Military: No Gitmo guard abuse evident

[BRUCE]

Tell me about.  Sad that people take such pleasure in bad news about our country and our military. 

Especially ones like RN - who makes a point of wishing harm upon our brave forces, as I've shown above.

[240 is Back]

beach bum continues to try to tie me to positions that i already clarified, for purpose of smearing.




welcome to the ACLU, buddy!

[BRUCE]

beach bum continues to try to tie me to positions that i already clarified, for purpose of smearing.




welcome to the ACLU, buddy!

What position, Rob?

[Deedee]

Torture has always been part and parcel of conducting war, not like it's anything new to be outraged about.  All civilized, westernized countries engage in it. What's happening today is no different from any of the activities other countries employed to obtain information in the last 100 hundred years. This man below wrote a book about his work in the area of torture and execution in Algeria. Apparently he was an early advocate of water torture, and said it was the most inexpensive and effective torture he had ever employed. The eye thing is a little disconcerting, but he looks kind of grandfatherly, doesn't he?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1675992.stm


This is boring and academic, but details the why's and how's of torture and explains why the lower ranks were often encouraged to engage in it. Apparently, the SS also preferred to spare their higher ranking officers from the more atrocious aspects of torture. In any event, this sounds like a summary of the last four years.

http://www.mfo.ac.uk/uk/publications_uk/lecturereports_uk/branche_uk.htm

[Dos Equis]

What position, Rob?

*crickets*

[240 is Back]

Beach,

My pet whale is sick.  He's sneezing and is stuffed up.

Next week, when you tell the class you're a marine biologist, can you diagnose him?  thanks bro!

[ribonucleic]

Interesting you would make this comment in defence of a brave soldier, Ribonucleic, in light of this post:

And your participation on such matters is deemed so worthy here, considering this comment you made on dead Aussie soldier’s (Private Jake Kovco) family:

You smug fool.

I wouldn't think it necessary to remind you that you're the one who's been beating their breast bloody about the noble sacrifices of the soldiers, etc. So I thought I would give you one who has called bullshit on the whole enterprise.

Now you're in a spot of difficulty, aren't you. At this point it's a given that you can't rebut anything he has to say. And you won't be able to slur your way out by impugning his patriotism. So you start whining about "long and boring", "left wing rag", how much I suck, etc. Not a very impressive showing for your side.

For future reference, you can proceed on the assumption that all my threads will be just like this one. I don't need your permission to post them and could care less whether you like it or not. So if you choose to visit them, you'll have no one but yourself to blame for any affront they cause you.

Have a nice day. 

[BRUCE]

I wouldn't think it necessary to remind you that you're the one who's been beating their breast bloody about the noble sacrifices of the soldiers, etc. So I thought I would give you one who has called bullshit on the whole enterprise.

Now you're in a spot of difficulty, aren't you. At this point it's a given that you can't rebut anything he has to say. And you won't be able to slur your way out by impugning his patriotism. So you start whining about "long and boring", "left wing rag", how much I suck, etc. Not a very impressive showing for your side.

For future reference, you can proceed on the assumption that all my threads will be just like this one. I don't need your permission to post them and could care less whether you like it or not. So if you choose to visit them, you'll have no one but yourself to blame for any affront they cause you.

Have a nice day. 

This, I assume, means you already 'care' to a degree, no?  Nice rant, by the way.  I suppose the irony of you, who wants our soldiers dead, posting a testimony of one, and then accusing me of acting inappropriately towards them is lost on your feeble mind.

[ribonucleic]

This, I assume, means you already 'care' to a degree, no?  Nice rant, by the way.  I suppose the irony of you, who wants our soldiers dead, posting a testimony of one, and then accusing me of acting inappropriately towards them is lost on your feeble mind.

Nice slur. Keep repeating it often enough and.... well, you'll have repeated it a lot.

What I said is that I want our side to lose. My preferred method would be declare defeat and leave before anyone else is killed - on either side.

Have a nice day. 

[BRUCE]

Nice slur. Keep repeating it often enough and.... well, you'll have repeated it a lot.

What I said is that I want our side to lose. My preferred method would be declare defeat and leave before anyone else is killed - on either side.

Have a nice day. 

Why slur, when I can just quote you:

And you're absolutely right on the central point: I want us to lose.  Did you think I would deny it - or be embarrassed by the accusation? Far from it.

You're god-damned right I want us to lose.

And you then claim you don't want anyone to die in the process?  Get real, you're a terrorist supporter.  Don't have a nice day, week, month, year or life until you wake up.

[Dos Equis]

What I said is that I want our side to lose. My preferred method would be declare defeat and leave before anyone else is killed - on either side.

Have a nice day. 

   That's sick. 

[ribonucleic]

  That's sick. 

Now this interests me...

What exactly do you find "sick" in that post, Bum? That no more Iraqis get killed? I can see how that might spoil your sport. But "sick" seems a little extreme.

No, I think that you find declaring defeat the "sick" part. "These colors never run!", etc. Well, I hate to tell you this - but defeat is exactly what we're looking at. Or are you going to try discrediting James Baker as a rabid left-winger?

Call it something else if it will salve your pride - "redeployment", "Vietnamization", whatever. I won't care - and neither will the Iraqis.

[BRUCE]

Now this interests me...

What exactly do you find "sick" in that post, Bum? That no more Iraqis get killed? I can see how that might spoil your sport. But "sick" seems a little extreme.

