Torured Iraqis - Bad, Tortured Americans - not so much

[Kargyle]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... -headlines

Article as seen on Fark.

I'm really interested to see how many Bush puppets come out and defend this, and how they do it. I honestly can't see any logical defense of this. I can only hope SCOTUS hears the case and slaps the administration down.

[Nick]

That is fucked up.

[Ebumar]

Every day I lose more faith in bush. Although, he's still better than kerry.

[Rekaar.]

What precedent is there for suing for cash because you were tortured in a war? I really don't know of any (but am too lazy to look). Were the Vietnamese sued? How about the Russians? Germans? Japanese? Isrealis? Shit anybody ever?


Honestly if I were in the shoes of those PoWs I would probably try the same thing given how easy it is to get money in court. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to me to expect some kind of cash settlement from a government that threw out the old guy though. If Iraq were more like the US, they'd just offer the comp in good faith. To sue for it seems silly though. On a lot of levels.

Granted I still hope they win on the inside =p

[Voronwë]

its pretty much the same as the government paying civilian contractors over $100K to do security details, but soldiers doing even riskier jobs get $30K.

the government does not value the contributions of individual soldiers as much as it values the (campaign) contributions of corporate interests, who would be adveresly impacted by this lawsuit settlement.

If the Iraqi govt has to shell out $1B to our POWs, then that is money that the friends of the Bush administration cannot get in lucrative rebuilding/defense contracts.

[Rekaar.]

Voro that's pretty shallow for you.

Let's look at it from another angle. What if they win this suit in US courts and they're awarded, by some American judge, a billion dollars to divide up.

If you're an Iraqi why would you even honor the award? How would you look at it? If you want to sue somebody at least do it in their own legal system.


Aside from this suit looking horrible from a PR standpoint (US vs Arab community) what validity does it even have considering:

no precedent,
not even suing the right government (Hussein not so much around),
not even suing in the relevant judicial system,
it's purely a money grab.

Voro you need a new group of water cooler associates, you're starting to get really fuckin' jaded =p

[Zaelath]

Voro that's pretty shallow for you.

Let's look at it from another angle. What if they win this suit in US courts and they're awarded, by some American judge, a billion dollars to divide up.

If you're an Iraqi why would you even honor the award? How would you look at it? If you want to sue somebody at least do it in their own legal system.


Aside from this suit looking horrible from a PR standpoint (US vs Arab community) what validity does it even have considering:

no precedent,
not even suing the right government (Hussein not so much around),
not even suing in the relevant judicial system,
it's purely a money grab.

Voro you need a new group of water cooler associates, you're starting to get really fuckin' jaded =p

Congress opened the door to such claims in 1996, when it lifted the shield of sovereign immunity — which basically prohibits lawsuits against foreign governments — for any nation that supports terrorism.

I wasn't sure at the time how they thought any judgement made under this provision could be enforced, and indeed, I suspect the US government is trying to defuse a futile exercise that will just help to distance them from what they hope is a new ally in the mid-east.

Much better for the US to quietly sweep these guys under the carpet, than for the new Iraqi government to bend over and slap their ass while they laugh at the concept of paying US servicemen $1B for "the sins of the previous administration".

[Brotha]

Congress opened the door to such claims in 1996, when it lifted the shield of sovereign immunity — which basically prohibits lawsuits against foreign governments — for any nation that supports terrorism.

I wasn't sure at the time how they thought any judgement made under this provision could be enforced, and indeed, I suspect the US government is trying to defuse a futile exercise that will just help to distance them from what they hope is a new ally in the mid-east.

Much better for the US to quietly sweep these guys under the carpet, than for the new Iraqi government to bend over and slap their ass while they laugh at the concept of paying US servicemen $1B for "the sins of the previous administration".

So Iraq DID support terrorism?

If Saddam was still in power, I'd be for them getting that 1 billion dollars, but it's a completely new government, and we're occupying Iraq. In a very real sense, the money would be coming from OUR government as much as from Iraq's. What would the purpose of the 1 billion dollars be? Who would it be punishing?

Government lawyers have insisted, literally, on "no amount of money" going to the Gulf War POWs.

