Things are getting ugly

Near my home (2)

D
Near my home (2)

  • 2
  • 3
  • 99
Not Texas

H
Not Texas

  • 10
  • 2
  • 117
Floating

D
Floating

  • 5
  • 0
  • 49

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,541
Messages
2,776,914
Members
99,642
Latest member
Andygoflds
Recent bookmarks
1

Eric Rose

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Messages
6,842
Location
T3A5V4
Format
Multi Format
Just as a historical note, the UN did try and intervene in Rawanda. The Americans would not help by sending in troops so the outgunned Canadians among others had to retreat. It has been said before that the American political will is never there when it comes to saving or acting on horrific problems in countries that are predominacally black. There was no strategic reason (oil, pineapples, bananas and/or major property holdings) for the US to get involved so they didn't. So much for humanity driven politics.

30,000 people a day outside of the G8 die from starvation and AIDS related illnesses. Why is there no action? Simple, these countries have nothing the G8 countries want so therefore they don't need cheap labor to get it. These people also don' t have any money to fuel the G8 so why both, right?

Why does the US cozy up to China and invade Iraq. All for the same reason - money. In one case they ignore a regime that is notorious for torturing their people and in the other use it as an excuse to invade. Talk about two faced.

But hey the ends justify the means - right.

I would like to know how many of our members have actually served in the military and seen combat. And I mean real combat, not that button pushing killing done 1000's of miles from the front lines. I bet these people have a very different view on things than the armchair types.

In answer to the original question - no. At some point we have to draw a line in the dirt and say we won't cross it. Yes it may be tough, it may cost lives, but we will not lower ourselves to the level of animals.
 

blansky

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2002
Messages
5,952
Location
Wine country, N. Cal.
Format
Medium Format
Ed wrote:

No!! Not "Just the ones who did it." I said ALL!

After all, it's only hypothetical


Good point, you are right. I altered it. The answer then is no.

You still haven't answered mine.

A hypothetical question is a question that asks for a debate surrounding that question. It is not a trap, or trick question. It my case it is merely a question of in a war, any war, would you condone this form of humiliation (in the 4 specific photos) to help save the life of your son/daughter serving in the military, if information was obtained.

It is not a question of, is this a just war, do I hate Bush, do I hate Muslims.

It is simply a question of in a war, not peacetime, but in a war would you condone this behavior.

I have no doubt that intelligent people can have differing positions on this but when it comes down to my loved one vs my principles , which would I choose.

I'm sure that there are people on this site that deplore all war. That would not fight for their country no matter what. Many during WWII tried not to serve because they didn't believe in the war just as many don't believe in this one.

Many people didn't fight in the war for American independence either. Although now both WWII and the War of Independence would be considered just wars.


Michael
 

blansky

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2002
Messages
5,952
Location
Wine country, N. Cal.
Format
Medium Format
On the Rawanda issue.

During a Frontline documentary on the subject when a member of the Rawandan delegation went to the UN, they had the chance to talk to a member of the American delegation in private.

He told her that they would not get help for the situation in Rawanda because "America does not have friends, America has interests".


Michael
 

Jim Chinn

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
2,512
Location
Omaha, Nebra
Format
Multi Format
I did hear a story on NPR that told of how the UN troops stayed in their compound while the slaughter took place.

And yes the US did not intervene. I guess the president at the time had other pressing matters on his mind or his groin.

As far as the military goes, no I did not serve. Although had I been of draft age during Vietnam and my number came up I would have went. Unlike Clinton I would not have had the pull with the draft board to get out of it or like Al Gore have a Congressman daddy to make sure I was in some cushy
non-combat job. Or like George Bush have the pull to get into the Gaurd. Of course Clinton's lack of military experience did not keep him from killing many civilians in Bosnia or in cruise missle attacks on the Sudan. So please don't play the combat vs behind the lines or I was in the military and you were not cards.. Clinton has shot those arguments all to hell for both parties.


Eric,
In all sincerity I do thank you and respect you for your service to all of us. the same goes for John Kerry. I may not vote for him for president but I have the utmost respect for his serving the country and respect his right for protesting when he returned.

Now I am going to return to regular programing where the most controversial topic may be if it is better to mix developer with a right or left hand motion.
 

Ed Sukach

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
4,517
Location
Ipswich, Mas
Format
Medium Format
blansky said:
Ed wrote:

No!! Not "Just the ones who did it." I said ALL!
After all, it's only hypothetical


Good point, you are right. I altered it. The answer then is no.

You still haven't answered mine.

A hypothetical question is a question that asks for a debate surrounding that question. It is not a trap, or trick question. It my case it is merely a question of in a war, any war, would you condone this form of humiliation (in the 4 specific photos) to help save the life of your son/daughter serving in the military, if information was obtained.

I you are asking for debate, by labeling this as a "hypothetical question", you should not adamantly place the restriction of "Yes or No - nothing else". That closes the door to debate.

You answered mine as "no". Knowing the motivation behind that answer, I will NOT assume that you are in favor of child molestation.

I am *sure* you have read my response - where I "split" the question into two parts.

I'll answer your original question as you did mine - "No".

The "hypothetical" expansion: I disagree with the original premise: Torture would NOT prevent anyone - my children of someone else's from bing killed.
 

noseoil

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2003
Messages
2,887
Location
Tucson
Format
Multi Format
JDEF, is this not germane to the current topic?

"Finally, the terrorists were called "cowards" for the 9/11 attacks, those who died have been given appropriate respects; but each day countless people die in third world countries because the developed world... the North American world, for the most part are too selfish to assist our fellow human beings who are less fortunate. The vast majority does not care, does not respect those who die each day, but we make a big deal over some people who had a lifetime of riches and vast fortune that so many never have even 1/16th of over seas. The more fortunate countries are cowards for ignoring those who need assistance. Suicide attacks are cowardly? It takes much more courage to give up your life than to wear a suit and push a button to destroy something on the other side of the planet."
 

L Gebhardt

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
Messages
2,363
Location
NH
Format
Large Format
Noseoil, I happen to agree. That probably makes me a "liberal" for thinking we should try and understand our enemy, but I truely think it is the only way to win a war.

While we are on this controversial subject, can anyone tell me how Iraq is linked to 9/11 and our "War on Terror"? From what I have seen there were no terrorists in Iraq until we eliminated Sadam. Now the tribal wars can continue in Iraq, and we have been brought into the middle of it. We have also created the ideal recuitment cause for the original terrorists we were after.
 

noseoil

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2003
Messages
2,887
Location
Tucson
Format
Multi Format
We were attacked because we don't care enough.

This is the why, according to the author. I cite this reasoning as a case in point. Perhaps it is not correct. Perhaps it is. I disagree with this stilted reasoning, but then again, I'm a knuckle dragger with limited intellectual skills, education, and libido (oh, I almost left out spineless). I'm trying to keep up, but I guess my limited right wing view of the world does limit my understanding of stilted logic.
 

Eric Rose

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Messages
6,842
Location
T3A5V4
Format
Multi Format
What better way for Jr. to stay in power than to maintain this "state of urgency" associated with a terrorist threat. It keeps everyone from really looking at what he is doing or not doing at home. Approval rating go down, within days there is a "new and credible" threat of domestic terrorism. Geez how stupid does he and his people really think the American public is? Has about as much truth as WMD in Iraq.
 

Eric Rose

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Messages
6,842
Location
T3A5V4
Format
Multi Format
Jdef, while I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment, there are many around the world that feel the US got what it deserved with 9/11. They feel for the innocent people killed, but were not surprised it happened. I travel internationally alot, and I do mean alot, talk to many different people from all walks of life etc. so this is not second hand information.
 

Ed Sukach

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
4,517
Location
Ipswich, Mas
Format
Medium Format
Would I commit atrocities to protect my wife and children?

No.

I would kill, If I had to - but that is not an atrocity. An atrocity, to me indicates prolonged suffering - insane delight in causing pain to others - meaningless death of another.

That is *NEVER* justified - or necessary.
 

noseoil

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2003
Messages
2,887
Location
Tucson
Format
Multi Format
URGENCY

Eric,

"What better way for Jr. to stay in power than to maintain this "state of urgency" associated with a terrorist threat."

This is an old political ploy. How many times have we heard "We have to fix social security."

My question would be "Who was it that screwed it up?" Let them fix it.
 

