands of lives in the process.

The main reason, as far as a lot of people are starting to believe now and from the intelligence that is coming out, the main factors behind the use of Atomic Weapons was 1) ensure the Soviet Union knew that America not only had but were willing to use Atomic Weapons, and 2) to test the full effectiveness of an Atomic Weapon on a realworld target.

What this means to the current situation is...there are countries in this world that have used weapons of mass destruction against civilian targets, Japanese used Biological weapons, America used Nuclear weapons, yet America has the worlds largest arsenal of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons on the face of the planet, why can they be trusted when they are one of the only countries in the world with a proven track record of knowingly using them on civilians? The only reason that America, Britain, France, etc, are able to justify the rule of "Who can and can't be trusted with wmd?" is that they are all have the main stockpiles of nuclear weapons. It is nuclear weapons that give them the power to justify their policing of nuclear weapons around the world.

edit: just adding a couple of quotes from the site.

It didn't take long after the atomic bombings for questions to arise as to their necessity for ending the war and Japan's threat to peace. One of the earliest dissents came from a panel that had been requested by President Truman to study the Pacific war. Their report, The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, was issued in July 1946. It declared, "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." (Bernstein, ed., The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56).

In 1948 Sec. of War Henry Stimson published his memoirs, ghost-written by McGeorge Bundy. In them Stimson revealed, "It is possible, in the light of the final surrender, that a clearer and earlier exposition of American willingness to retain the Emperor would have produced an earlier ending to the war". Stimson and Bundy continued, "Only on the question of the Emperor did Stimson take, in 1945, a conciliatory view; only on this question did he later believe that history might find that the United States, by its delay in stating its position, had prolonged the war." (Stimson & Bundy, pg. 628-629).

 

[Razor]

But how many weapons of mass destruction America or anyone else has had, they can not cover up the fact that the American government, the CIA is part of which and takes orders from, has advertised the use of and helped train armies around the world with questionable motives in the use torture as a way to get information, even though torture has a proven track record of only being able to supply questionable and inaccurate information. Also, any torture that American troops participate in are answerable to their commanding officers, and the commanding officer of the American President is the American people.

The point i am trying to get at is that..

a) the proof that the American troops tortured not only military personnel in Iraq, but civilians as well, is irrefutable.
b) the proof that the Cia and the American administration have trained armies with questionable motives to use torture against whomever their government sees fit, whether they be military or civilian personnel is irrefutable.
c) CptStern might not be a huge fan of the American administration and a lot of people in here might question his motives, but you can not question his sources of information and the evidence he brings to the table.