Bush Approves use of Torture

[MSgt]

He should have done something when intelligence reports were flowing in about Al Qaeda planning to use planes in a terrorist attack. Do you agree?

In his defense, the intel received from military analysts and the CIA regarding terrorism and the Middle East have always been ignored by our Presidents. 9/11 not only woke up America, but it woke up our government. All the military and the CIA could do was sit back and say "I told you so." To fight Islamic terrorism, we need to deal with the individual extremists as they appear and we need to allow this culture a hand up. There is no way you people can't see this. Here is an example of something closer to home.....

In an urban black neighborhood in a city, crime is rampant. Is crime a product of "black" people or is it a product of poverty and a lack of education in which those specific black people are raised in? To address the problem, should we deal with the symptoms (individual criminals) or help to lift this neighborhood out of poverty? This is what is ocurring in the Middle East, only instead of poverty being the issue, we see oppression.

But to answer your question in one word....yes.

 

[tryreading]

Grab a reporter. Show him ten neighborhoods where police have come down on crime. Out of those ten neighborhoods, say there is one that has not had a positive affect on police presence. What will the reporter focus on? What will sell more papers?

The "honor" of journalism barely exists anymore. With every new year to decade they continue to display more and more unproffesionalism and an almost desperate need to present the most horribly painted picture in every situation. There need to race to the event and "break" the story before the next camera crew that is on the way presents an opportunity to present half-assed facts and persuasive "stories." By the time the whole truth starts coming out, nobody is interested anymore.

I have no respect for the media - whatever the channel. That's my opinion.

Okay. What to do? We can't control them, not with law, that's crystal clear in the Constitution. Embarrassment works, as it did with Dan Rather, but the story has to stay in the public eye for a while, until the executives notice their anchor or reporter is a liability. If the story has to stay in the public eye, only the media can do that.

We are becoming more savvy, though, through the internet. The problem with that is the massive amount of misinformation online. When I see something on the web that doesn't seem right, I go to a 'name' site, like CNN, or FOX to check it out. So I'm back where I started. Lots of people get their info from talk radio, which is poison. The Democrats listen to their side, the Republicans listen to their side, and the show hosts are only preaching to the choir. Nobody learns about the other point of view, except from a slanted angle.

I think its best to stay well informed , from as many sources as possible, to stay current and have all the facts. Then we know how to weed out the useless.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
I'm not twisting anything. This is all from you. You have a reputation onthis site to undermine anything that has to do with America and the troops with a complete disregard for any understanding of the issues. "War is bad"...how profound.

I challenge you or anyone else in this forum to find any post of mine where I said those words. Or anything that looked like that was my point. "Undermine anything?" I'm probably the only one on this board that bothered to post some good pictures of our soldiers in Iraq actually helping people. But that's just bullshit pictures again, right? For what its worth, the people that think I have a "...complete disregard for any understanding..." could not tell you what my point was when they drew that conclusion. So, if they don't know my point, it is "they" that are the ones that are not understanding. You can't draw conclusions from something you do not know. And drawing them from what you perceive, does not count. Because that is more about them, than about me.

Originally posted by GySgt:
AGAIN..the reason I dismiss your statements is because it does not reflect anywhere near the majority. It's as simple as that.

That's why 100k showed up at my rally and only 400 showed up at yours. That's why all the polls indicate the opposite of what your stating. Your starting to sound like the Vancom Lady.

Originally posted by GySgt:
If I find a statement from a patient who had a negative response to chemotherapy, shall we discontinue chemotherapy?

No. But if we had many patients who had negative responses, we should investigate the doctors.

Originally posted by GySgt:
Your statements from "GI's" involve reservists who's free ride was disrupted and National Guard who would rather pretend then actually perform his duties. Any Active Duty statements are personal opinions. Count them all up and how many do you have? There are approxametly 900,000 Army and Marine personnel involved in the war. How many negative statements do you have?

The statements I have posted are just the tip of the iceberg. If you google any of these issues, you will find much more than what I post. You will also find things that I have chosen not to post. You accuse me of posting negative pictures, you should see some of the pictures I do not post that are floating around the web. Believe me, I'm doing you more of a favor than you know.

Originally posted by GySgt:
Things are as well as I and anyone else you dismiss have said.

