Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moncal)
    I don't remember our single minded media ever mentioning anything about the U.S. All I heard was that they wanted south Korea to pull out. South Korea is an independent country. We don't make their decisions for them.

    1. The guy was a translator working with American companies in Iraq
    2. Iraq would not have been invaded had it not been for the USA, and therefore he would not ahve been there, unless you think maybe South Korea would have gone it alone
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    1. The guy was a translator working with American companies in Iraq
    2. Iraq would not have been invaded had it not been for the USA, and therefore he would not ahve been there, unless you think maybe South Korea would have gone it alone

    Iraq would not have been invaded if it had not been for Sadam Hussein and his dictatorial ways. Then you have to consider that they had a part in 9/11.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    They are above that behavior. We had 15-16 soldiers behaving in an inappropriate manner, but this does not make all of the American soldiers barbaric, as you seem to be implying. Remember, we have about 140,000 troops there.

    Nowhere have I yet made this suggestion, although you have to queston whether all soldiers would be as stupid to take photos whilst they abuse detainees, and of course, there is currently no evidence that abuse was taking place to this extent at other facilites, it can in no way be ruled out,perhaps, other troops decided not to take photographs of it - although this is merely speculation

    ohh and 'inappropriate manner' eating with your mouth open is inappropriate, sodomizing some with a light fighting probably deserves slightly stronger language.

    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    The matter is being investigated and I can assure you that those that are responsible for this will be punished.
    You mean the troops themesleves will be punished whilst the Bush administration (who are responsible for the armed forces) itself wll come out smelling of roses....look at the poll most people think that the event was so severe that it deserved the resignation of an influential member of the Bush Adminastration...not merely the court martialling of a couple of squaddies.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    You mean the troops themesleves will be punished whilst the Bush administration (who are responsible for the armed forces) itself wll come out smelling of roses....look at the poll most people think that the event was so severe that it deserved the resignation of an influential member of the Bush Adminastration...not merely the court martialling of a couple of squaddies.
    Somehow you forget to count the fact that most people who voted in that poll AREN'T American tax payers. Furthermore, the only people I recognized,at a glance, as Americans voted "no, the situation has been treated with the severity it deserved".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moncal)
    Iraq would not have been invaded if it had not been for Sadam Hussein and his dictatorial ways. Then you have to consider that they had a part in 9/11.
    Kim Jong-il (North Korea)
    King Fahd and Prince Abdullah (Saudi Arabia)
    Charles Taylor (Liberia) ( in power at the time of the invasion)
    Than Shwe (former Burma, now Myanmar)
    Teodoro Obiang Nguema (Equatorial Guinea)
    Saparmurat Niyazov (Turkmenistan)
    Muammar Gaddafi (Libya)
    Fidel Castro (Cuba)
    Alexander Lukashenko (Belarus)

    a few dictators to start with...are their countries next???

    How many iraqies were in the planes on 9/11, and even if there were terrorist cells operatng in iraq pre war it is believed that Al Qaeda have cells in over 60 countries and definately have in

    Algeria
    Egypt
    Morocco
    Turkey
    Jordan
    Tajikistan
    Uzbekistan
    Syria
    Xinjiang in China
    Pakistan
    Bangladesh
    Malaysia
    Myanmar
    Indonesia
    Mindanao in the Philippines
    Lebanon
    Iraq
    Saudi Arabia
    Kuwait
    Bahrain
    Yemen
    Libya
    Tunisia
    Bosnia
    Kosovo
    Chechnya
    Dagestan
    Jammu and Kashmri
    Sudan
    Somalia
    Kenya
    Tanzania
    Azerbaijan
    Eritrea
    Uganda
    Ethiopia
    and also in parts of the West Bank and Gaza.

    so are all of these countries/regions going to be invaded as well then??

    from http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/usa/Al_Queda.htm
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe they will be. Am I president? Do I have a say in who we invade? Do they deserve to be invaded? Maybe, how do their dictators treat them?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moncal)
    Somehow you forget to count the fact that most people who voted in that poll AREN'T American tax payers.
    No I didnt as I did not see the relevance, the US governemnt as the most powerful in the world and the major aggressor in the middle east must be accountable to more than the American Tax payer. surely if you are going to critisce the validity of the poll you're point is initself wrong....if theres only a few Americans voting in the poll it doesnt therefore mean that this is what Amercan Tax payers believe.

    (Original post by moncal)
    Furthermore, the only people I recognized,at a glance, as Americans voted "no, the situation has been treated with the severity it deserved".
    surely if you are going to critisce the validity of the poll you're point is initself wrong....if theres only a few Americans voting in the poll it doesnt therefore mean that this is what Amercan Tax payers believe.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moncal)
    Maybe they will be. Am I president? Do I have a say in who we invade? Do they deserve to be invaded? Maybe, how do their dictators treat them?
    Need I say more...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    No I didnt as I did not see the relevance, the US governemnt as the most powerful in the world and the major aggressor in the middle east must be accountable to more than the American Tax payer. surely if you are going to critisce the validity of the poll you're point is initself wrong....if theres only a few Americans voting in the poll it doesnt therefore mean that this is what Amercan Tax payers believe.



    surely if you are going to critisce the validity of the poll you're point is initself wrong....if theres only a few Americans voting in the poll it doesnt therefore mean that this is what Amercan Tax payers believe.
    Well, I would consider myself an average american tax payer and that is what I believe. Plus, your point is pointless because this is UKL. United Kingdom. Where are you going to find a buch of Americans on a Uk website? Your claim to deserve a say in what my government does is alarming. Do I have a right to tell your government what to do?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moncal)
    your point is pointless because this is UKL. United Kingdom. Where are you going to find a buch of Americans on a Uk website?
    You're not, that does not mean that people from the UK should not be able to say whether they believe that someone should resign, It's called free speech surely you'd know that?

