Abu Ghraib since the Americans left
 

Tortured screams ring out as Iraqis take over Abu Ghraib

(sarcasm on)Oh good, we are leaving Iraq to the Iraqis.(sarcasm off)

The good news: nobody is having panties put on their head any more.

The bad news: it's hot irons now.

The good news: International Red Cross doesn't have anything bad to say about it.

The bad news: They're not allowed in.

Lets give the family members of the prisoners the names and addresses of those who forced the early handover. Now we just wait for the groups involved to wash their hands of the whole deal and pat themselves on the back for preventing another incident of US imperialism. Makes me want to puke.

The problem with monday morning quarterbacking is that it is always easy to see when to get the hell out of Dodge.

What do you do when the borders are clsoed and you can't move?

It's all fucked. fucky fucky fucky fucked.

fucked.

So, its alright if Iraqis torture Iraqis? Um...isn't that one of the reasons that we went there in the first place? To stop that shit? Well, that and all those WMDs. Thank goodness we don't have to worry about those anymore.

Hmmmm...so the west went in, blew up a fair bit of the landscape and now they've left and nothing has changed? How surprising!

Yup, they're determined to keep torturing and killing each other. Also a big suprise!

Yeah, but the winner then gets to decide who to send to torture and kill everyone else all over the world. Plenty of fun for everyone.

Not our problem.

You mean, except for the fact that we're responsible, right?

And how do you fathom that? They inflamatory groups use religeon more than policy examples. They were bombing our assets back when most of the Arab world was our ally against the Soviets.

Let's see...we invaded, and then dismantled the social and economic structures preventing the various sects from doing exactly this. And then, just because, we didn't replace the structures that prevented the sects from this kind of behavior.
When you were a kid, and you broke someone else's toys, weren't you required to somehow make amends? Well guess what? We broke a country, and now we're responsible.

"meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

At least it's not Americans doing it.
Is it right? No.
.Could we prevent it? Maybe by running their prisons for eternity, but that's not our job.
Did we start it? No, we gave the Iraqis a short repreive (naked human pyramids, threatening dogs, waterboarding notwithstanding), and now it's back to good old Sharia.
Will there be reprisals against Americans for this? There better fucking not be.
:2cents:

And your point is? What they do, we can do better?

I have no idea. I can't make any sense of it.

I dunno either. I still like to think we invaders are more good guy than bad guy. Perhaps it helps our cause's pr that bad guys are really really really bad. But still, dead is dead. One man's overzealous naked interrogation is another man's ethnic cleansing.

Note: It wasn't Sharia under Saddam. He tortured people for political or petty personal reasons, not religious.

Point taken. Back to pre-Saddam?

1) The torture in Iraq must stop*
2) The check is in the mail
3) We won't come in your mouth

*The torture in other countires who are playing ball with us or have nothing that we are interested in, may continue.

You're not supposed to crack jokes on serious threads foot!

It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it.

Let's quantify your analysis of good and bad. Sudan's government has just ordered the African Union out of Darfur. Sudan's military is reported massing for a final assault on Darfur. Where is your attitude? If you (we) are so good, then what do you recommend we do? Of course, being the good guy and responsible, you knew this well reported story. So what do you recommend we do? How 'good' are you?

This is not a 'yes' or 'no' question. Question is chock full of perspectives. So tell me - what does the good person recommend in Darfur where genocide makes terrorist attacks trivial in numbers. What does the good person do?

You have to laugh if you don't want to scream.

Wolf: Thanks. It seems to me you've been slacking in this dept. so I'm trying to cover for you.:p

What? Coming in your mouth?

The US military will get right on that! We'll send in troops....what?...they're all busy?....can we send...?.... that's the only available?....Ok - we'll send in Jerry Lewis, The Harlem Globetrotters, 6,000 beanie babies, a fifth of Old Yeller boubon, and Yul Bryner's corpse. That'll show those ethnic cleansers a thing or two!

Perhapes we should send in the troops that are still stationed around the pacific from treaties and agreements left over from WW2. It's over, that was 60 years ago, we've moved on to other things.