Your dead wrong here. I've never dismissed anyone in this forum. I haven't even trashed anyone's sources in my rebuttals. Again, these are your words in your world.

Originally posted by GySgt:
You only focus on any explosion and any death. What's to deal about it? Do you need pictures of dead people and blown up buildings to know what war is? Like I said, you show me a statement of a person who lives there and I rebutted with three different sites that say's the opposite. None of it counts unless you have seen it for yourself and you are able to cipher through all of your anti-war and pascifist "can't we all just get along" web sites.

None of it counts? Again, this is prima facia evidence that you do not care about Iraqis. You can't tag this on me, these are your words:

"you show me a statement of a person who lives there..."
"None of it counts..."

And since you used the word 'none', it does not matter whether I chopped up your statement or not. None means none!

Originally posted by GySgt:
What you do is post comments and "facts" that are common sense.

Thank you.

Originally posted by GySgt:
They serve no purpose but to show people what war is and how unprofesional members of the U.S. Army and National Guard are.

That's what I've been saying from the beginning.

Originally posted by GySgt:
They serve as side distractions meant to disrupt progress. Nothing more.

Disrupt what? A crime in progress?

Originally posted by GySgt:
Are you speaking of the 100,000 that wouldn't know a terrorist if he lopped off their heads or the 100,000 that don't care about any of the issues, because they can't think beyond the surface facts? To them the terrorists are just a gang that needs arrested. The Middle East is a wonderful culture that preaches love, peace, and harmony with us infidels. Phhfff.

I'm speaking of a crowd that has 99,960 more people in attendance than your pro-war faction of fiction.

Originally posted by GySgt:
This is why you have no credibility.

....O' Dang!

Originally posted by GySgt:
75 percent? 300,000 displaced? More BS numbers you got from an exxagerating and lying web site or just completely made up numbers on you own?

Don't you wish!

Originally posted by GySgt:
What would you know about liberation except that it isn't worth it, because some people have to die? What do you even know about Fallujah? Let me tell you about Fallujah. The First Battle of Fallujah, in the spring of 2004, was an example of how to get it as wrong as you possibly can. We bragged that we were going to "clean up Dodge." And the Marines went in, tough and capable as ever. Then, just when the Marines were on the cusp of victory, they were called off, thanks to a brilliant, insidious and unscrupulous disinformation campaign waged by al-Jazeera and people like you that rushed to salivate over what it had to say. I was in Fallujah at the time, and the lies about American "atrocities" were stunning. But the lies worked, as people like you are proof of, and the Bush administration, to my shock and dismay, backed down.

The terrorists won First Fallujah. And for six months thereafter Fallujah was the world capital of terror--a terrorist city-state. It was evident to all of us who had served that we'd have to go back into Fallujah, but the administration--which I support--made the further error of waiting until after the presidential election to avoid casualties or embarrassments during the campaign. Well, fortunately, in the Second Battle of Fallujah, the Army and Marines realized they had to do it fast, before the media won again and the politicians caved in again. The military had been burned once and they were determined not to get burned again. And they did a stunning job--Second Fallujah was a model of how to take down a medium-size city.

Personnally, I like you. I think your basically, deep down, a good guy. But you are your own worst enemy. You just shot yourself in the foot. Just 15 sentences back, you said my numbers on Fallujia was "BS...an exaggeration...or made up lie..." then you turn around and say that what you did when you guys went in, "...was a model of how to take down a medium size city". I guess what I said wasn't so BS afterall.

Originally posted by GySgt:
Today, the media--with some noteworthy exceptions--are stooges of Islamist terrorists who, if they actually won, would butcher the journalists defending them. We should never go to war lightly, but if we must fight, we have to give it everything we've got and damn the global criticism and our own Amewrican haters. There's a straightforward maxim that applies: In warfare, if you're unwilling to pay the butcher's bill up front, you will pay it with compound interest in the end. What do you have to say about Fallujah? Oh yes.....here's a picture and some statements.

The problem is we weren't in a position where we had to fight.

Originally posted by GySgt:
"Party line?" What a joke. I believe I have always said what I have said. The "Party line" is finally responding to the military. Nothing of what I have said is new. It's only new to you, because you finally have a President that listens to his military instead of ignores them.