Ed Sukach

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
4,517
Location
Ipswich, Mas
Format
Medium Format
blansky said:
Ed wrote:

THINK - If anything becomes apparent after a study of the histories of war, it is that the side that treats their prisoners most humanely ALWAYS is the most successful. If you know of an exception, I'd like to hear it.
Without having to think too hard, how about this one.
World War II --The Soviets/Russians.
Viet Nam Police action --- the North Vietnamese/Viet Cong
Michael

The first - From what I've been able to learn from those who were there - my uncle was a Colonel in the Military Police all through the European Campaign - and he took part in the liberation of many POW and Concentration Camps - the Nazis were more brutal than the Russians - although there was a degree of "retaliation" - and it was - not really "close", but not a great deal farther apart, either.

Viet Nam was another story - another "Undeclared" action, that was abruptly ended after exploration groups could find *NO* oil (there's that word again) off the Vietnamese Coast. From what I've heard - and I've had some contact with really "screwed up" veterans of this conflict - neither side was very "pretty".
 

Ed Sukach

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
4,517
Location
Ipswich, Mas
Format
Medium Format
noseoil said:
Ed, you stated "I say that there are better ways of conducting this WAR" with respect to the gathering of intellegence. I am certainly interested in your input on this subject. Would you mind expanding on this theme?

I've read a few publications, including Army FM's on Interrogation.
Nowhere was the use of force, and certainly not torture, advocated. The general theme was to establish rapport, with the idea of getting the prisoner to "loosen up" and drop their guard. Surprisingly easy to do ... communicate with them - talk about their problems as prisoners, and ... LISTEN!! - all the time. They will subconsciously divulge "bits and pieces" - which may not make sense at the time ... but the material furnished by a number of prisoners can be integrated to supply valuable information -- and be, at the same time, VERIFIED.

There is another larger question: How should the whole conflict be handled?"

I was against this mess from the beginning. Asides, I wonder what our attitude towards the United Nations is NOW - and how it compares to our flat-out rejection of the UN at the beginning...?

If we actually DID what the government said we were going to do ... bring justice and self-rule (a.k.a. "democracy") to the Iraqis; to re-build their economy, to "make it better" for the average Iraqi in the street - I doubt that we would have the animosity and underground violence we see now.

In short - we should have then - and should NOW -- live up to our "press."
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,833
Format
Hybrid
L Gebhardt said:
While we are on this controversial subject, can anyone tell me how Iraq is linked to 9/11 and our "War on Terror"?

he's not linked to 911. it was thought that he had amassed wmds and was able to launch at our friends. so in order to protect the region from such an attack ... the rest is history.
 

Francesco

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Messages
1,016
Location
Düsseldorf,
Format
8x10 Format
I was under the impression that certain Al-Qaeda thugs were able to escape to Iraq (probably paying off Saddam big time) for medical treatment and such.
 

noseoil

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2003
Messages
2,887
Location
Tucson
Format
Multi Format
Expanations

Ed S.

Thanks for your reply. While I don't condone torture, I don't condone beheading either. I would agree with you about the defense of family.

Funny, but the assault which started this whole imbroglio of a thread was carried out by the gallery owner's ex-husband (this from the Bay area news). Some people don't deal well with rejection.

My understanding of Iraq's link to 911 is that the fuselage used as a training aid for the air assault on 911 was provided by Hussein in Iraq (this from a British paper). His indirect links to terror were the subsidies paid to Palestinian bomber's families, after successful attacks on Israel. Abu Nidal was given sanctuary in Baghdad.

Two weeks ago nerve gas and mustard gas were found to be in the roadside artillery shells in two separate IEP's. You will notice that Kerry has since toned down his rhetoric.

Iraq was attacked for oil and as revenge for Hussein's attempted assasination of GHWB in Kuwait after his term as president. I do not agree or disagree.

The Arabs have a saying. "If you seek revenge in less than three generations, you are acting in haste." Makes for another interesting 60 years, doesn't it?

JDEF. What does the author's liberal bias (or lack thereof) have to do with the substance of his argument? My direct quote of his text shows his understanding of our culpability in the attack, not the slant of his writing with respect to liberal or conservative bias. The opinion that America must care about those less fortunate is not relevant to the attack, but that is his point, not mine.

Sorry, have to stop to take my viagra now.
 

Poco

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
652
Format
Multi Format
Not me ...thank those two smart little Iraqi kids :wink:
 

noseoil

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2003
Messages
2,887
Location
Tucson
Format
Multi Format
Out of the mouth of babes. Many thanks to all and especially to JDEF for standing toe to toe with his beliefs. End. tim
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom