[I really can’t believe I’m defending serial flake-arse Johnny G]
That’s kind of what a uniform means - those guys are in an American uniform - if they fuck-up it reflects on America as a whole (which is why I hope the photos of the British troops turn out to be false, it reflects on the whole of Britain) - That’s why people wave flags in wars, and sing patriotic songs and shout “go USA” or whatever - to show we’re united, together, as one, etc.
If you take pride in a soldier doing his duty, being brave - then you have also got to feel ashamed for the shitheads. They wear the uniform, they represent you. As far as Iraq is concerned they are America.
[/I really can’t believe I’m defending serial flake-arse Johnny G]
OK, you got the first part: we are better than the worst. Now tell me: who is better than we are?
Squink,
I got the part that prisoner was killed, I also got the part that we still don’t know exactly what happened. You wish to speculate, go ahead. Include all 25 dead in your speculation. Human experiments, may be? Why not?
Well, geez, I’m willing to go out on a limb and take a guess. Human rights violations.
Of course, your violations are “better” than anyone else’s. After all, it’s part and parcel of being the world’s most benign Empire.
:rolleyes:
Iskander, who is better than we is irrelevant. This crap is intolerable.
I wouldn’t want to go out on a limb or anything, but you could be right:
Army Has 20 Open Iraqi Prisoner Probes
This morning there were only 6 investigations. I wonder how many there will be tomorrow morning?
Intolerable, yes; and it is not going to be tolerated. That’s what makes us better than the most. And we are striving to do even better yet.
“Police business,” he said almost gently, “is a hell of a problem. It’s a good deal like politics. It asks for the highest type of men, and there’s nothing in it to attract the highest type of men. So we have to work with what we get–and we get things like this.”
“I know,” I said, “I’ve always known that…”
Raymond Chandler
“The Lady in the Lake”
Kinda like closing the barn doors afterthe horses have run off, ainnit? This sort of stuff should not have happened to begin with.
Sure. But it’s completely different when you’re at war with people and when your stated intention is to go in and remove the brutal jailor/dictator and try to win the will of the people.
What gets me is the overall thinking that we’d go in, act like proper gentlemen, be greeted warmly, and turn things over to the right people, peacefully. When any reading of the past would show that something like this was inevitable and counter to your goals.
So, now that the WMDs thing is gone, and now that the whole Al-Qaeda link has pretty much vaporized, we could still sit back on “well, at least we removed this guy who threw people in prison indiscriminately and systematically killed and tortured and humiliated them.” At least we had THAT.
Now whatcha got? “well, OK, we do that too, but we’re really not as BAD as he was.”
Confusing the soldiers by repeatedly telling them that they were fighting “the war on terror” likely led to some confusion over just how evil their prisoners were. If the administration is serious about reducing abuses, they’re going to have to cut back on their terrorist rhetoric. Bad things happen when people actually believe crap like that.
We got the most precious thing: the real Democracy in action.
Just realize, while horrific abuse happened in Iraq before, there never was an investigation and punishment meted to abusers; they were promoted. Just think about it for a moment.
What did you do to make sure it doesn’t happen?
Oh, Gee, I dunno:
- Make sure that the folks in charge of military prisoners know the rules on military prisoners, per the Geneva Convention.
- Make sure that reports on widespread human rights abuses in prison get attention and don’t just languish for three months.
- Make sure that people who kill prisoners are treated just as harshly as if they’d killed a fellow soldier.
That’s for starters. Wacky and out-there ideas, huh?
Or, of course, you could just keep talking about how there are no more torture chambers in Iraq in sadistically ironic ignorance of the exploding scandal. You could ignore the abuse as long as possible in favor of the idea that any Iraqi who doesn’t want the US there must hate freedom.
Daniel
what did YOU do?
That is, quite possibly the worst answer I have ever read on this board. I feel stupider for having read it. I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.
What, you’d rather leave them open and let the rest of the herd out too?
I saw the schedule of the investigation into this abuse last night on the news: the investigation began the day after it was reported in January. Basically, it was done as fast as humanly possible, and now they’ll be punished.
>Make sure that the folks in charge of military prisoners know the rules on military prisoners, per the Geneva Convention.
They do. Even private contractors are required to follow the rules according to their contract. Obviously, there idiots didn’t get it.
somewhere, however, somebody dropped the ball. Part of an investigation includes notifying higher ups about a charge. Apparently, the 60 minutes newscast was the first notification for folks like the Oversite Committee, Bush etc (or at least that’s what they’re saying). one doesn’t wait until the culpable people are in custody before telling the public officials involved that there may be a problem.
Well, that is a problem. But then blaming it on Bush and Rummy is silly. They’re condemning it vigorously
:smack: D’oh! Sorry, I thought Bush and Rumsfield were responsible for what the US did in Iraq.
Daniel
of course they are condemning it, as they should be.
but who put certain policies in place? such as :
Civilian contractors responsible for interrogation of prisoners.
Military personnel in charge of the prisons ‘not allowed’ in certain areas of the prisons.
Decisions apparently made that certain prisoners weren’t to be considered ‘prisoners of war’, thus protected under the Geneava convention.
hell - we’re there and ‘taking prisoners’ in the first place because of specific decisions made by Bush, Rummy et al.
>D’oh! Sorry, I thought Bush and Rumsfield were responsible for what the US did in Iraq.
So if Bush and Rumsfeld are responsible for unforeseen actions (to disprove, show someone who said before the war that we’ll have such abuses) by those directly under his control, does that mean that Cecil is responsible for all of december 's posts?
Because, you know, the big C should have seen him coming and taken preemptive action. Or better yet, he should have not set up the SDMB at all, since that one poster outweighs all that was done by other posters and represents the entirely posting body?