    (Original post by moncal)
    Your claim to deserve a say in what my government does is alarming. Do I have a right to tell your government what to do?
    Governments, particualry, one that has such massive influence over other countries are accountable for its actons within those countries, and no you don't have the right to tell my governement what to do, but you have a right to say what you think they should do, and if my government influenced your life then they would be accountable for it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    You're not, that does not mean that people from the UK should not be able to say whether they believe that someone should resign, It's called free speech surely you'd know that?
    Free speech does not exist on a message board. Everything is reviewed by censors and thus speech is not free. If there was a no mods allowed forum on this board then free speech would exist.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moncal)
    Free speech does not exist on a message board. Everything is reviewed by censors and thus speech is not free. If there was a no mods allowed forum on this board then free speech would exist.
    Free speech is, 'the right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations'

    the moderators act on an interpretaton of those, 'reasonable limitations' therefore creating freedom of speech on these mesage boards
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moncal)
    Iraq would not have been invaded if it had not been for Sadam Hussein and his dictatorial ways. Then you have to consider that they had a part in 9/11.
    Iraq had no part whatsoever in 9/11.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Iraq had no part whatsoever in 9/11.
    I know I couldnt be bothered to get into the argument with Moncal - they're argument now seems to be based on the fact that Iraq could have in the future provded stuff for terrorists - theres no evidence of it but they could have - stupid argument (we should invade Luxembourg next cos potentially some time in the future they could maybe in some ways possibly if they wanted to and if they have them hidden away in some garage give them to terrorists - who knows what known unknowns there are in luxembourg!!!)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    One part of the report says,

    6. (S) I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

    k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;
    i was unaware that having sex with someone now constituted rape. i appreciate the assessment you make but, i personally, will not call rape until it is defined or shown to be such.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MadNatSci)
    Actually....

    "REGARDING PART ONE OF THE INVESTIGATION, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF FACT:

    ....

    6. (S) I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

    ....

    k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;"


    Of course I guess you could argue that it was consensual. Yerss.
    im very much aware of that detail, and you cant argue either way, it is a personal assessment to harbour. what you can argue is, to assert that such a report 'confirmed' rape, is clearly inaccurate.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    I know I couldnt be bothered to get into the argument with Moncal - they're argument now seems to be based on the fact that Iraq could have in the future provded stuff for terrorists - theres no evidence of it but they could have - stupid argument (we should invade Luxembourg next cos potentially some time in the future they could maybe in some ways possibly if they wanted to and if they have them hidden away in some garage give them to terrorists - who knows what known unknowns there are in luxembourg!!!)
    Indeed. They seem to ignore the fact that the proven links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda are along the same lines of the proven links between the IRA and the British Government - which is to say they exist as there was dialogue between the two, but to suggest collusion between Saddam and Osama when the two despised each other is just as legitimate a claim as that of Thatcher colluding with Gerry Adams. The claim rests on a technicality and is used to mislead the public as to the nature of the 'link.'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    They could gripe about the beheading of Kim Sun-il. I have a feeling that the media will cover his beheading for one day and then go back to rehashing stories on Abu Gahrib again
    well the french papers had Paul Johnson at Page 10 and the Korean doesnt get near a headline in Libèration this morning. instead, the release of Bill Clinton's 'My Life' is evidently more appealing....well, anything to help the democrat cause, right?

    as Sullivan points out: Never averse to presenting the other side in dealing with terrorists who behead innocent civilians, the BBC had this to say about South Koreans' views of yesterday's atrocity and the policy implications:

    "The South Korean troops to be deployed in Iraq are due to be involved in humanitarian and rebuilding work, and the area they are to be based in, near Kurdish-controlled Irbil, has been largely peaceful. But the BBC's Charles Scanlon in Seoul says that internet chat sites suggest a majority of Koreans believe their troops should not be taking part in what they see as an immoral occupation."

    Ah the scientific polling of the BBC. Anything to promote the idea that a war against terror and fascism is futile.

    Indeed, when it comes to political commentary by the back door, nobody does it better.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    ....on the whole we thought the American miltary or 'liberators' were above such behaviour
    retraction...immeadiately.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    1. The guy was a translator working with American companies in Iraq
    2. Iraq would not have been invaded had it not been for the USA, and therefore he would not ahve been there, unless you think maybe South Korea would have gone it alone
    please assure me you are not trying to lay the blame for the death of this man at the door of the US.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.