Short memory.

You should read up on some of the abuses handed out by the British in the Port Arthur penal colony, India, South Africa, and of course Ireland. I would call starving masses of the Irish during the "potato blight" one of the most horrific abuses in human history. So are the clearances of the Scottish highlands by English aristocrats.

I find your protestations and holier than thou finger pointing at other nations laughable given what atrocities your own people have commited.

Yes the abuses in Iraq are disgusting and should not have occured, but lets leave out the ritualistic slagging off America seems to routinely recieve from you. As I have said repeatedly, due to your own peoples history you are in possibly the worst position to cry judgement. Were Britain still #1, I see no reason why the behaviour would be any different. </font>[/QUOTE]OOOHHHHH! Yorick's got his handbags out and he's gonna use it! :D :D

Yorick honey, whatever 'my people' might have done has no bearing on what I might have done or how I feel or react. The children's argument of "If he can do something bad then I can too" is simply not a valid intellectual argument.

Furthermore, before you start quoting historical abuses, you might want to <u>research</u> the subjects first.
Ie note that Irish landlords continued to export food during the famine, leading the British government to believe that the stories of shortages were false and that SCOTTISH LANDLORDS were responsible for the Highland clearances - not English aristocrats who didn't own a square metre of land in the Highlands. :rolleyes:

[ 05-18-2004, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

I ran across an interesting essay today. Here's and excerpt:
___________________________________
On a rainy day in 1415, on a field near Agincourt, France, the cream of French nobility, hundreds of them, lay flat on their backs, trapped by their armor like inverted tortoises. Having just won the victory in which the French were toppled from their horses, the triumphant British yeoman trudged down through the mud from their fortifications at the top of the slope, each one holding a mallet and a tent peg. They methodically went from knight to knight, flipping up their visors. Those who were rich were dragged off to be ransomed back to their families. Those who weren't were, well, "spiked." Prisoners have rarely had a happy life since then, either. Most estimates suggest that more patriots died in the British "prison hulks" floating in Wallabout Bay than in all of the battles during the American Revolution. We all know about the Civil War's Andersonville, of course, but few people know about the horrors of Elmira, New York, where an even greater proportion of the prisoners died with a lot less excuse (the North, after all, was not starving to death as the South was). Even after the Geneva Conventions, it was commonplace to kill German and Japanese who were surrendering in World War II. It was not just the fanaticism of the Japanese soldier which kept the prisoner population down to the single digits in most Pacific battles.

This is not to excuse the behavior of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib. ....everyone involved deserves their punishment. (I suspect that anyone searching for villians higher than the general, however, is off on a fool's errand: if this was an organized attempt to humiliate the prisoners, there would have been no photos; the evidence itself damns the most outrageous charges from Congressional blowhards). And yet what happened there was just the dark side of a praiseworthy, very American quality: the ability to stand up to bullies. The prisoners who were maltreated helped fill those 300,000 graves. They blew up school buses full of children and they mutilated bodies. What could be more praiseworthy than to give these butchers a taste of their own medicine? The answer, of course, is that the prisoners were no longer dangerous. The guards were charged with protecting them. Guards were not supposed to treat them as monsters any more. That is a stretch that many can't make. I would much rather be a Marine in Fallujah or a rifleman in the hottest corner of Afghanistan than to be a prison guard. It takes a good deal less self-control, moral courage and spiritual strength.

*snip*

What is most disturbing is the bizarre news sense of the media. The twenty tons of poison gas? Back among the truss ads. The mass graves? A one day story with no legs. A press with humanitarian instincts would have given at least equal time to the mass graves. A press with a sense of fairness would stop howling about the lack of WMDs and try to find out where all that poison gas came from. The far more horrid treatment of prisoners in the past has not gotten a mention. Only a self-loathing press could ignore the murders of 300,000 innocent men, women and children and cover the abuse of the perpetrators of those murders with mob-like glee.

Fortunately, the problems up here in Afghanistan are far less severe. The only claim of abuse was of an Afghan officer, who was arrested on a claim by a rival that he was a Taliban supporter. The facts as to what happened to him in the field are still being investigated, but the good news is that when he got to Bagram, the US Army prisoner processing center, everything worked as it should: he was interrogated for 35 minutes, his story was checked out and he was released within three days. The only serious charge being investigated is the death of two prisoners, which occurred not long after a CIA interrogator was bitten to death by prisoners at the same prison. The deaths have been classified as homicides and a full investigation is underway.

[ 05-18-2004, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Not difficult at all really. Darkness does not put out darkness- only light can do that. Killing and maiming in response to killing and maiming does not make an end killing and maiming- It simply creates more killing and maiming.

I would think it even more difficult for the pro-war side to justify the on-going collateral damage numbering in thousands of dead and many more maimed & wounded innocents in the name of something "good".

Also the inconsistency in policy of taking out Saddam but leaving in power other dictators (N. Korea comes first to mind) with plenty of blood, perhaps more than Saddam, on their hands creates an ethical dilemna considering one of the cornerstones of ethical behavior is that it is consistently applied.

On the note of the WMD's being found (or rather one, probably very old, artillery shell) this does not match or meet the plentiful pre-war rhetoric that Saddam was an "immenent threat" to U.S. security further lending to the difficultly of taking a consistent moral high ground in a pro-war stance.

So the difficulty of either stance is obviously all in the eye of the beholder.

Not difficult at all really. Darkness does not put out darkness- only light can do that. Killing and maiming in response to killing and maiming does not make an end killing and maiming- It simply creates more killing and maiming. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>Ok, my mistake. I missed the part where American soldiers are systematically killing and maiming innocent civilians on a daily basis. I have seen media reports reminding us that "American boys and girls" are still being targeted, injured and killed on a regular basis - but this is done just to remind us that we never should have gone to war in the first place. Which - by default - means that Saddam Hussein should have been left in power. Would the number of civilian dead be higher or lower if America had just stayed home? Hard to say. But at least wars DO come to an end. With Saddam and his two sons firmly entrenched in power - there was no end in sight for the systematic killing and maiming they were committing.

<font color=deepskyblue>As you said, not difficult at all.

<font color=lightblue>NO WAR = Saddam Hussein remaining in power = NO END to systematic maiming and killing of innocent civilians. No War also means continued research and funding into WMD for Saddam Hussein to use as he sees fit - while constantly thumbing his nose at the U.N.'s ineffective exercises in saber-rattling.

WAR = forced removal of Saddam Hussein = AN END to systematic maiming and killing of innocent civilians.</font>

Yes, there was unavoidable deaths and injuries to innocents during the war. That is a sad and tragic side-effect of war. But this war only lasted a little over a month and now the Iraqi population (for the most part) can live free from the fear of persecution, torture and death from their ruling dictator. I doubt that is little comfort to those injured during the war, but it probably does mean a great deal to the group of prisoners that were scheduled for the next round in Hussein's Human Shredder Machine (an act of butcherism documented by Amnesty, International).

<font color=deepskyblue>I agree with you here. I sincerely hope we are DONE making "deals" with 3rd World dictators that we mistakenly feel we have to be nice to. I also hope that Osama and Saddam have thoroughly taught us the lesson that "the enemy of my enemy is NOT necessarily my friend". Both of these rabid dogs eventually turned and viciously bit the hand that once fed them.

North Korea IS a good example. They have pulled this "nuclear saber-rattle stunt" on a regular basis since the 1950's. Whenever they want several million dollars from the U.S. gov't - they just threaten to conduct nuclear tests and "remind" us that their missiles could reach the West Coast. This has worked on every single President that has been in power up till now. I think the NEXT time it occurs, we should give N.K. the same treatment we gave Muammar Qaddaffi in Libya - "You want to threaten the U.S.A. Ok, here is a TASTE of what you can expect to recieve." Then send a guided missile into his palace. Of course, North Korea has the leverage of China backing it up. An attack on N.K. may prompt China to respond (or may not). But - unlike N.K. or Libya or Iraq - China DOES present a very credible threat to the U.S. if a World War broke out. So a certain degree of extra caution has to be exercised when dealing with N.K. Of course, that puts North Korea in the position of being a snotty little brat that deserves to be smacked down, but who happens to have a BIG BUDDY that might jump into the fight if we do. So our efforts have to concentrate on getting China to aid us in our efforts to control North Korea and their current dictator.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>That's partially true....although I agree with <font color=white>Mr. "Hale"</font> that it is very entertaining to watch the members who loudly proclaimed that Bush lied and there were NO WMD's back-pedaling and saying that there was only ONE and it was OLD - so it doesn't really count.