Think again. Your own generals were against Gonzales re-definition of Geneva Convention language. Your lacking body armour. And you get docked the days pay out of the month if you die in the middle of a pay period.

Originally posted by GySgt:
Balls? Courage? Honor? Give me a break. Yes, you are quite a "man" to admit when you are wrong. You do it a lot on this site. Almost as fast as you change your mind. I admit when I'm wrong just like everyone else. It doesn't happen often and on this site it's only happened once. This is the comfort I have from studying a subject or topic before I allow my "teared up" emotions to control my thinking. I wouldn't talk about my courage and honor while you sit on your ass and leach off of my blood and sweat.

We can continue this one tomorrow, when Chaney has his day of reckoning with the New York Times.

 

[MSgt]

Okay. What to do? We can't control them, not with law, that's crystal clear in the Constitution. Embarrassment works, as it did with Dan Rather, but the story has to stay in the public eye for a while, until the executives notice their anchor or reporter is a liability. If the story has to stay in the public eye, only the media can do that.

We are becoming more savvy, though, through the internet. The problem with that is the massive amount of misinformation online. When I see something on the web that doesn't seem right, I go to a 'name' site, like CNN, or FOX to check it out. So I'm back where I started. Lots of people get their info from talk radio, which is poison. The Democrats listen to their side, the Republicans listen to their side, and the show hosts are only preaching to the choir. Nobody learns about the other point of view, except from a slanted angle.

I think its best to stay as well informed as possible, from as many sources as possible, to be able to develop a good knowledge base and form opinions that are our own.

What do we do? I don't know. There's nothing that can be done. As long as people buy newspapers and tune into their favorite news channel, they will continue to make the news as entertaining as possible. I ignore them. They are rarely around Marines and when they are they are selectively chosen. They aren't welcome. Why do you think the public say's "soldier" and "Army" a lot more than they say "Marine"? It's because they see "Army" all over the news more than they see Marines. Plus the whole wealth of scandel that seems to always come from that branch, but anyways....

The news will make a fool out of you. It will make a fool out of me. This is why I speak from experience and study rather than what is shown in the news. I'll use a news "story" to base my comments around, but I will not center it on it. People don't like that I do that, because they cannot relate. But that's understandable....I don't like it when they speak about a news "story" and profess to know it all either.

 

[MSgt]

But you are your own worst enemy. You just shot yourself in the foot. Just 15 sentences back, you said my numbers on Fallujia was "BS...an exaggeration...or made up lie..." then you turn around and say that what you did when you guys went in, "...was a model of how to take down a medium size city". I guess what I said wasn't so BS afterall.


Think again. Your own generals were against Gonzales re-definition of Geneva Convention language. Your lacking body armour. And you get docked the days pay out of the month if you die in the middle of a pay period.

1) I comment on the proper way to take out a medium sized city and you, somehow, are able to find where this means that 75 percent of the city was destroyed and 300,000 Iraqis were displaced? Are you dillusional or just desperate to hide that you, once again, have thrown out numbers to paint your "doomsday" picture? Same old Billo...same old BS.

2) What does any of your last paragraph have to do with a "Party line?" What the hell are you talking about "lacking body armour." There is not one individual in Iraq that lacks body armor. More BS to paint your picture.

If you are desperatley hanging onto the ballistic plate issue that existed in 2003 (two and a half years ago)....let's hear what you think you know about it...

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
1) I comment on the proper way to take out a medium sized city ...

We have no further questions your Honor, the prosecution rests. You may excuse the witness.

 

[MSgt]

We have no further questions your Honor, the prosecution rests. You may excuse the witness.

?!?! I see you are resorting to form and running from your post after, once again, being called out for your BS.

I don't know why I even give people, who have absolutely no knowledge of military tactics or procedures, any time at all.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
?!?! I see you are resorting to form and running from your post after, once again, being called out for your BS.

I didn't go anywhere. If you want to do something, I'm right here!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
I don't know why I even give people, who have absolutely no knowledge of military tactics or procedures, any time at all.

Maybe its because I can teach potatoes to swim............the hard way!

 

[MSgt]

I didn't go anywhere. If you want to do something, I'm right here!

