Don't get mad, it's for our troops

POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Sunday, May 16, 2004 12:45
VIEWED: 14196
PAGE 2 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

GINOBIFFARONI

Sunday, May 9, 2004 4:02 PM

The only things Rumsfeld can be held accountable for

1. Was once the allegations came to light, did the chain of command investigate and rectify the issue in a timely manner ?

2. Was there a cover up or an attempted cover up ?

As to point one, John McCain was just being interviewed on TV, and according to him the allegations have been around for a year.... They have been made not only by the International Red Cross and Amesty International, but also by Colin Powell, Paul Bremer, and some un-named sources within the Military chain of command.

Were these ignored completely and the problem allowed to continue? And if so where did that order come from ?

Point Two will only be answered once point one is........

" Thats not fair !!!!
I didn't even have a soul when I did that!"

ROCKETJOCK

Sunday, May 9, 2004 9:27 PM

Headline from the Contra Costa Times 5/8/2004:
Rumsfeld takes responsibility for prison abuse, won't resign

I'm reminded of the words celebrity impressionist David Frye put in Richard Nixon's mouth about thirty-two years ago:

I accept responsibilty for the Watergate break-ins. But not the blame. Let me explain the difference: People who are responsible keep their jobs; people who are to blame do not."

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

"You can't enslave a free man. The most you can do is kill him." -- Robert A. Heinlein

HERO

Monday, May 10, 2004 3:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
But true freedom would also include the right to reject

" Your Truth, Your justice and Your American Way. "
B]

In the beginning all the world was America.

I think people need to understand that American ideals are not the sole property of those of us living in the United States. If the freedom is the natural state of Man, then those truths we hold to be self evident must apply to all Mankind.

This country, this governemt has never claimed perfection. We claim only to be "more perfect". We recognize the importence of truth and justice. We seek to protect them and provide them to our people. Just who are "our people"? The answer is everyone, everywhere. The whole world has come here, every nation, every culture, every religion, has come to share in our vision. Sure we have our faults and bumps, but together we get by, we build, rebuild, and move foreward. That is the American Way.

Do we have the right to inflict our ways on other nations?

Yes. Why?

Because the birthright of every child is liberty, not a suicide jacket. Every woman is born with the ability and God given right to be an equal to all, not a slave to men. Because rape, torture, and abuse are crimes, not instruments of government. Because instruments of mass destruction and terror are too dangerous to be left in the hands of those who would use them.

Can you imagine where we'd be if our great experiment had simply failed. A world of slaves and tyrants locked in a cycle of war each more devestating then the last.

Where's the hope in that?

H

GINOBIFFARONI

Monday, May 10, 2004 4:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

In the beginning all the world was America.

I think people need to understand that American ideals are not the sole property of those of us living in the United States. If the freedom is the natural state of Man, then those truths we hold to be self evident must apply to all Mankind.

I would suggest your present government and the original framers of your constitution would find themselves having serious issues...

Quote:

This country, this government has never claimed perfection. We claim only to be "more perfect". We recognize the importence of truth and justice. We seek to protect them and provide them to our people. Just who are "our people"? The answer is everyone, everywhere. The whole world has come here, every nation, every culture, every religion, has come to share in our vision. Sure we have our faults and bumps, but together we get by, we build, rebuild, and move foreward. That is the American Way.

But that could be said of many countries, some who step it even further. If your statements were the truth, then why are so many opposed to your actions?, if Truth and Justice are what you seek then why reject the Scrutiny of the International Criminal Court?

Quote:

Do we have the right to inflict our ways on other nations?

Yes. Why?

Because the birthright of every child is liberty, not a suicide jacket. Every woman is born with the ability and God given right to be an equal to all, not a slave to men. Because rape, torture, and abuse are crimes, not instruments of government.

Not long ago your government debated the use of torture as a instrument of government, some of your troops seem to do it on their own, and many feel that your country ( by its words and acts ) is trying to place itself above all anothers - not exist as equals

Quote:

Because instruments of mass destruction and terror are too dangerous to be left in the hands of those who would use them.

So far the US has been the only ones to use them, and the one who has threatened the use of them the most. I can understand wanting to have them to use as a deterent against the US

Quote:

Can you imagine where we'd be if our great experiment had simply failed. A world of slaves and tyrants locked in a cycle of war each more devestating then the last.

Has it really suceeded ? Or have you evolved from slaves to tyrants by proxy. The British stepped in and ruled their colonys directly, placed their military forces in place to enforce their laws and dominated the areas economicly. The only difference I see is America now likes to stick a local regime into power and pull the strings from the background while preaching words like freedom and liberty while their acts remove any meaning the words once had...

Quote:

Where's the hope in that?

A fair question, if your troops came to my country though, I would fight.

" Thats not fair !!!!
I didn't even have a soul when I did that!"

SERGEANTX

Monday, May 10, 2004 6:25 AM

Does anyone else here pretty much skip over any post that quotes another, line by line, meticulously deconstructing it in painstaking detail? I don't want to be a complete ass, but it's just such an obnoxious and overused form of online discourse. If it is indeed discourse. It's usually just a set up for thinly disguised straw man retorts. Plus, it wears out my scroll wheel.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

HKCAVALIER

Monday, May 10, 2004 7:30 AM

They seem to go hand in hand with the overlong manifestos which they rebut.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SHINY

Monday, May 10, 2004 4:20 PM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=2&u=/nm/20040510
/pl_nm/iraq_abuse_rumsfeld_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The independent Army Times newspaper, read widely in the U.S. military, on Monday suggested Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon (news - web sites) civilian and military leaders should be removed over the Iraq (news - web sites) prisoner abuse scandal.

"This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential -- even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war," the private weekly newspaper said in an editorial.

Please help Haken keep this site running by occasionally clicking on some of the sponsored ad links on the side of the page!

RUXTON

Monday, May 10, 2004 4:53 PM

The responsibility goes right to the top. Bush, and we must assume he knew, is ultimately responsible. Rumsfeld will almost certainly go, as a scapegoat for Bush. Bush needs to let him go, in an attempt to show the country he's taking really serious action. However, just as Bush apologized too late, any action against Rumsfeld at this point will be seen as happening too late. At this point, too many people realize the immense and ongoing failures of this administration for it to persist. (Vote for Kucinich.)

The world sees this once-shining country now as a dim bulb growing dimmer by the day, and the only way to attempt to rectify the damage (which many say is impossible) would be to clean house in Washington. Yet many, worldwide, realize that won't really accomplish anything because the corruption is far too rampant.

.......Ruxton

GUNRUNNER

Monday, May 10, 2004 5:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:
Quote:
Because instruments of mass destruction and terror are too dangerous to be left in the hands of those who would use them.

So far the US has been the only ones to use them, and the one who has threatened the use of them the most. I can understand wanting to have them to use as a deterent against the US

Actually several nations have used WMDs during war. The US use of the A-Bomb in WWII, the Iraqi use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war and to suppress insurgents after the 1st gulf war, and the Soviets used of chemical weapons against Afghani/Foreign forces in the caves of Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation are just a few of the well known instances.

The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME