CPangracs
Member
Andrey said:I finished to look "Fahrenheit 9/11" 20 minutes ago...
It is great.
America has to be proud that guys like Michael Moore are Americans...
Andrey said:I finished to look "Fahrenheit 9/11" 20 minutes ago...
It is great.
America has to be proud that guys like Michael Moore are Americans...
Yes, despite your sarcasm, that is exactly my argument. You conveniently forgot to add, that the American military is courts-martialling those responsible for torture & killings of prisoners.Crash said:The US has tortured and killed prisoners but at least they didn't cut their heads off. Is that your argument?
You do that. Don't forget to beg permission of KofiAnnan, the French :bandit: & German governments while you're at it. (Note to Kraut: That's my anti-German comment of the month. I'm still behind you in this regards, by approximately a dozen posts.)Let me check the Convention and get back to you on that
So? Your point being? Are you trying to imply that it's morally acceptable to cut off heads, as long you are not a government agent? :nuts:The beheadings are not being conducted by a government agency.
It isn't a question of who is "better". The point is that both sides are guilty of killing captives in their care. Just this week, charges were filed against 7 Navy SEALS for killing prisoners in their care in Iraq. And as far as court-martialing the guilty parties, all I've seen is the lowest ranking members of the military being punished. Not the CIA operatives that "suggested" it might be a good idea to "soften up the prisoners for interrogation". Not the commanding officer and officers on duty of the prison where this all took place. Not the Secretary of Defense who authorized these controversial "interrogation" techniques. Not the Attorney General who went through all that trouble to define what constitutes "torture" so we could get away with it legally. And certainly not the President who not only knew about these shennanigans, but at least tacitly approving them by not intervening to put an end to them.Richa333 said:Yes, despite your sarcasm, that is exactly my argument. You conveniently forgot to add, that the American military is courts-martialling those responsible for torture & killings of prisoners.You do that. Don't forget to beg permission of KofiAnnan, the French :bandit: & German governments while you're at it. (Note to Kraut: That's my anti-German comment of the month. I'm still behind you in this regards, by approximately a dozen posts.)So? Your point being? Are you trying to imply that it's morally acceptable to cut off heads, as long you are not a government agent? :nuts:
I'll take being in the custody of the American military any day, warts & all, versus in the hands of terrorists. Apparently you'd prefer the jihadis; how about you go to Iraq and find out for yourself who has the moral advantage.
I find myself uncharectistically angry usually I'm not offended in these forums by what I am considering to be an attack, probably NOT intentional, regards the character of the American military. And yes, I do think that they are the good guys. 'Nuff said by me.
We've posted elsewhere on this forum that officers are now being charged in courts-martial.purdyrc said:It isn't a question of who is "better". The point is that both sides are guilty of killing captives in their care. Just this week, charges were filed against 7 Navy SEALS for killing prisoners in their care in Iraq. And as far as court-martialing the guilty parties, all I've seen is the lowest ranking members of the military being punished.
Also as stated elsewhere in these forums, the courts-martials are following a classic criminal prosecutor's progression: start low to see who turns, then work up the chain of command.Not the CIA operatives that "suggested" it might be a good idea to "soften up the prisoners for interrogation". Not the commanding officer and officers on duty of the prison where this all took place.
Well, if that's what you think, go ahead & promote that & get others to vote with you. I disagree with your view so it's no surprise I'll be voting differently. And if you're really enraged, why not write to your Congressman demanding hearings & impeachments?Not the Secretary of Defense who authorized these controversial "interrogation" techniques. Not the Attorney General who went through all that trouble to define what constitutes "torture" so we could get away with it legally. And certainly not the President who not only knew about these shennanigans, but at least tacitly approving them by not intervening to put an end to them.
What's disgraceful is that you don't see the moral difference between the American military -- which IS addressing its bad apples -- and the terrorists -- who glorify their bad apples.It's disgraceful that the only people suffering are the privates and sargeants at the bottom.- Rick
I've not seen any reports of any officers being court martialed. As far as working their way up the chain, I think it is more than likely going to stop right at the level of sergeant. I'm sorry I don't share your optimism in this case.Richa333 said:We've posted elsewhere on this forum that officers are now being charged in courts-martial. Also as stated elsewhere in these forums, the courts-martials are following a classic criminal prosecutor's progression: start low to see who turns, then work up the chain of command.
At last check, about 50% of the country thinks this way. Even more of them are now disagreeing with the war in Iraq.Richa333 said:Well, if that's what you think, go ahead & promote that & get others to vote with you. I disagree with your view so it's no surprise I'll be voting differently. And if you're really enraged, why not write to your Congressman demanding hearings & impeachments?
