Chota, what you’re doing is equating the tortuous acts committed by some soldiers to the invasion of Iraq by coalition forces, as if they were the same thing which clearly they are not. The goal of invading Iraq was to remove Saddam, secure it, and rebuild it into a self functioning free nation. You asked why we (those who supported overthrowing Saddam) are shocked (and in contrast to what you say the majority of the world is shocked) at the atrocities committed by some U.S. soldiers and the answer is quite simple; this isn't how America does things, this isn't what America represents but rather this is what America fights against, that’s why there is shock in the U.S., that is why there is shock worldwide.
You again you try to distort the truth by saying ridding Rumsfeld would just be a ‘scape-goating’ act, this couldn't be further from the truth. The U.S. is not going to prosecuting a few dozen soldiers and be done with this matter; this will be a process of who did it, why did it occur, who knew about, and what can be done to assure the U.S. public as well as the world that these acts never occur again.
Underthedome
You seem to be living in cloud cuckoo land. America has turned numerous blind eyes to dictatorships, has funded dictatorships and quite clearly supports anyone or anything that it can control. America is not some sort of moral high ground keeper that overlooks the world.
Iraq was free and secure, well before the sanctions. Your country orchestrated the demise of Iraq which commenced with the invasion of Kuwait, sanctions, false allegations of 9/11 connection, lies of WMD, oil and revenge for big pappa!. It was a catalogue of events that were planned many moons ago. I know it's hard for you to swallow, but just rub your eyes.
The issue with Saddam was nothing to do with the reasons you and Bush gave. The reality was that a President who had revenge on the top of his agenda should never of been voted in. This was the most dangerous move any democracy could of made. However, what posessed the gullible Americans to vote this way seems to be a mystery, if not a down right stupidity.
The abusing soldiers are not a minority but a majority. It's just that they've been caught red handed. You have been doing these types of things for donkeys years. Between 1824 and 1951 there were over 300 events classified as “White Race Riots” in which entire white communities turned on Black Americans and destroyed entire Black communities and murdered Blacks in mass. There were 26 such major events in major cities across the US during the summer of 1919 alone!
You also need to look at NY draft riot of 1863, New Orleans 1866, Colfax 1873, Washington 1919, Kirven 1922 and the list goes on and on and on.
Yes, the Iraqi's are people of colour and the American abusers are white! Like it or not, that's the Truth I'm afraid.
No I’m simply living in the reality which the United States is the worlds lone Super Power who has been given the responsibility to secure the world when the UN fails to do so. Do changes need to be made so that the international community can be more involved? Absolutely, but this fault does not simply lie with the U.S.
I'm not going to debate the past doings of the United States here, there have been wrongs but there have been positives, hence the mass appeal of America.
I've made my case on why Saddam had to be taken down many times on Gup so I needn't bother doing so in this thread, you may disagree with my assessments but I have yet seen a concrete argument against them.
You state that "abusing soldiers are not a minority but a majority" that is like someone stating that all Muslims are terrorists based on the actions of a few (in relative terms). It was after all a white American solider who turned in the photos.
You bring in the race card here which is odd. The U.S. has made great strives when it comes to promoting and supporting diversity and while there are still those who hate persons whether they’re Black, Jewish, or non-blue eyed they are a minority and when compared to the rest of the world the U.S. leads in protecting and fighting for the rights of minorities. More can be done in America and in every country.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sholay: *
Underthedome
You seem to be living in cloud cuckoo land. America has turned numerous blind eyes to dictatorships, has funded dictatorships and quite clearly supports anyone or anything that it can control. America is not some sort of moral high ground keeper that overlooks the world.
Iraq was free and secure, well before the sanctions. Your country orchestrated the demise of Iraq which commenced with the invasion of Kuwait, sanctions, false allegations of 9/11 connection, lies of WMD, oil and revenge for big pappa!. It was a catalogue of events that were planned many moons ago. I know it's hard for you to swallow, but just rub your eyes.
The issue with Saddam was nothing to do with the reasons you and Bush gave. The reality was that a President who had revenge on the top of his agenda should never of been voted in. This was the most dangerous move any democracy could of made. However, what posessed the gullible Americans to vote this way seems to be a mystery, if not a down right stupidity.
The abusing soldiers are not a minority but a majority. It's just that they've been caught red handed. You have been doing these types of things for donkeys years. Between 1824 and 1951 there were over 300 events classified as “White Race Riots” in which entire white communities turned on Black Americans and destroyed entire Black communities and murdered Blacks in mass. There were 26 such major events in major cities across the US during the summer of 1919 alone!
You also need to look at NY draft riot of 1863, New Orleans 1866, Colfax 1873, Washington 1919, Kirven 1922 and the list goes on and on and on.
Yes, the Iraqi's are people of colour and the American abusers are white! Like it or not, that's the Truth I'm afraid.
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely he should resign.
Or be coerced into resigning.
Have you read this story?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-10-abuse-cover_x.htm
- Bush himself in early 2002 had ruled that terror suspects in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo would not be covered by Geneva Convention protections, though Rumsfeld said they would be treated humanely. *
And of course they thought about possible reprecussions toward Americans when this policy was decided?
Not covered by Geneva Convention protections?
Is that sick or what?
Is that even American?
Just look at the cheek of Rumsfeld going to Iraq, and visiting the American torture prison at Abu Ghraib - he has no shame?
Of course he should go, along with the whole Bush regime!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
Just look at the cheek of Rumsfeld going to Iraq, and visiting the American torture prison at Abu Ghraib - he has no shame?
Of course he should go, along with the whole Bush regime!
[/QUOTE]
I think political ploy visiting Iraq.
In my thinking once Bush administration made the decision that some idividuals were not subject to Geneva Conventions.......
...made a decision which is against the very core values the U.S. of America established itself upon.
When they made that decision...
Intentional or not...
Call it trickle down....
Call it not making clear definitons
Are responsible for what happend at Abu Gahrib.
What were they thinking? How can one encourage democracy in a country... yet selectively behave democratically?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PurelyAvgGirl: *
I think political ploy visiting Iraq.
In my thinking once Bush administration made the decision that some idividuals were not subject to Geneva Conventions.......
...made a decision which is against the very core values the U.S. of America established itself upon.
When they made that decision...
Intentional or not...
Call it trickle down....
Call it not making clear definitons
Are responsible for what happend at Abu Gahrib.
What were they thinking? How can one encourage democracy in a country... yet selectively behave democratically?
[/QUOTE]
They are selective democrats, and selective human rights champions i.e. when it supports their expanionist aims. Otherwise they are no better (or worse) than the Saddam regime, which many Iraqi people are now saying.