I think that's a pretty unfair characterization. Chances are if they have any long-term physical or mental problems they're getting free counseling and help from the VA and a nice disability check in the mail every month; it's not like the government abandoned these people. I really wish the article would have provided a little more balance and mentioned what the government DID do to these people when they came home and how it's been helping since. I realize they're specifically talking about monetary compensation, but it really gives you the wrong impression...

[Zaelath]

So Iraq DID support terrorism?

What's your point? I don't think anyone has made a serious argument that Saddam didn't support terrorism, just that there was no link between Iraq and 9/11.

[nobody]

that makes me sick. way to support our troops bush! so what message does that send to any future american POW's?

[Fash]

so what message does that send to any future american POW's?

don't get caught.

i am able to look at death as an option... there are many things in this world that I would rather die than experience or put others through. if i was there in iraq.. as long as i still had ammo, i wouldn't allow myself to be captured.

scenario one... a soldier is about to be captured and kills himself... the next day uniformed officers let the families know in person that he died in honorable service for his country... they grieve.. one second he was fine, the next, sadly he was dead.. but they knew it, it was solid, and they begin moving on.

scenario two... a soldier is captured.. its on the fucking news.. the family gets a phone call... they are panicked, stricken with worry, distraught and aggravated at their inability to do anything about the situation, for days, spreading the concern to familly and friends.. then a beheading video as a nice cockslap in the face for ya... hows that... or maybe no video, but you find out 2 weeks later they id'd a body tossed off a bridge.... move on from that

[nobody]

if you're a POW you're already caught. cmon fash keep up.

[Kylere]

What is funny is that half the posters in thsi thread did not read the entire article. Half of your posts are covered in the article and in addition it notes that the US as a signatory of the Geneva Convention should back the law.

This law was signed April 24, 1996 by William Jefferson Clinton, not vetoed by him and was pushed through by a republican congress. So if you have any problems with the law itself you can blame both sides in a truly bipartisan manner.

The fact that Bush and his administration is standing against it shows they possess no penis whatsoever even in a collective sense. I would agree with part of their argument if the Iraqi's had thrown out their own dictator, as the US did.

I fully support reparations to the soldiers of any nation state who suffer violations at the hands of another, or suffer in the hands of a terrorist group.

[Rekaar.]

I would support a suit against Hussein himself, or others directly associated with the abuses (and wish them luck), not a totally new entity though. Doesn't add up.

[Nick]

Would you support Guantanamo Bay inmates if they made a claim?

[Wulfran]

i am able to look at death as an option... there are many things in this world that I would rather die than experience or put others through. if i was there in iraq.. as long as i still had ammo, i wouldn't allow myself to be captured.

What the fuck do you need your own ammo for pussy? When you're out, charge em with your knife and take more out hand to hand! Then you can still cut your own throat, if they don't drop you! Thats of course provided you aren't knocked unconcious by a concussion or something: in that case I'm sure you'd be man enough to suicide on whatever is handy when you came to! Maybe soldiers should all have cyanide fucking teeth just in case!

What a brain dead piece of shit you are. You think it will matter if you're killed on the spot or after the fact? Dead is dead. You don't come home either way. You think that eating a bullet would stop them from mutilating and stripping your corpse? While you are alive you can still try to escape and come home to your family, although why someone would want your moronic ass back is beyond me. Too bad you're not there instead of playing armchair fucking tough guy.

[Fash]

I wouldn't give a shit what they did to me after I was dead...

I gave my opinion and an example... I guess you didn't like it.

Whatever man.. I grew up in the Air Force, and I have been considering signing up myself, as the day draws close when I wouldn't be eligible anymore.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Too bad you're not there instead of playing armchair fucking tough guy.

Tough guy? You don't know him at all.

The only one looking like an armchair tough guy is you. Spouting off like some atypical drunk asshole at a bar, putting people down who share a differing opinion than yours, so you look better. Problem is, you only look better to small minded dolts such as yourself.

/wave

[Kargyle]

To who ever said they would support a suit against Hussein and whatever indivduals were responsible, but not the Iraqi governmen because it is a new entity. If a company knowingly put out a product that was going to harm consumers, would you only support suing the individuals specifically responsible with the release of that product, but that the company as a whole? What if those people responsible were all fired before the suit was filed, would that then clear the company of any and all liablility?