I am not an expert on Dafur, and dont pretend to be.
But I suppose you start with being truly concerned, as you are. I also think goodness is generally found in compassion, a value of human rights. From that stance, strive to understand the range of perspectives, dont squander our assets, form the strategies, articulate the missions, make the hard decisions, act, analyze, respond, adjust...

Perhaps that is too mamby pamby for the hawks here, or too accomodating of the US for those who are decidedly cynical.

For a quick read on the global insta-goodness meter:
Can I own property and not be property?
Can I learn to read?
Does the government condone my beating for any reason?
If my husband throws acid on me, is he convicted of a crime?
Will the government kill me because of the spelling of my last name?

Comparatively, the US is scoring well, not perfectly, sliping on some questions, that's a concern.

Don't be silly, there's no oil there.:rolleyes:

But we can't....terrorists are everywhere. :right:

Ahhhh! Terror! Run! Hide! Stick my head in the sand! Then they can't see me!

Well we can't protect 'everywhere', just where we can find them. We found lots in the Middle East and very few (who want to attack the US) around the pacific. Where are the professional soldiers though? We keep hearing about Guard units being asked to do yet another rotation in Iraq, but we have a standing army of almost 500,000 in the Army alone (not including AF and Navy). Current levels in Iraq are ~120,000, 48,000 of which are NG. What are we doing with the other 452,000 troops we've got?

Right, we've ousted one of the only secular leaders in the region, and replaced him with democracy so that the survivors can elect religious nutjobs into office, and then the actual terrorism can really begin!

Unlike the troops in Iraq, they're protecting American interests. :rolleyes:

It sounds good. It is one basis on which to make decisions. One problem though. There is no such thing as good and evil. xoxoxoBruce more closely answered reality: America is not that self centered and self serving as others might assume from Bruce's response. But don't fool yourself for one minute. Our George Jr administration is that self serving. After all, how many world wide insults and how many weeks did it take before the US take - with a complete carrier battlegroup even next door in Hong Kong - to respond as a million were dying after a Tsunami?

There was neither oil nor American interests in the Balkans. And yet Americans, with leaders using a different agenda, did respond. Moreso, Americans responded with proper restraint - without a kneejerk or 'big dic' reaction.

Don't assume I have an emotional concern for Darfur. I have a strictly technical and hard core response to Darfur as I had - for same reasons - to Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Afghanistan. I don't see any good or evil. I see perspectives - which neither an extremist Democrat nor Republican will understand. But the point of my question was about evil in some places. And yet we don't see evil in Darfur with Sudanese troops now massing for genocide? (Watch Kofi Anon to see if this genocide occurs.)

Ironic that those so protective of zygote life don't give damn about genocide to a million living creatures in Darfur. Are they righteous - or do they simply blindly manipulate weak minded (extremist) Americans to promote their perspectives - a self serving agenda?

First, for every troop on the lines, something like 9 others do support functions. Some of those support functions are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Others are in a very long (expensive) supply line.

There are other commitments such as less than 20,000 (?) in Korea. Troops essential in Guam and Japan for a war with China. Navy forces all over the world. A long chain of bases and troops from Bulgaria to the K'stans preparing bases for the invasion of Iran. Nuclear deterrent forces. Remember, America is now the world's policeman whether you like it or not.

Not all active duty troops are fully trained or equipped. Some active duty units (and guard units) have been depleted of equipment for action in Iraq which is taking a massive toll on first line equipment and on transport aircraft.

Remember the repeated speculations for a draft? The general in charge of Guard made that point over one year ago. The Guard is suffering tremendously because we have no time and resources to train and not enough equipment to equip all units. This is why major powers that want to stay strong are reluctant to get into any war - why the smoking gun is so necessary.

You really don't want to be that close to my teeth.

:lol2: wait...ouch :eek: *just thinking about it*

Well, before it was a dictatorship, with him alone torturing pretty much anybody. Now it's a democracy so anyone can torture anyone. Anyone that says that isn't progress is with the Terrorists.