No, I think that you find declaring defeat the "sick" part. "These colors never run!", etc. Well, I hate to tell you this - but defeat is exactly what we're looking at. Or are you going to try discrediting James Baker as a rabid left-winger?

Call it something else if it will salve your pride - "redeployment", "Vietnamization", whatever. I won't care - and neither will the Iraqis.

Don't you realise you forfeited your right to moralise on such matters after you posted this?

And you're absolutely right on the central point: I want us to lose.  Did you think I would deny it - or be embarrassed by the accusation? Far from it.

You're god-damned right I want us to lose.

[trab]

These Islmo Fascists want to kill ALL INFIDELS! That means all of us. How can anyone defend them? They like to do shit like skin  people alive guys.  The Russians called in suicide airstrikes on top of themselves as a better way to check out than capture by those animals. Get something better to do with your bleeding heart energy than defend them. That mindset endangers us all.

[ribonucleic]

Don't you realise you forfeited your right to moralise on such matters after you posted this?

Poor BRUCE... still waiting to be acknowledged as some kind of authority.... 

I know it's tomorrow where you are... but you're going to have to wait a lot longer than that. 

[BRUCE]

Poor BRUCE... still waiting to be acknowledged as some kind of authority.... 

I know it's tomorrow where you are... but you're going to have to wait a lot longer than that. 

Whereas you just hope to be acknowledged as a serious contributor here.  I know it's yesterday there, but your opinions are as archaic as your typical Islamicists living conditions.

[240 is Back]

The Russians called in suicide airstrikes on top of themselves as a better way to check out than capture by those animals.

wow, that's an interesting fact I did not know.  Very interesting.  Do you have more to share from the Ruskie/afghan conflict?  Interesting.

[Dos Equis]

Now this interests me...

What exactly do you find "sick" in that post, Bum? That no more Iraqis get killed? I can see how that might spoil your sport. But "sick" seems a little extreme.

No, I think that you find declaring defeat the "sick" part. "These colors never run!", etc. Well, I hate to tell you this - but defeat is exactly what we're looking at. Or are you going to try discrediting James Baker as a rabid left-winger?

Call it something else if it will salve your pride - "redeployment", "Vietnamization", whatever. I won't care - and neither will the Iraqis.

lol.  Obviously rhetorical questions, because you attempted to answer for me.  

I consider this sick:  "What I said is that I want our side to lose."  Losing means we suffer additional and greater causalities.  Very unpatriotic thing to wish for too.  

[240 is Back]

your opinions are as archaic

Did Baker really say we're looking at defeat?

If so, does that mean baker's views on it are archaic as well?

I haven't read the Iraqi Report in whole.  I know it was half repubs, half dems.

What was their consensus about our prospects there?

[240 is Back]

Losing means we suffer additional and greater causalities.

Not necessarily true. 

We could order every troop out tomorrow and chances are, every one of them could get out of the country without being killed.  Certainly "greater casualties" wouldn't occur on our end.

'Losing' is defined as some as retreating before winning.  Please define 'losing' as you see it, and tell us why your definition dwarfs others'.

[ribonucleic]

Do you have more to share from the Ruskie/afghan conflict?

Well, you see, the Russians were the Bad Guys then. [We didn't like Iran either, but the Russians were downright Pure Evil.] So Uncle Ronnie, probably during one of his Oval Office naps, came up with the idea of giving guns to the native resistance fighters. The only problem is that they decided to become the Taliban later. Ronnie didn't see that one coming. So then we had to send in the military to get those guns back.

Kind of ironic, isn't it!

[240 is Back]

Well, you see, the Russians were the Bad Guys then. [We didn't like Iran either, but the Russians were downright Pure Evil.] So Uncle Ronnie, probably during one of his Oval Office naps, came up with the idea of giving guns to the native resistance fighters. The only problem is that they decided to become the Taliban later. Ronnie didn't see that one coming. So then we had to send in the military to get those guns back.

I see.

I think we can all agree that the governor of Arkansas at the time should be held accountable for this.

[ribonucleic]

Did Baker really say we're looking at defeat?

If so, does that mean baker's views on it are archaic as well?

I haven't read the Iraqi Report in whole.  I know it was half repubs, half dems.

What was their consensus about our prospects there?

I think their exact words were "grave and deteriorating". Which I think of as Defeat swinging some bats in the on-deck circle...

And the Council on Foreign Relations had this cheery outlook to add...

"The crisis has now moved beyond the capacity of Washington to control on its own... The United States lacks the military resources and the domestic and international political support to master the situation... Even if the United States had the abundant ground forces and reconstruction teams necessary, it is not clear that the situation in Iraq today is retrievable.”

http://www.cfr.org/publication/12577/

[Dos Equis]

Not necessarily true. 

We could order every troop out tomorrow and chances are, every one of them could get out of the country without being killed.  Certainly "greater casualties" wouldn't occur on our end.

'Losing' is defined as some as retreating before winning.  Please define 'losing' as you see it, and tell us why your definition dwarfs others'.

I've already defined what losing means.  You just made up your definition.  Regardless of when we withdraw, there will most likely not be some mass exodus with zero casualties.  That is unrealistic.  It will likely be gradual.  

One of the things that happens when you "lose" a war is you take significant casualties.  Ribo would love that.  I wouldn't.  

  

[ribonucleic]

I think we can all agree that the governor of Arkansas at the time should be held accountable for this.

No, Clinton is the assigned scapegoat for the failures of Bush Senior.

The failures of Reagan are assigned to Jimmy Carter.

Hope this helps.