These men were not tortured by Hussein himself. Nor were they tortured by an individual. They were tortured by the Iraqi Military, under the direction of the Iraqi government. That there is a new boss in charge does not remove liability. That they are sorry now, doesn't remove liability. The US government opened this door when they passed the legislation in 1996. It passed a Republican Congress, and was signed my a Democrat President, so don't try toplay any partisan politcs card. As far as Bush Jr. If he really thought that the legislation was bad, shouldn't he have moved to reverse it before the law suit? The truth, most likely, is that Bush doesn't care about this piece of legislation one way or the other, he just doesn't want to lose a billion dollars that could go to American businesses in the form of rebuilding contracts.

Furthermore, I'm dumbfounded how the Administration can speak out of one side of their mouth about the Iraqi prisoners deserving compensation from American because of the abuses in the Abu Ghraib scandal, which by all accounts was not sanctioned by the US government, and at the same time deny the same right to their own servicemen. Why are Iraqi prisoners more deserving of compensation than our own men and women?

[Brotha]

To who ever said they would support a suit against Hussein and whatever indivduals were responsible, but not the Iraqi governmen because it is a new entity. If a company knowingly put out a product that was going to harm consumers, would you only support suing the individuals specifically responsible with the release of that product, but that the company as a whole? What if those people responsible were all fired before the suit was filed, would that then clear the company of any and all liablility?

These men were not tortured by Hussein himself. Nor were they tortured by an individual. They were tortured by the Iraqi Military, under the direction of the Iraqi government. That there is a new boss in charge does not remove liability. That they are sorry now, doesn't remove liability. The US government opened this door when they passed the legislation in 1996. It passed a Republican Congress, and was signed my a Democrat President, so don't try toplay any partisan politcs card. As far as Bush Jr. If he really thought that the legislation was bad, shouldn't he have moved to reverse it before the law suit? The truth, most likely, is that Bush doesn't care about this piece of legislation one way or the other, he just doesn't want to lose a billion dollars that could go to American businesses in the form of rebuilding contracts.

Furthermore, I'm dumbfounded how the Administration can speak out of one side of their mouth about the Iraqi prisoners deserving compensation from American because of the abuses in the Abu Ghraib scandal, which by all accounts was not sanctioned by the US government, and at the same time deny the same right to their own servicemen. Why are Iraqi prisoners more deserving of compensation than our own men and women?

A more apt analogy would be if the company you sued moved, then you insisted on suing a new company just because it happened to occupy the same office building as the company that you sued had.

The whole purpose of the legislation was to punish terrorist/rogue regimes, which Iraq thankfully no longer has. Who exactly would this 1 billion dollars be punishing? Do you realize that we're lobbying left and right to get Iraq's debt forgiven, and WE'RE paying for their government to work, who do you think that 1 billion dollars would hurt? The fact of the matter is that we're occupying Iraq right now, this isn't near as black and white as you're trying to make it seem.

[Kargyle]

Oh, I didn't realize Iraq was completely populated with an entirely new people that weren't there during the Hussein reign. That would afterall be the extrapolation of your new company/same building analogy. The "new" government is made up of both old and new bureaucrats. Iraq isn't suddenly a new country simply because Saddam is gone. Does the United States become a new country after each President? Yes, Saddam is gone, and what a happy time it is in Iraq now, but that doesn't erase the sins of the past. Being sorry that torture happened doesn't change that it happened.

[Brotha]

The entire government was changed, not just a new person elected but a complete regime change.

Like I said, the whole purpose of the Act was to punish terrorist/rogue regimes.

Nice summary of the Act:

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/96-499.htm

Summary of the relevant section:

Title II recasts federal law concerning restitution, expands the circumstances under which foreign governments that support terrorism may be sued for resulting injuries, and increases the assistance and compensation available to the victims of terrorism.

The government that tortured them and that they had a right to sue is no longer there, and as far as I know the new one isn't supporting terrorism.

[Kylere]

Would you support Guantanamo Bay inmates if they made a claim?

I fully support reparations to the soldiers of any nation state who suffer violations at the hands of another, or suffer in the hands of a terrorist group.

I believe that those who practice terrorism sacrifice rights when they decide to make war principally against civilians, this makes them murderers not soldiers.

[Hesten]

Would you support Guantanamo Bay inmates if they made a claim?

I fully support reparations to the soldiers of any nation state who suffer violations at the hands of another, or suffer in the hands of a terrorist group.

I believe that those who practice terrorism sacrifice rights when they decide to make war principally against civilians, this makes them murderers not soldiers.

