So, the US was not that strict follower of the Human rights eh?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tercel_driver
  • 170 comments
  • 3,780 views
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by The359
But what does any of that have to do with torture...?
Click to expand...
Nothing, but its still a breach of human rights on someone behalf, and whoever it was the American troops could stop it if they wanted to. Close this thread I can't be bothered.
 
I believe this is a case of "The ends justify the means".

Sure, the people are getting screwed now, but 5 years down the road they'll be a lot better off then they were under Saddam, from a humanistic standpoint.
 
Originally posted by The359
But what does any of that have to do with torture...?
Click to expand...

Read the link.


Sure, the people are getting screwed now, but 5 years down the road they'll be a lot better off then they were under Saddam, from a humanistic standpoint.
Click to expand...

You want to make it like the US is going to fix things, when instead, they are ****ing everything up.

What? Don't you know? Operation Iraq Liberation?

5 years from now, it is still going to be the same, with the only difference of more casualties.
 
Don't you live in California?

of course, anything to irritate you.
 
Originally posted by XzifT
Was my post removed? Wtfd m8, LMFAOLOOOL.. :odd: I'm like Tercel.. How awesome.
Click to expand...
Ypu are looking that way. . . There were two threads created on this same subject. . . just like a n00b would do. . .
 
Originally posted by Tercel_driver
Read the link.
Click to expand...

I suggest you re-read the link, because the administration is not condoning the actions of the soldiers who tortued the prisoners.

Everything else you have to say on this matter is moot until you understand what you are reading in the first place.

And if you think the US is in it for oil, I suggest you look up something called OPEC.
 
Originally posted by The359
I believe this is a case of "The ends justify the means".

Sure, the people are getting screwed now, but 5 years down the road they'll be a lot better off then they were under Saddam, from a humanistic standpoint.
Click to expand...
No they won't, they'll be much worse off and there will be more terrorists.
 
It's pretty embarrassing for Bush - one of the joys of coming in from the moral high ground is that you need to be squeaky clean yourself. I can only imagine how much this has inflamed anger and hatred towards the US in the Middle East.
 
Originally posted by Mr Dictionary
I am just here to help you with english skills whether it be your first language or not.
Click to expand...

Mr. Dictionary, it has come to my attention that you may be an imposter of sorts. In the sentence in question, I have noticed two glaring errors. You have failed to spell the name of your own language with a capital letter. Not only that, but you have also failed to place a comma after the word 'skills' to set apart the non-essential part of the sentence. Perhaps that last one wasn't part of your job description, but still. Such amateurish mistakes concern me, and I feel it my duty to report this error to the power's that be, and have you stripped of your title. Perhaps they will demote you to the rank, Mr. My First Dictionary!
 
Originally posted by Crayola
No they won't, they'll be much worse off and there will be more terrorists.
Click to expand...

There are Americans who are terrorists...are you saying we're a country that's bad off?

You complain that America isn't very humanistic, yet you're telling me that you'd rather have them living under Saddam Hussein where they could be slaughtered for stepping out of line?

Hello, hypocracy calling...
 
Originally posted by The359
There are Americans who are terrorists...are you saying we're a country that's bad off?

You complain that America isn't very humanistic, yet you're telling me that you'd rather have them living under Saddam Hussein where they could be slaughtered for stepping out of line?

Hello, hypocracy calling...
Click to expand...

Excellent point.

Yeah, Iraq has it so bad now. They don't have to speak in fear of being murdered, they aren't prosecuted because of their religion, and they don't have to vote on a ballott with one name.

:rolleyes:

Also, it's not like when America declared its independance it was perfect to begin with. Many of the Founding Fathers were in it for personal gain, as well as gain for the country. America had and still has many glaring flaws, but people still come here because it's the land of the free. If anyone expects to see immediate change in Iraq, take a step back, and realize what is really happening. I'm not saying that what's going on over there is a direct parallel to the American Revolution, but there are many simmilarities that must be considered.
 
I'll be flamed for saying this, but I don't care. Does it seem to anyone else that the way Saddam ran the country ("Slaughtered for stepping on out line") is possible the best way? If you haven't noticed, he wasn't turned in, and Osama hasnt been turned in but there's a huge huge reward out for him. That seems like a tight-knit system. Has it occured to anyone else that it's possible dictatorship and comunism are the "correct" way to run a country/government?
 