Post #732. Address it.

 

[MSgt]

Maybe its because I can teach potatoes to swim............the hard way!

Whatever that meant.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
Whatever that meant.

Nothing. That one meant absolutely nothing.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
Post #732. Address it.

I don't make anything up.

Falluja Residents Testify to the Destruction of Their City
By Michel Bôle-Richard Le Monde Monday 07 February 2005

Three months after the American offensive and capture of the Sunni bastion, barely 20% of the population has returned. Some residents survive in the ruins. The Red Crescent tries to help, while the Iraqi Army patrols and loots whatever remains.
Three months after the American offensive against Falluja that began November 8, 2004, the rebel city fifty kilometers west of Baghdad is devastated, emptied, sepulchral. "Like after an earthquake, a fire and bomb tsunami that spared practically nothing, not even the mosques," relates Sheikh Taghlib Al-Alousi, President of the Chura, the assembly of religious dignitaries.

The city with a hundred mosques is now only a shadow of its former self. "It's a tragedy! I cried about it like a child," explains the official from the Hazrah Mohammedia mosque, who has returned to what was once a Sunni bastion three times in the period since the end of the main fighting in early December.

Tears come to his eyes when he evokes the present condition of this city of 400,000 on the banks of the Euphrates. "Practically not a single house has been spared. 20% of them have burned and at least 10% are totally destroyed," asserts this engineer who denounces the massive American bombardments every time the Marines encountered any resistance.

Second Fallujah was a model of how to take down a medium-size city.
- GySgt on 10/24/05

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/38/8821

This is not how I want my freedom defended.

Many Missteps Tied to Delay in Armor for Troops in Iraq
By Michael Moss The New York Times Monday 07 March 2005

The war in Iraq was hardly a month old in April 2003 when an Army general in charge of equipping soldiers with protective gear threw the brakes on buying bulletproof vests.

The general, Richard A. Cody, who led a Pentagon group called the Army Strategic Planning Board, had been told by supply chiefs that the combat troops already had all the armor they needed, according to Army officials and records from the board's meetings. Some 50,000 other American soldiers, who were not on the front lines of battle, could do without.

In the following weeks, as Iraqi snipers and suicide bombers stepped up deadly attacks, often directed at those very soldiers behind the front lines, General Cody realized the Army's mistake and did an about-face. On May 15, 2003, he ordered the budget office to buy all the bulletproof vests it could, according to an Army report. He would give one to every soldier, "regardless of duty position."

But the delays were only beginning. The initial misstep, as well as other previously undisclosed problems, show that the Pentagon's difficulties in shielding troops and their vehicles with armor have been far more extensive and intractable than officials have acknowledged, according to government officials, contractors and Defense Department records.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/9444/printer

Like I said, I don't make anything up.

 

[mixedmedia]

Who called you weak? There are thirds world countries that are too weak to defend themeselves or have the ability to overthrow their dictators. But, if ever sentence MUST pertain to you than so be it. Kind of egotistical.

And by weak, I do not just mean people who are unable to protect themselves, but also people who refuse to protect themselves or simply wish others to commit violence on their behalf.

Who are these people "refusing to protect themselves or simply wishing others to commit violence on their behalf" that you are defining as weak? I interpreted this as someone like myself which is why you posted the damn thing in the first place, right?

I will be the last to say that I am person free from the illusions of ego, GySgt, but come on, coming from you? Pulease.

 

[Billo_Really]

Well, well, well, Washington has finally come out and officially said they should be allowed to torture people. What a sick bunch of people we have elected to represent us. Americans, we should all be ashamed at what we have done.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102402051.html

 

[Binary_Digit]

This is the same administration that promised to put "values" back in the White House. I guess torturing people to death is not as immoral as cheating on your wife. Fascist scum is running our country. What other proof do you need than this?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

But to answer your question in one word....yes.

Wow we agree on something :lol: When Bush was elected into office I was hoping that he would be better than Clinton and respond to the terrorist attacks during the Clinton era before the same people struck us again and use the intelligence we had to prevent attacks. Unfortunatley he was no different than Clinton in those two areas until we had a few teeth knocked out and 3000 people dead. However, after the attack he did respond and I'm sure Clinton would have too when faced with such a catastrophe. I believe that the war in Afghanistan was the right thing to do but the war in Iraq..no. I don't believe the war in Iraq to be vital to our national security especially with present threats in the world. Bush and I differ on what is best for this country.