And again we go into the Terrorist/freedom fighter problem. Who define who are a terrorist? The winners do, so if your on the winning side, you can fuck over whoever you want, right?

[Wulfran]

Too bad you're not there instead of playing armchair fucking tough guy.

Tough guy? You don't know him at all.

The only one looking like an armchair tough guy is you. Spouting off like some atypical drunk asshole at a bar, putting people down who share a differing opinion than yours, so you look better. Problem is, you only look better to small minded dolts such as yourself.

/wave

Ah yes, I am a small minded dolt because I don't generally believe second guessing and denigrating the actions of those who are in situations I have never been forced to deal with... oh wait! You haven't been there either!

I am a small minded dolt because I don't favour reverting to medieval Japanese mentality with our troops in conflicts. I'm a small minded dolt because I accept (as pretty much every military in history has) that as distasteful as it may be, there are some times that soldiers end up in an untenable position (i.e. cut off from escape routes or caring for wounded that slow down so you get caught, etc) ywhere they can't do anything but attempt to surrender in the hope that they will live to fight another day.

I don't give a fuck about "looking better": I care about squashing an attitude of overwhelming stupidity so that it never grows under the manure you retards feed to it. You wonder why people here slam you, Midnyte? Its because you a) lack the abilty to read and comprehend, b) lack the ability to think things through for yourself or c) both of the above.

[Siji]

The only one looking like an armchair tough guy is you. Spouting off like some atypical drunk asshole at a bar, putting people down who share a differing opinion than yours, so you look better. Problem is, you only look better to small minded dolts such as yourself.

Pot meet kettle. Now stfu and go away.

[Rekaar.]

Would you support Guantanamo Bay inmates if they made a claim?

I fully support reparations to the soldiers of any nation state who suffer violations at the hands of another, or suffer in the hands of a terrorist group.

I believe that those who practice terrorism sacrifice rights when they decide to make war principally against civilians, this makes them murderers not soldiers.

And again we go into the Terrorist/freedom fighter problem. Who define who are a terrorist? The winners do, so if your on the winning side, you can fuck over whoever you want, right?

I know you'd LOVE for it to be that grey but it's simply not. The only ones who define your status is you - by the targets you pick. If the terrorists were only going after military targets and had a political agenda it would be pretty fucking different.

[Aabidano]

And again we go into the Terrorist/freedom fighter problem. Who define who are a terrorist? The winners do, so if your on the winning side, you can fuck over whoever you want, right?

Ummm, no. For one, "freedom fighters" don't make random civilians a primary target to achieve their aims... Not much point in going farther because you seem unable to be rational on this point.

Sadaam was a lot of things, but not a terrorist himself. Yassir Arafat was a terrorist and should have been buried headfirst in a tub of shit.

[Fredonia Coldheart]

The entire government was changed, not just a new person elected but a complete regime change.

Like I said, the whole purpose of the Act was to punish terrorist/rogue regimes.

Nice summary of the Act:

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/96-499.htm

Summary of the relevant section:

Title II recasts federal law concerning restitution, expands the circumstances under which foreign governments that support terrorism may be sued for resulting injuries, and increases the assistance and compensation available to the victims of terrorism.

The government that tortured them and that they had a right to sue is no longer there, and as far as I know the new one isn't supporting terrorism.

From the article ...

Congress opened the door to such claims in 1996, when it lifted the shield of sovereign immunity — which basically prohibits lawsuits against foreign governments — for any nation that supports terrorism. At that time, Iraq was one of seven nations identified by the State Department as sponsoring terrorist activity. The 17 Gulf War POWs looked to have a very strong case when they first filed suit in 2002. They had been undeniably tortured by a tyrannical regime, one that had $1.7 billion of its assets frozen by the U.S. government.

They started the suit BEFORE the invasion and BEFORE the fall of Hussein. They were awarded the money in 2003 not just yesterday.

[Nick]

Yeah Rekaar clearly the terrorists don't have a political agenda

And if you think the US or it's allies kill less innocent humans than the terrorists you fight you are seriously deluded.

So your argument falls to pieces already oh nos.

[Hesten]

Would you support Guantanamo Bay inmates if they made a claim?

I fully support reparations to the soldiers of any nation state who suffer violations at the hands of another, or suffer in the hands of a terrorist group.

I believe that those who practice terrorism sacrifice rights when they decide to make war principally against civilians, this makes them murderers not soldiers.

And again we go into the Terrorist/freedom fighter problem. Who define who are a terrorist? The winners do, so if your on the winning side, you can fuck over whoever you want, right?

I know you'd LOVE for it to be that grey but it's simply not. The only ones who define your status is you - by the targets you pick. If the terrorists were only going after military targets and had a political agenda it would be pretty fucking different.

Damn, i could have sword that Bin Ladens agenda was political.
Arent the US terrorists for dropping bombs they KNOW will also harm civilians?

[miir]

I know you'd LOVE for it to be that grey but it's simply not. The only ones who define your status is you - by the targets you pick. If the terrorists were only going after military targets and had a political agenda it would be pretty fucking different.

So you agree that the insurgents in Iraq are not terrorists.

[Brotha]

They started the suit BEFORE the invasion and BEFORE the fall of Hussein. They were awarded the money in 2003 not just yesterday.

Yes, I knew the case had started before the invasion, so? And yes, they awarded the money in 2003, after Baghdad fell.

[Xzion]

so what message does that send to any future american POW's?

don't get caught.

i am able to look at death as an option... there are many things in this world that I would rather die than experience or put others through. if i was there in iraq.. as long as i still had ammo, i wouldn't allow myself to be captured.

scenario one... a soldier is about to be captured and kills himself... the next day uniformed officers let the families know in person that he died in honorable service for his country... they grieve.. one second he was fine, the next, sadly he was dead.. but they knew it, it was solid, and they begin moving on.

scenario two... a soldier is captured.. its on the fucking news.. the family gets a phone call... they are panicked, stricken with worry, distraught and aggravated at their inability to do anything about the situation, for days, spreading the concern to familly and friends.. then a beheading video as a nice cockslap in the face for ya... hows that... or maybe no video, but you find out 2 weeks later they id'd a body tossed off a bridge.... move on from that

sure, thats easy to say until your in the situation...if 10 people are surrounding me with guns to my head and i have a few rounds left, that gun is going down and my hands are going up, il take my chances at an escape for being a POW...about 5% of POWs manage to escape and i would say about 25% survive

[Kylere]

You people randomly mix apples and oranges in comparisons.

1. Iraqi soldiers serving Saddam who are abused should be able to sue the fuck out of the US

2. American Soldiers who are abused by Iraqis should be able to sue the fuck out of Iraq.

3. If you declare war against the US, wear a uniform, and represent your country then you are a soldier, and are protected by the Geneva Convention and international treaties. If you wear civilian clothes to hide your combatant status, then you are eligible to be shot.

4. If you represent a renegade multimillionaire from Saudi Arabia who thinks civilians are primary targets then you are a terrorist, and should have no rights at all.

5. If you think killing Ambassadors, slaughtering people in food markets, setting off bombs in discotheques, dropping grenades in buses, strapping TNT/C4 to yourself and detonating it in a crowd are legitimate acts of war you are wrong, a scumbag and deserve no rights at all.

Terrorists are Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Atheist, American, Russian, German, Irish, South African, Iraqi etc as long as they have no regards whatsoever for basic rules of warfare. Now, before one of you flaps your lips with some shit about unrestricted bombing in German during WW2, or Hiroshima/Nagasaki etc perhaps you should read some history that is not assigned to you by Michael Moore.

The United States as policy has always treated prisoners of war better than the international community et al.

[nobody]

WWII - Breat Britain carpet bombed at night due to the fear of flying in daylight over enemy territory with no protection. while the US had a policy of taking the risk and flying in daylight in order to better spot military and industrial targets.

i think you were right on target in your post there, Kylere.

[Brotha]

This law was signed April 24, 1996 by William Jefferson Clinton, not vetoed by him and was pushed through by a republican congress. So if you have any problems with the law itself you can blame both sides in a truly bipartisan manner.

You're missing the point of the legislation. The point was to sue and punish the governments who condoned the torture. For instance, if an Iraqi acting on his own captured an American and tortured him right now (or in 1995), could that American sue the government of Iraq? No, of course not. If I as an American kidnapped someone from France and tortured him, could he sue the US? No.