I speak only for myself. This is independent of any collective sentiment of my fellow moderators.

Tercel_driver, I read your link, and I have read you, and you are a disgusting human being.
 
They're as good as what you are willing to accept living in, XzifT.
 
I like this thread because it gives Tercel Driver just enough rope to hang himself. It takes a while, it hurts, and is truly entertaining. Thank you for being such a buffoon Tercel Driver.

Ah, good times.
 
Originally posted by chaser_fan
Mr. Dictionary, it has come to my attention that you may be an imposter of sorts. In the sentence in question, I have noticed two glaring errors. You have failed to spell the name of your own language with a capital letter. Not only that, but you have also failed to place a comma after the word 'skills' to set apart the non-essential part of the sentence. Perhaps that last one wasn't part of your job description, but still. Such amateurish mistakes concern me, and I feel it my duty to report this error to the power's that be, and have you stripped of your title. Perhaps they will demote you to the rank, Mr. My First Dictionary!
Click to expand...
Ah, I am just a dictionary person, I have nothing to do with grammar. . . Plus, typing fast sometimes produces errors. Did I ever say I was perfect?
 
It questionable that you even believe what you said, Tercel_driver.

Instead of a direct charge of propaganda against US media and Bush in the context of the article, and an expression of discontent toward Bush for not condemning these images earlier despite whatever validity they had and deference traditionlly given to US soldiers by their Commander in Chief, the latter being the more reasonable issue to question as it is not rooted in conspiratorial constructs with false aspects by nature, and reasonably presumed as the action most would take out of respect for the Uniform, you bypass accusing the media of distortion. The only propaganda claim that can be made from the article is that the US media was trying to down play the "majority opinions of US soldiers and the treatment of the detainees." But, because you probably lack evidence to suggest that is true, and know balance must exist before a report, not created after through alternative propganda, you opted to make a negative generalization on a distorted basis. If this was intend, you are disengenuous and cowardly at the same time.

Again, my views are my own.
 
Originally posted by XzifT
I'll be flamed for saying this, but I don't care. Does it seem to anyone else that the way Saddam ran the country ("Slaughtered for stepping on out line") is possible the best way? If you haven't noticed, he wasn't turned in, and Osama hasnt been turned in but there's a huge huge reward out for him. That seems like a tight-knit system. Has it occured to anyone else that it's possible dictatorship and comunism are the "correct" way to run a country/government?
Click to expand...

You realize a dictatorship is almost like being enslaved? You do what a single person says, you have no free thought, you are expendable, and he can eliminat you at his whim without any explanation or recourse. Osama and Saddam weren't turned in because they struck such fear into people that they would become paranoid. An Iraqi man may want to turn Saddam in, but if his neighbors found out and they were still loyal to Saddam, he'd be dead.

And communism is an economically based government. And no, it does not work, I think just saying "Russia" is proof enough.

I suggest reading Nineteen Eighty Four...
 
Nope. But it does seem like the way to me. No one steps out of place, they do, they die. Makes sense.
 
Except you're leaving the decision of whats right and wrong up to someone else. You aren't free to have an opinion. Quite frankly that's a sacrafice of your humanity.
 
So lets get this straight Terecel, your freaking out about 1 incident when over the years other countries, factions, dictators have done far far far worse than this one incident. Hmmm just off the top of my head I remember this one guy "Hitler" having 6 million people killed in horrifbly inhumane ways. Rowanda's ""civil war" where hundreds of thousands of civilians were unjustly murdered and tortured by Militias. Sadam, made rape legal, torture legal, he killed his own people. During war the USA has been very civil with POW's where as our enemy's have not. WW2, American POW's were tortured, forced to stay in poor living conditions, not fed well nor taken well care of. While Axis POW's were sent to the USA to be put in light work camps, fed well, well taken care of. In that article there was a man standing on a box with wires attached to his hands, guess what that was done to USA Vietnam POW's. The list can go on but why beat a "dead horse"?