 

[SixStringHero]

Wow we agree on something :lol: When Bush was elected into office I was hoping that he would be better than Clinton and respond to the terrorist attacks during the Clinton era before the same people struck us again and use the intelligence we had to prevent attacks. Unfortunatley he was no different than Clinton in those two areas until we had a few teeth knocked out and 3000 people dead. However, after the attack he did respond and I'm sure Clinton would have too when faced with such a catastrophe. I believe that the war in Afghanistan was the right thing to do but the war in Iraq..no. I don't believe the war in Iraq to be vital to our national security especially with present threats in the world. Bush and I differ on what is best for this country.

It's both administrations fault that 9/11 happened. It just so happens that Clinton had 8 years to do something about the increasing problem of terrorism and Bush had 9 months.

 

[mixedmedia]

Wow we agree on something :lol: When Bush was elected into office I was hoping that he would be better than Clinton and respond to the terrorist attacks during the Clinton era before the same people struck us again and use the intelligence we had to prevent attacks. Unfortunatley he was no different than Clinton in those two areas until we had a few teeth knocked out and 3000 people dead. However, after the attack he did respond and I'm sure Clinton would have too when faced with such a catastrophe. I believe that the war in Afghanistan was the right thing to do but the war in Iraq..no. I don't believe the war in Iraq to be vital to our national security especially with present threats in the world. Bush and I differ on what is best for this country.

What do you think is best for this country?

 

[SKILMATIC]

Re:

Bush Approves use of Torture

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

WOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

HALELUJAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

:applaud :2party: :clap:

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

It's both administrations fault that 9/11 happened. It just so happens that Clinton had 8 years to do something about the increasing problem of terrorism and Bush had 9 months.

Bush had 9 months to respond to the attacks under the Clinton administration. Bush had 9 months to act on intelligence that Al Qaeda was planning on using planes in a terrorist attack. Bush did nothing. You can't blame Clinton for 9/11 because the intelligence about Al Qaeda using planes in a terrorist attack surfaced during the Bush administration. You can blame Clinton for not being more aggressive against Al Qaeda.

What do you think is best for this country?

Foreign policy which incorporates the interests of our national security, international law, and the court of world opinion. The U.S. is drifting towards isolationism and impericism and it is not a good thing.

 

[mixedmedia]

Foreign policy which incorporates the interests of our national security, international law, and the court of world opinion. The U.S. is drifting towards isolationism and impericism and it is not a good thing.

Right. And history has proven to be not so kind to imperialists, either in achievement or reputation.

And, of course - how could I forget - in survival.

 

[tryreading]

Bush had 9 months to respond to the attacks under the Clinton administration. Bush had 9 months to act on intelligence that Al Qaeda was planning on using...

[/QUOTE=SixStringHero] It's both administrations fault that 9/11 happened. It just so happens that Clinton had 8 years to do something about the increasing problem of terrorism and Bush had 9 months.[/QUOTE]


Not much was done by Clinton, and the same would have been done by Bush if it weren't for the World Trade Center destruction. If the attempted bombing of the Twin Towers in 1993 had been successful, Clinton would have had to coordinate an attack similar to what we did in late 2001. There would be no massive war on terrorism today without 9/11/01, only sporadic covert actions against Bin Ladin and his kind.

 

[mixedmedia]

Not much was done by Clinton, and the same would have been done by Bush if it weren't for the World Trade Center destruction. If the attempted bombing of the Twin Towers in 1993 had been successful, Clinton would have had to coordinate an attack similar to what we did in late 2001. There would be no massive war on terrorism today without 9/11/01, only sporadic covert actions against Bin Ladin and his kind.

Hello neighbor.

This administration would still have made overtures about invading Iraq, several of the key players on Bush's team are on record pushing for this war since Desert Storm. But without 9/11, of course it would have been a much harder sell to the American people. Would they have succeeded? 9/11 was a tragedy in so many ways.

 

[mixedmedia]

But would the Bush administration have been compelled to wage a "War on Terrorism"? Hell no.