We deposed of the Saddam regime, and right now we're occupying Iraq, funding their new government, and lobbying left and right to have their debt forgiven. What possible purpose could this one BILLION dollars have? Who would it be punishing? As I said before this simply isn't as black and white as many of you keep trying to make it.

[Nick]

Wow thank god Kylere is able to tell us who deserves what otherwise we would have just gone around giving everyone human rights.

WHAT MUGS WE ALL ARE WITHOUT YOU..

Human rights are obviously not aimed at giving rights to humans, just humans that the US think deserve it (since they are really ethical themselves they can make this decision for us and we don't even have to think about it!)

This was hilarious:

The United States as policy has always treated prisoners of war better than the international community et al.

Before *maybe*, but now? I don't fucking think so.

Cretin.

Watch as my Michael Moore indoctrination (nevermind independant thought and research!) tips a truckload of sand into Kyl's gaping pussy.

Oh and btw this does not make me a terrorist supporter you worthless spinmonger, more like someone who appreciates the evolution of our species enough to realise no fucking government can go about torturing or abusing people it *THINKS* might be guilty of whatever. Morons.

And fuck Michael Moore too the fat fuck. His gormless ass pisses me off. When is he going to bother trying to make a relevant point without wanking his ego off with his stupid gay (no offence Fes!) cap?

[Zaelath]

Now, before one of you flaps your lips with some shit about unrestricted bombing in German during WW2, or Hiroshima/Nagasaki etc perhaps you should read some history that is not assigned to you by Michael Moore.

Please point me to your revisionist history reference that explains how London, Dresden, Hiroshima, etc are military targets.

I'm also interested in reading some of your white supremacy pamphlets and perhaps the Billy Graham version of the bible.

[Kylere]

Now, before one of you flaps your lips with some shit about unrestricted bombing in German during WW2, or Hiroshima/Nagasaki etc perhaps you should read some history that is not assigned to you by Michael Moore.

Please point me to your revisionist history reference that explains how London, Dresden, Hiroshima, etc are military targets.

I'm also interested in reading some of your white supremacy pamphlets and perhaps the Billy Graham version of the bible.

Perhaps you are a clueless fuck who did not read my post except in the way it suited you, but London was something GERMANY initiated, not the US, Dresden was as a result of response to GERMAN actions by ENGLAND, and the US. Hiroshima/Nagasaki were alternatives to Tokyo both had military centers and were RESPONSE attacks to unrestrcited warfare practiced agains the US, China, the Phillpines, etc. It is glossed over now but Japan was one of the worst offenders of rules of war in the history of man, maybe you msised them using hundreds of thousands of chinese as experimental subjects, the Bataan Death March using Korean women as "pleasure" slaves, or the little thing called Pearl Harbor?

The US usually sinks towards the level of its opponents, but never goes as far down as them. There are always going to be rogue people who lose it and do stupid shit but the US has never organzied evil on the level of WW2 Germany, Japan, The Taliban, Al Quada, PLO, the IRA, The goverment of South Africa, Pol Pot, England in "pick a colony here", France in 'pick a colony here", Spain in "pick a colony here". The Soviets, The Chinese in Nepal, the Chinese in Tibet.

Only a fool would think even with the actions fo some very poor weekend warriors in Iraq that the US is ANYTHING like those we oppose. The only time to US has ever crossed that line was with the Natives in the US and Hawaii, and we were responding to the teaching and initial guidance of Europeans.

Europe for all of its high and mighty assumptions now has killed more people in the name of BS for more BS reasons that any other group on the planet.

Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it, and many of you show a complete inability to learn.

[Kylere]

I'm also interested in reading some of your white supremacy pamphlets and perhaps the Billy Graham version of the bible.

BTW Since I am not white, and I think Billy Graham is a moron who preaches outdated superstition I really think this is funny.

[Aruman]

Damn, i could have sword that Bin Ladens agenda was political.
Arent the US terrorists for dropping bombs they KNOW will also harm civilians?

Unfounded comments are nothing more than troll bait.

Oh, wait... this is a Hesten post... nothing new here... move along.

[VariaVespasa]

Ok on the rest of the japanese stuff, but I'm not actually sure how Pearl Harbor rates as one of the worst offenses... Purely military target, against a country that wasnt really paying attention. Granted it woulda been better if they hadnt screwed the pooch on getting their declaration of war delivered at the intended time rather than several hours late, but still, it was a daring strike in dangerous waters against purely military targets. Hardly an attrocity.

*hugs*
Varia

[Kylere]

Ok on the rest of the japanese stuff, but I'm not actually sure how Pearl Harbor rates as one of the worst offenses... Purely military target, against a country that wasnt really paying attention. Granted it woulda been better if they hadnt screwed the pooch on getting their declaration of war delivered at the intended time rather than several hours late, but still, it was a daring strike in dangerous waters against purely military targets. Hardly an attrocity.

*hugs*
Varia

Cool so we can attack and kill thousands without saying anything first and it is okay then, as long as we plan on declaring war?

[Nick]

I can't believe I am reading this fucking doublethink.

[Mplor]

Cool so we can attack and kill thousands without saying anything first and it is okay then, as long as we plan on declaring war?

Er, two things:

1 - We invaded all of Iraq without ever declaring war.

2 - Even if you count Bush's announced "deadline" as tantamount to a pre-scheduled declaration of war, the whole "Shock and Awe" bullshit jumped the gun on that deadline anyway - by more hours than Japan jumped the gun at Pearl Harbor, lol.

[Zaelath]

Now, before one of you flaps your lips with some shit about unrestricted bombing in German during WW2, or Hiroshima/Nagasaki etc perhaps you should read some history that is not assigned to you by Michael Moore.

Please point me to your revisionist history reference that explains how London, Dresden, Hiroshima, etc are military targets.

I'm also interested in reading some of your white supremacy pamphlets and perhaps the Billy Graham version of the bible.

Perhaps you are a clueless fuck who did not read my post except in the way it suited you, but London was something GERMANY initiated, not the US, Dresden was as a result of response to GERMAN actions by ENGLAND, and the US. Hiroshima/Nagasaki were alternatives to Tokyo both had military centers and were RESPONSE attacks to unrestrcited warfare practiced agains the US, China, the Phillpines, etc. It is glossed over now but Japan was one of the worst offenders of rules of war in the history of man, maybe you msised them using hundreds of thousands of chinese as experimental subjects, the Bataan Death March using Korean women as "pleasure" slaves, or the little thing called Pearl Harbor?

The US usually sinks towards the level of its opponents, but never goes as far down as them. There are always going to be rogue people who lose it and do stupid shit but the US has never organzied evil on the level of WW2 Germany, Japan, The Taliban, Al Quada, PLO, the IRA, The goverment of South Africa, Pol Pot, England in "pick a colony here", France in 'pick a colony here", Spain in "pick a colony here". The Soviets, The Chinese in Nepal, the Chinese in Tibet.

Only a fool would think even with the actions fo some very poor weekend warriors in Iraq that the US is ANYTHING like those we oppose. The only time to US has ever crossed that line was with the Natives in the US and Hawaii, and we were responding to the teaching and initial guidance of Europeans.

Europe for all of its high and mighty assumptions now has killed more people in the name of BS for more BS reasons that any other group on the planet.

Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it, and many of you show a complete inability to learn.

All that talky and no answer question!! Prefacing it with "clueless fuck" is about the only thing that differentiates you from a politician in the rambling discourse that follows.

And I know you don't consider yourself white, I just thought those three concepts went together very well; revisionist history, white supremacy, and the bible. It's all there, baby!

[Nick]

but the US has never organzied evil on the level of WW2 Germany, Japan, The Taliban, Al Quada, PLO, the IRA

The IRA? Get a fucking clue you moron.

[Kylere]

Cool so we can attack and kill thousands without saying anything first and it is okay then, as long as we plan on declaring war?

Er, two things:

1 - We invaded all of Iraq without ever declaring war.

2 - Even if you count Bush's announced "deadline" as tantamount to a pre-scheduled declaration of war, the whole "Shock and Awe" bullshit jumped the gun on that deadline anyway - by more hours than Japan jumped the gun at Pearl Harbor, lol.

Japan said nothing to us, even acted as if they were working to iprove trade the day before, no one can say we were playing footsies one day then attacking the next.

[Kylere]

but the US has never organzied evil on the level of WW2 Germany, Japan, The Taliban, Al Quada, PLO, the IRA

The IRA? Get a fucking clue you moron.

The IRA is a terrorist organization that intentionally targets civilians, within or beyond The Pale, on Eire or in England, this is still evil and still terrorism.