THe fact is that this weapon was NOT found in some abandoned warehouse...it was found beside the road where it had been PLACED to blow up an American convoy. So, even though it may be old, apparantly the owners still have some confidence in it's destructive capability. And if they have ONE to place as a booby-trap, isn't it just slightly possible they may have more.

One thing I WILL note is that the rampant pre-war accusations that the Americans would PLANT the WMD to "prove" thier case has not occurred. And - as I mentioned before - Saddam does have a documented history of actually USING WMD on those he considers his enemies.

Yeah, Bush did exaggerate the rhetoric he used. That's because we were going to War! And he understood how divisive that decision would be, so he was doing his best to create as much unity on the homefront as possible. Those who believed there were imminent and concrete connections between A-Q terrorists and Saddam Hussein have only themselves to blame. I realized from the very beginning that the "link" between the two was tenuous at best - but Bush did a good job of "selling the concept".

Also, keep in mind that the President is privvy to a LOT of intelligence that is still highly classified. While the threat of WMD may not have been imminent, I believe there WAS intelligence to suggest that Hussein represented another type of imminent threat to U.S. Security. The removal of Saddam Hussein has been a Top Presidential Priority since the original Gulf War. That includes the 8 years that Clinton was in office, but he never actively pursued that objective.

<font color=deepskyblue>Obviously so. ;) </font>

Completely irrelevant to this debate.

Yeah yeah, it's nice and all to refer to past atrocities committed by "our" people (I may not be British, but let's face it, my Dutch ancestors were hardly any better), even though I reckon many current day Americans and Aussies are technically just as much responsible for those atrocities as Skunk and I do - heck, and if this is really an issue, they've got more than enough skeletons in their own closet (Aboriginals, Native Americans, slavery). I can't see how bringing these up to counter Skunk's points and accuse him of hypocrisy will do any good, however.
It's a good thing to look back at our history and realise that there are certainly aspects of it that none of us will be particularly proud of - but we acknowledge them, learn from them, do everything in our power to stop history from repeating itself. Humanity has a violent past - I'd be surprised if there's a single person in the world who doesn't have any ancestors at some point in history who never participated in killing other human beings, whether we're talking tribal strife or full-scale genocide. And naturally, the events closer to our generations will stick more prominently in our memories, the guilt of ancestral crimes probably a lot closer to home - and even when you yourself wouldn't even hurt a fly, a (grand)father who was involved in some horrible things in WWII could still have a major impact your life.
Now, it's good to be reminded every once and awhile of history and what happened then, it's good that "we" as a people apologise or even acknowledge that certain events have taken place, it's good that we try to minimise negative consequences of our ancestors' mistakes - and there are certainly times and occasions to bring this up again. However, this isn't one of them.

This is the now, not the past. We all have black sheep in our genealogical trees, some closer in generation to one than to another. But that doesn't mean that all of our current day opinions first have to be compared to those ancestral crimes for traces of hypocrisy before they can be stated... If that was the case, we wouldn't even have a discussion right now. We'd just have morons screaming for blood for the sake of, well, screaming for blood.
Even if Skunk's grandfather was friggin' Stalin himself, it still wouldn't automatically make his opinions on the Iraqi war any more hypocritical than yours, Timber's or mine, unless Skunk has his own peasant barbecues at home every once and awhile. http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...ons/icon37.gif

[ 05-19-2004, 05:47 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

By BRIAN KNOWLTON,
International Herald Tribune

Published: May 19, 2004

WASHINGTON, May 19 — The two generals in charge of the occupation of Iraq took responsibility today for the prison abuse scandal there, but they also denied having issued or approved any orders that they said could have been interpreted to allow humiliation or mistreatment of prisoners.

Meanwhile, Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, where the generals appeared, said that a new computer disc with further photos of abuse had been located. He offered no details, but his announcement seemed likely to prolong the scandal.

The generals also said that the rules for interrogation in a military theater such as Iraq are decided by commanders within the theater, and do not require review by civilian leadership at the Pentagon.

"We have suffered a setback," a somber Gen. John P. Abizaid, head of the United States Central Command, told a specially convened hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "I accept responsibility for that setback."

"We believe that systemic problems existed at the prison that may have contributed to events there," General Abizaid said. He said 75 abuse cases in Afghanistan or Iraq had been investigated since American forces moved into Afghanistan.

General Abizaid, a four-star general, also accepted that the military's relationship with the International Red Cross Committee had been flawed.

Asked about a report today in The New York Times that Army officials in Iraq had responded late last year to a Red Cross report on abuses at Abu Ghraib prison by trying to limit the agency's unannounced inspections, General Abizaid made no excuses.

"We have a real problem with I.C.R.C. reports and the way that they're handled and the way that they move up and down the chain of command," he told the panel. He had seen one such report only months after it was issued, General Abizaid said.

"I won't make any excuses for it, Senator," he said. "We've got a problem there that's got to be fixed."

A system is needed, General Abizaid said, to ensure that such Red Cross reports — now sent to a lower-level military attorney — "surface up all the way through the chain of command."

But Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, commander of United States forces in Iraq, asserted that an order he had issued last fall to give the military intelligence unit effective control over Abu Ghraib had been intended purely to improve "forward operating base defenses," and not to give intelligence officers greater control over detainees to be interrogated.

Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the panel's ranking Democrat, asked General Sanchez whether that meant that he differed from the conclusion of Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, who concluded in a report on prison abuses that to shift effective control over the prison from military police to military intelligence was "not doctrinally sound."

"Yes, sir," General Sanchez said.

Senators sought to better understand the role of Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who came from his command at the naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in August to review procedures in the Iraqi prisons.

He subsequently recommended that the military police be "actively engaged in setting the conditions" for successful interrogations.

But General Miller, who is now in charge of all United States detention centers in Iraq, told the committee that his intention was only for military police to observe prisoners, and pass on useful information to their interrogators.

He said that he had made it clear to people in the military leadership that his recommendations "laid the base that they must be in concert with the Geneva Conventions."

Asked how abusive practices could have become as serious as those shown in photographs and videos, General Miller replied, "In my estimation, it's a breakdown in leadership."

The generals said they expected to learn far more about exactly what had gone wrong at Abu Ghraib and in other detention centers when the deputy chief of Army intelligence, Maj. Gen. George R. Fay, completes his report on the scandal in coming weeks.

Other investigations are under way, General Abizaid added. "We will follow the trail of evidence wherever it leads," he said. "We will continue to correct systemic problems. We will hold people accountable."

The generals said that sweeping changes had been put in place in the prisons this year. The number of prisoners still at Abu Ghraib, now about 3,800, is to be roughly halved.

And the prison is to be renamed Camp Redemption.

[ 05-19-2004, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Oh now *that* is funny! Someone must have a real sick sense of humour to come up with that name [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img]

Why not go all the way - how about:

"Camp Apology"
"Camp 'No Torture Here' (Honest!)"
"Camp Holiday"
"Camp Picture Post"...

Oh now *that* is funny! Someone must have a real sick sense of humour to come up with that name [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img]

Why not go all the way - how about:

"Camp Apology"
"Camp 'No Torture Here' (Honest!)"
"Camp Holiday"
"Camp Picture Post"... </font>[/QUOTE]And the camp's motto: Arbeit macht frei.

We don't try, you bitch. We try, you poke fun. You're one tough customer, Skunk. You are the embodiment of the damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don't attitude about the US. Are you like that with all issues?

Anyway, gotta go -- nighty night hellish little forum.

LOL - please don't listen to anyone about leaving IW Timber. It's no fun if I don't have anyone to butt heads with!