Maybe you should try crying. I heard that helps.

Decepticons terrorize.

___________________
Robots, machines, mechanical beings
Automatic and synthetic, we have the means
To take control of this planet and the human race
With our electronic rhythms and the Armageddon Bass

quote:

Originally posted by occrider In here, you're not going to get proper responses/rebuttals and it will only descend into flaming.

Ye get the same in the political forum

quote:

Originally posted by Boomer187 Afghanastan has been openly supporting terrorists for a while, they were a nice target to start with.

The US has been openly supporting terrorists for a while, that's why they were hit in the first place. I believe the US have weapons of mass destruction too. It would make sense wouldn't it?

All US imperial adventures are part of their quest for global dominance, they covet the position of policeman/law enforcer of the world. Let's hope they get their ass kicked in every single place they set foot.

___________________
"Níl saoirse gan saoirse lucht oibre."

quote:

Originally posted by hausmusic I was watching TV (ABC) about the abuse that took place in that Iraqi prison. The thought came to mind about how crazy some American's really are. I mean who coined the word "terrorism" in the first place. Many nations with suppressed people trying to fight back and may use any method necessary to fight off their suppressors. As soon as we hear oh! a Muslim country has allegedly been torturing people its Terrorism! must be condemned by the world and world leaders... no proof ever needs to be shown to the public and everyone is just left to believe that these people have committed these crimes because channels such as CNN and ABC news says so. I mean, we all live in democratic society and for people we accuse we try and deal with it democraticly... you know... "Innocent till proven guilty". But now with this whole thing about American's torturing prisoners (and mind you they all are innocent until proven guilty) I just don’t get how there is no apology. No outcry by CNN for a call for apology. When there’s evidence been shown on national television but still all Bush and most senior officials have to say is this doesn’t represent the army? Now it’s just like why should we believe anything they say? They lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction... they lied about the time line they were going to be in Iraq. They even lied about not using the Oil.... but then again they are using the money to refund themselves for the millions of dollars spent on the so called "smart bombs" ... and so what if they say they are using Iraqi money to fix the country... the damage was done by them. They should spend their own money fixing it. I want to hear Bush apologize ... I want him tried for war crimes... and not only Bush but anyone who forced this crime on Iraq. Freeing Iraq from Sadaam is one thing. But is an American life worth more than an Iraq life? I just don’t get it. What do you think?

you obviously missed president bush's public apology to the iraqi's (shown on arab TV stations) for the actions of a very small minority of people in the US army. it was shown on BBC news yesterday as well.

bush tried for war crimes?? you are funny.

anyway, yeah, political forum for this one...

>kick<

___________________
MUGGETS

He'll be visiting here next month, it'd really make my day if someone shot him and sent him that bit quicker on his way to hell!

___________________
"Níl saoirse gan saoirse lucht oibre."

It's wrong but I cna understand the guys who did this.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by donegalredneck He'll be visiting here next month, it'd really make my day if someone shot him and sent him that bit quicker on his way to hell!

There was a point in time when I would have chastised such a comment but now with all the events that have taken place over Iraq, Bush's seriously lacking foreign policy and the conduct of the entire cast of characters in the Bush and Co. admin I hope you just keep him in Eire because I don't want him back here. I don't even see him as a leader of the U.S.A. any longer but as an International Idiot.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

quote:

Originally posted by donegalredneck Ye get the same in the political forum

Typically only if it's a pal vs. israel thread.

quote:

The US has been openly supporting terrorists for a while, that's why they were hit in the first place. I believe the US have weapons of mass destruction too. It would make sense wouldn't it?

That's not the reason the US was attacked ... the attacks were not some kind of retribution or an act of vengeance, they were carried out with specific geo-political goals in middle east. Well, it's been discussed many a time in the past already.

quote:

There was a point in time when I would have chastised such a comment but now with all the events that have taken place over Iraq, Bush's seriously lacking foreign policy and the conduct of the entire cast of characters in the Bush and Co. admin I hope you just keep him in Eire because I don't want him back here. I don't even see him as a leader of the U.S.A. any longer but as an International Idiot.

Heh, you can tell he's not a bad guy really ... he's just a sad little idealist who's in way over his head.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Heh, you can tell he's not a bad guy really ... he's just a sad little idealist who's in way over his head.

I watched a Charlie Rose interview of Sen. John D. Rockefeller (D WVA) last night. I gained a pretty good amount of respect for Rockefeller - he was very well spoken, did not directly pin Bush for the blame, and answered all questions directly without being very partisan.