These are your words. They are certainly NOT what I said. My question to you and to this forum is how do we claim the moral high ground when our hands are bloody too? Because we make a big show about prosecuting some marginally literate private with a head the size of a large grapefruit (seriously, Lynndie England's head is tiny, man)? We gain the moral high ground by denouncing terror and torture in clear, unequivicol terms. Not by legally defining our way around it or by shipping people off to third party countries where the ideas of liberty and fair trials are laughed at. Just because the terrorists think that killing captives is a good idea, it doesn't mean the majority of people think so.Richa333 said:What's disgraceful is that you don't see the moral difference between the American military -- which IS addressing its bad apples -- and the terrorists -- who glorify their bad apples.
Why not? Since we're all flawed and never will be perfect, why not compare? Lacking an ability for perfection, why not compare?purdyrc said:Again, the contest shouldn't be who is better. There should be no contest.-Rick
The article only mentioned two warrants and two sergeants. Still no officers.Richa333 said:Why not? Since we're all flawed and never will be perfect, why not compare? Lacking an ability for perfection, why not compare?
Here's the other post on the other thread.
Four Soldiers Charged In General's Death
It's an attack all right but not one on the American Military. It's an attack on those who commit war crimes and those that attempt to minimize those actions. One doesn't win awards because their war crimes are 'less' then the next guys!Richa333 said:I find myself uncharectistically angry usually I'm not offended in these forums by what I am considering to be an attack, probably NOT intentional, regards the character of the American military.
A warrant is an officer. There's two general kinds of officers: one is commissioned, the other is warrant (sometimes called limited duty). A warrant is still an officer.purdyrc said:The article only mentioned two warrants and two sergeants. Still no officers.
- Rick
Only if you think that the civilians of the Middle East specifically, or Islam in general, actually have a say in their governments' foreign policy.Crash said:We are losing the war on terror big time.
brilliantly said Richa!Richa333 said:Only if you think that the civilians of the Middle East specifically, or Islam in general, actually have a say in their governments' foreign policy.
They don't.
What controls the funding of terrorists, and whether those terrorists have safe harbors, are the governments.
And, it doesn't matter how many millions of terrorists grab a gun, shoot some bullets and hate Americans.
What matters is: how many talented top executives and mid-manager terrorists -- a commodity much rarer in the Middle East than in America -- are going to be able & willing to attack America on American soil.
In that sense, America & allies are winning brilliantly and the terrorists are getting their a$$es beat to crap.
Questions?
Policies are creating a new generation of pissed off Muslims. I'm afraid that soon, if not already, the governments will be the moderates.Richa333 said:What controls the funding of terrorists, and whether those terrorists have safe harbors, are the governments.
We supposedly have reduced the AQ leadership by 75% yet terror is on the rise and has spread. Israel has been using that tactic and has been reduced to a police state.Richa333 said:What matters is: how many talented top executives and mid-manager terrorists -- a commodity much rarer in the Middle East than in America -- are going to be able & willing to attack America on American soil.
make sure after you see it you also rent "FarenHYPE 9/11" as well. It shows where Michael Moore was lying and telling these half truths.dannybou said:Well now you guys have me curious about Moore's documentary and I'll have to rent it and see it.
You actually learn very little new if you've been paying attention over the past 4 years. Moore's sources are mostly major news outlets.nreese21 said:make sure after you see it you also rent "FarenHYPE 9/11" as well. It shows where Michael Moore was lying and telling these half truths.
To be honest with you, I am curious to see what this little [insert inappropriate word here] has to say, but I don't want to contribute any money to this [insert many inappropriate words here].
Also, Sergeants are NON-COMMISSIONED Officers, and are also held to a higher standard,...often even higher than the Officers above them, unfortunately.Richa333 said:A warrant is an officer. There's two general kinds of officers: one is commissioned, the other is warrant (sometimes called limited duty). A warrant is still an officer.
Again, my posts hold: the courts-martials are progressing up the chain of command, which is a standard criminal prosecutor's gambit (see if the lower levels turn on the higher).
A warrant isn't really an officer. The ranks exist as a bridge between the enlisted and the commissioned officers. They usually hold technical or specialist positions in the military (like helicopter pilots) and don't usually command or even supervise groups of enlisted. Generally, they are only responsible for the enlisted men in their direct group (like helicopter crews).Richa333 said:A warrant is an officer. There's two general kinds of officers: one is commissioned, the other is warrant (sometimes called limited duty). A warrant is still an officer.
Again, my posts hold: the courts-martials are progressing up the chain of command, which is a standard criminal prosecutor's gambit (see if the lower levels turn on the higher).