The fact is that the USA does not condone Torture. Its funny that you say the USA is a group of horrid people who like to torture people when it was only a small group of people who were doing it out of the MILLIONS of americans. Terecel you should focus your anamosity to the people who commited the crimes, not the nationality that they hail from.
 
Originally posted by XzifT
Nope. But it does seem like the way to me. No one steps out of place, they do, they die. Makes sense.
Click to expand...
So YOU would perfer to live in that type of society? Did you know that if ONE person in your family stood up against the dictatorship that the WHOLE family will be killed? Hmm that means if your uncle stood up against Sadam then you will be killed too, even though you did nothing.
[sarcasim]Sounds fair to me, why not punish innocent people when they did nothing. Ah dictatorship at its best[/sarcasim]
 
Originally posted by The359
There are Americans who are terrorists...are you saying we're a country that's bad off?

You complain that America isn't very humanistic, yet you're telling me that you'd rather have them living under Saddam Hussein where they could be slaughtered for stepping out of line?

Hello, hypocracy calling...
Click to expand...
No, that's not why they will be worse off, they will be worse off from losing their education and health systems. Fundementalism will result it more terrorism which defeats the purpose of going in there anyway. The terrorism is totally seperate from the iraqi people's wellfare. I'm simply pointing out that it has only made the threat of terrorism worse. Remeber the Iraqis WEREN'T terrorists before. I'm suspicious if any Iraqi's ever had any links with the Al Quaeda (sp?) network at all. But now they most certainly do and that's all to do with the invasion (in their eyes) of Iraq.

Originally posted by The359
You complain that America isn't very humanistic, yet you're telling me that you'd rather have them living under Saddam Hussein where they could be slaughtered for stepping out of line?

Hello, hypocracy calling...
Click to expand...
I never said Sadam was good. I'm saying America's only made it worse. On CNN and that you see midle-class families having to hide in terrible living conditions for fear of being bombed or shot or whatever. The majority of people were fine under sadam hussein. Then America comes in forcing it's freedom on other people (hello hypocracy) simply because there is a dispute between the leaders of the 2 countries. Sadam Hussein was allowing the weapons inspectors and such in and complying with all of America's conditions and then they went in anyway. To be honest I think I'd rather the Iraqis were still under sadam, atleast then American Troops wouldn't be getting blown up by suicide bombers and such.
 
Originally posted by Crayola
Remeber the Iraqis WEREN'T terrorists before. I'm suspicious if any Iraqi's ever had any links with the Al Quaeda (sp?) network at all. But now they most certainly do and that's all to do with the invasion (in their eyes) of Iraq.
Click to expand...

Iraq never had terrorists before? What magical world are you living in? There are hundreds of terrorists cells out there besides Al-Quada. Just because AQ wasn't in Iraq doesn't mean none of the others were.

Originally posted by Crayola
I never said Sadam was good. I'm saying America's only made it worse. On CNN and that you see midle-class families having to hide in terrible living conditions for fear of being bombed or shot or whatever. The majority of people were fine under sadam hussein. Then America comes in forcing it's freedom on other people (hello hypocracy) simply because there is a dispute between the leaders of the 2 countries. Sadam Hussein was allowing the weapons inspectors and such in and complying with all of America's conditions and then they went in anyway. To be honest I think I'd rather the Iraqis were still under sadam, atleast then American Troops wouldn't be getting blown up by suicide bombers and such.
Click to expand...

As I said before, a temporary problem that will be fixed in the future. Sure people have been displaced and their life isn't what it used to be, but that's what happens in a war. Was West Germany a horrible place to be immediatly after it was occupied in WWII? No, because America/France/England reconstructed it and turned it into a thriving nation.

And you must be watching a different news stations, because Saddam did not comply to all the UN and US demands.

It's almost as if you'd feel the same if we had left Hitler alive after WWII and in control of Germany. THAT'D be brilliant, wouldn't it? Sure, we let the German peoples keep their way of life, leave them under a dictatorship where at least they are somewhat wealthy (at the expense of those that the dictator doesn't like), and let them possible invade other countries yet again like we all saw them do previously.

Gee, sounds familiar, doesn't it?
 
Crayola, read up on some history. There have been terrorists in and around Iraq for years. Even longer than the USA has been around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Posts

Back