He essentially said something similar to your statement, that Bush is not a bad guy but that he's in a mess that was concocted by him listening too closely to his top advisors. Charlie Rose asked him if Rummy should resign or be fired, and Rockefeller replied that he doesn't play the "resignation" game by calling for people's heads. He simply stated that Bush needs to start listening to other pieces of advice from other top officials (probably a hint to listen more to Powell), because most of the information that Bush has received from people like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney has been incorrect and misleading, esp. since it has come from the likes of Chalabi. Rockefeller mentioned that he did not want to use the word "neocons" when describing this ill-advised group for the President because he didn't want this to get too political with name-branding, but it was clear that was exactly to whom he was referring.

I couldn't agree more with his stance here. It's evident that the neocons have pulled Bush's strings all too often, and I believe it's time to cut those strings and listen to other conservatives (or Rightest Realists, as Vesa calls them) before it's too late.


Edit: Rockefeller also mentioned that a symbolic jesture needs to be considered as a result of these tortures, and frankly I actually thought his idea of bulldozing down the prison for good was a great idea for such a jesture.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I watched a Charlie Rose interview of Sen. John D. Rockefeller (D WVA) last night. I gained a pretty good amount of respect for Rockefeller - he was very well spoken, did not directly pin Bush for the blame, and answered all questions directly without being very partisan. He essentially said something similar to your statement, that Bush is not a bad guy but that he's in a mess that was concocted by him listening too closely to his top advisors. Charlie Rose asked him if Rummy should resign or be fired, and Rockefeller replied that he doesn't play the "resignation" game by calling for people's heads. He simply stated that Bush needs to start listening to other pieces of advice from other top officials (probably a hint to listen more to Powell), because most of the information that Bush has received from people like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney has been incorrect and misleading, esp. since it has come from the likes of Chalabi. Rockefeller mentioned that he did not want to use the word "neocons" when describing this ill-advised group for the President because he didn't want this to get too political with name-branding, but it was clear that was exactly to whom he was referring. I couldn't agree more with his stance here. It's evident that the neocons have pulled Bush's strings all too often, and I believe it's time to cut those strings and listen to other conservatives (or Rightest Realists, as Vesa calls them) before it's too late. Edit: Rockefeller also mentioned that a symbolic jesture needs to be considered as a result of these tortures, and frankly I actually thought his idea of bulldozing down the prison for good was a great idea for such a jesture.

Well, he's pissed at Rummy so maybe (hopefully) he'll start to smarten up. I dunno though ... he seems a little too stubborn to back down from something once he's made up his mind.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well, he's pissed at Rummy so maybe (hopefully) he'll start to smarten up. I dunno though ... he seems a little too stubborn to back down from something once he's made up his mind.

I really hope you're wrong. If there's a good time to give more weight to Powell's advice, it's definitely now. Seems that Powell's State Dept. has been trying to get Rummy to play ball for some time now, but Rummy's resisted:

quote:

Bush Privately Chides Rumsfeld Officials Say Pentagon Resisted Repeated Calls for Prison Changes By Robin Wright and Bradley Graham Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, May 6, 2004; Page A01 President Bush privately admonished Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld yesterday, a senior White House official said, as other U.S. officials blamed the Pentagon for failing to act on repeated recommendations to improve conditions for thousands of Iraqi detainees and release those not charged with crimes. Bush is "not satisfied" and "not happy" with the way Rumsfeld informed him about the investigation into abuses by U.S. soldiers at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison or the quantity of information Rumsfeld provided, the senior White House official said. The president was particularly disturbed at having had to learn from news reports this week about the scope of misconduct documented in an Army investigative report completed in March, according to the official, who refused to be named so he could speak more candidly. Other U.S. officials said Rumsfeld and the Pentagon resisted appeals in recent months from the State Department and the Coalition Provisional Authority to deal with problems relating to detainees. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell urged action in several White House meetings that included Rumsfeld, the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "It's something Powell has raised repeatedly -- to release as many detainees as possible -- and, second, to ensure that those in custody are properly cared for and treated," said a senior State Department official familiar with the discussions. But the Pentagon repeatedly failed to act on both requests, said U.S. officials, who are privately furious over a human rights disaster that they believe might have been averted if military officials had acted on their requests. Defense officials sharply disputed suggestions that Rumsfeld or other senior Pentagon authorities turned a deaf ear to the appeals and ignored festering problems at U.S.-run detention centers. They said there were no major differences between the departments of State and Defense over the handling of detainees in Iraq, saying top administration officials had generally agreed on the need to reduce the number of prisoners in U.S. military custody and ensure proper management of detention facilities. "It would be unfair to Secretary Powell to portray the discussions among [national security] principals about this issue in the way some people seem to be trying to portray them," said Lawrence T. DiRita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman. "There was a lot of important activity and interest taken by the principals, including Rumsfeld, to make sure we were doing all that we could." Rumsfeld also came in for fresh criticism yesterday on Capitol Hill, where Republicans joined Democrats in expressing anger about not having been informed about the details of the prison investigation. Rumsfeld is to appear at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing tomorrow, and some White House officials fear that a Republican lawmaker will ask him whether he is considering resigning. Some Republican aides on Capitol Hill said he might not survive until Election Day. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said Rumsfeld should resign if investigators conclude the chain of responsibility reaches his office. The defense secretary has deplored the reported abuses at Abu Ghraib prison but defended the Pentagon's response, saying military commanders acted promptly to investigate conditions there after being alerted in January about the misconduct. He also has noted that the Pentagon announced the start of the investigation in January and, in March, reported the filing of charges against six enlisted military police soldiers who served as guards. But the nature of their offenses were not revealed until CBS's "60 Minutes II" aired photographs last week showing naked inmates piled up beside smiling soldiers and the New Yorker magazine days later detailed the findings of the Army's internal report. In the wake of widespread outrage over the misconduct, the Pentagon has moved to tighten oversight of prison operations in Iraq, accelerate release of prisoners and probe conditions at internment centers elsewhere. State Department officials, however, have been particularly concerned about what they said was the Pentagon's reluctance to heed urgings earlier from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to improve conditions at Iraqi prisons. "We've been pressing for more flexibility and openness to the ICRC's needs and suggestions about the detainees," said a U.S. official familiar with the legal issues involved in detentions. U.S. officials here and former Coalition Provisional Authority officials attributed some of the problems to disarray and poor communication among different branches of the occupation structure in Iraq. But they said the Pentagon's resistance has also been a factor. "The level of disarticulation between the military and civilian components of our occupation is extraordinary," said Larry Diamond, fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institute who served for several months as an adviser to L. Paul Bremer, the chief U.S. administrator in Iraq, and is now a critic of the U.S. occupation. "We're either serious about human rights and the Geneva Convention or we're not." Although Bush is giving no consideration to asking to Rumsfeld to resign, the senior White House official said, the president informed Rumsfeld of his dissatisfaction during a meeting in the Oval Office yesterday morning after the two left a National Security Council meeting. Bush was particularly bothered at not having been told that the photos of the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison were in circulation, even though Pentagon officials knew that CBS had obtained them, the senior White House official said. Asked yesterday by al-Hurra, a television station seen widely in the Arab world that is financed by the U.S. government, Bush replied: "Oh, of course I've got confidence in the secretary of defense, and I've got confidence in the commanders on the ground in Iraq." Bush aides conceded that Rumsfeld had earlier given Bush a general sense of the investigation of Abu Ghraib during a meeting that included Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. But White House press secretary Scott McClellan said officials have not been able to pin down the exact date, except that it was after Jan. 16, when the Pentagon issued a release announcing the probe. Much of the debate within the administration over what to do about Iraqi prisoners has roots in a long-running struggle among the departments of State, Defense and Justice to sort through prisoners at the detention facility at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, officials said. The scandal involving Abu Ghraib prison has cast a fresh spotlight on the administration's general approach to the handling of war prisoners and terrorist suspects since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Concerns about prison conditions in Iraq were brought up in internal administration deliberations at the beginning of the year by Powell and Bremer, who warned of the potential political fallout, U.S. officials said. U.S. officials now say the only solution to the crisis over the treatment of Iraqi detainees is a drastic policy shift, such as surrendering all control of prisoners or sharing supervision with Iraqis or an international institution such as the ICRC. Since it is not likely that Iraqis or the wider Islamic world will believe U.S. pledges to deal with the situation, the Bush administration needs some kind of witness or partner in administering the detention centers, U.S. officials said. In the past, however, the ICRC had not been willing to share control of detainees with another party. So the only option may be some form of joint control with Iraqis or other unspecified forces, the officials said. Staff writer Mike Allen contributed to this report. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...3-2004May5.html

And it looks like Powell is fed up with the Rummy and the neocons' bullshit, as well as Bush taking in too much advice from them:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story...1210391,00.html

I wonder if we'd even be in this Iraqi war in the first place had Bush listened more closely to Powell (though Powell did cave in and go along with it all eventually).

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...