Bush

It appears that a few low-level soldiers, with a pathetic lack of supervision throughout the ranks, took orders that encouraged basic intimidation/sleep deprivation (acceptable forms of interrogation) and ran wild with them. The pictures don't indicate to me organized interrogation, they indicate sadistic behavior by bored idiots. My guess is there could be a Military Intelligence person to blame too, hard to tell. people further up the chain of command are simply guilty of malfeasance, all the way to the Military Police Brigade Commander (the one star woman general). Whether malfeasance is a crime worth a court martial could be debated.

As for resulting in more deaths, they actually dropped radically for about a week after the story went world-wide. Why? Because, for a short time, these extemists actually thought "maybe the Americans are just as ruthless as we are". Now it's just the excuse of the moment for them to do what they intended to do anyhow.

What 300 taliban are you talking about anyways?

 

When the northern alliance had 300 prisoners in vheicles and shot hem when they wanted oxygen, the local american commanders had them taken away, so washing their hands of them.

 

Here's a thing.
Country A has members of the public running around and raising funds for a terrorist group which is actively bombing 'civilians' in Country B.
Country A's political system is powerless to prevent this happening. It cannot/does not even publicly condemn it.

Surely something here needs to change. If country B was America, and Country A was fairly weak, guess what the outcome would (rightly) be.

But Country A was America, and Country B was Britain...

Conclusions?

 

The right-wong or conservative politicians and writers are usually established throughout history, whereas the left wing is trying to overthrow that establishment and establish itself. Therefore more leftist writers would grab the weapon of twisting the facts to their purpose; they need to be more convincing than their opponents to achieve the same, and yet more convincing to achieve their own goal. I disagree with it just as you do, but this might be a reason for it.

As for the tribunal, I am perfectly sure that this court would be made up by independent and objective judges who don't share hatred with anyone against anyone. One of these tribunals was established in The Hague, Holland, recently; America actually threatened to attack the Netherlands if any American soldiers were summoned to stand before this court. But Dutch people don't have any kind of hatred towards Americans; scepticism at best, and not directed at individuals. So your soldiers would be perfectly safe in the thought that justice would be done upon them, not injustice as you suggest. But still America wouldn't allow it. Now explain to me why, please.

 

The U.S. will never submit its citizens to the justice of a world court, and rightfully so. A fair trial? Sort of like the justice contained within the pitiful Kyoto treaty? Or the honest administration by the U.N. of the Food-For-Oil Program? There are exception to this rule in the world community (probably all the Nordic Countries for starters) , but on the whole the world is a rather screwed up place that most Americans fled from for exactly that reason.

I mean after all, how could we ever completely trust people who get excited about soccer to use good judgement. Oh boy, I bet I've done it now....

 

Why not, americans get excited about a game where you need a glove the size of a small country to catch a ball.

 

And americans called a game football where you through the ball.

 

But it expects the right to arrest, interrogate & detain citizens of other countries?

What, that the countries of the world should cut down on pollution, and that America, with the largest emmissions per population ratio, really should sort itself out?

Yes, it is! Although a large number of the early 'settlers' were deported prisoners from England!
Sorry, cheap jibe. Meant only as a joke.

Tee hee!
Well it made me chuckle.

I mean after all, how could we ever completely trust people who get excited about the war record of their presidential candidates to use good judgement. Oh boy, I bet I've done it now....

 

Fled no taxation with out representation, then killed millions of natives and made them live in the shitty areas without a voice.

Said all men are born equal, but only if your a white american.

Call me Mr. Picky .........

 

Well, I just wasn't going to go there, but hey!

 

War is a special case and always has been...

Actually on a per-capita basis for all pollution (not just industrial) most third world countries put the U.S to shame. Especially China, their factories are more akin to U.S. factories at the turn of the century with the amount of pollution they emit, and they are increasing this at exponential levels. Why should they get a pass? Who cares if their economies are just developing, if it's that important to the world environment! The U.S. will not sign on unless every country is treated the same (and we all know this won't happen).

Actually John Kerry's post-war record has been much more of an issue than his war record itself, though he brings his veteran status up in every speech.

 

Said democracy is good ..... so everyone will have it.

LOL 8)

 

But not if you're an American citizen?

Which is mildly selfish, even childish, if I may say so.

P.S: yep, sorry, the US is the worst developed offender. Developing countries need to be brought into line somehow. But then all someone like China will do is point at the US, and say 'well they aren't', and they possess the money and the technology to cut emissions, which we lack.

International bloody relations.
5 year old playgroups are better run.

 

Well I could say we we're trained to act that way before we left on the boat (and learned better since), but that would be mean..........

Seriously, as I've stated before, our treatment of the Indians was shameful. Killed millions? Of buffalo maybe. Our treatment of blacks, even after slavery, was bad. However, contrary to media bias, there is much less racism in America since the 60's.

 

Well the last time I checked we aren't at war with the U.K. or the Hague. Be warned, the bombing starts in five minutes.......

Selfish or childish to want any treaty to be fair to all signees? Perhaps this is why the U.N. is such an empty shell.

 

The values quoted were the values your forefathers wish to live by.

We are all equal, until someone different comes along and then they are not.

All countries have racism, I have witnessed racism in the us forces 10 years ago, and when recounting the story Americans were aghast. I'm not saying we don't have it, we do but it is not part of our constitution

 

You could well have a point, though. Witness the treatment of Aborigines in Australia & Tasmania by the criminals we (Britain) dumped there.

Well, that was smallpox!

Which was (for some tribes) their whole economy, industry, food source & way of life down the pan.

Well yes, it seems so. You still get the occaisional KKK outbreak or similar, but then every country has its share of complete d***heads who can't see beyond a different balance in the chemical make-up of someone's epidermis.

 

I knew Bush would mistake the UK for the UAE some day!

No, childish to refuse to cut down on pollution because someone else isn't.

That comes down to self interest. No country is immune from that. Grrrrrrr... :angry:

 

An american friend of mine (yes I do have some), was telling me a story when he joined the usaf. While travelling through West Virginia (I think) saying,

If you're blacker than this sign leave by night fall.

This was only 10 years ago.

If that is what you call treating black people better ..........

 

If america is so good the show a so good example.

Do as I say not as I do is hypocritical. All governments are guilty of this but some more so.