US Army Intel Specialist Admits Torture in Iraq; Marines, Navy SEALS also Torturing

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
Why not abandon this juvenile Rambo talk and be sensible for a change?

What is it with all this pseudo-tough talk?

Why don't you abandon this juvenile hand wringing about methods when you're *****ed upon about the entirety of the war? Especially when you can't even get the technical details right?

If you are going to start a war based on non-existent weapons, because these non-existent weapons were pretty nasty battlefield munitions like mustard gas, and are eeee-vil, then you better not use other weapons in a way that produces an even worse effect than the ones you thought were evil.

The grunts in question didn't start the war. They had a well-entrenched and determined enemy who had operated in the area for months. They used legal, operationally effective means to kill the enemy.

Saying that they aren't "officially" chemical weapons is just sophistical if the results are much the same.

It's not only hypocritical, but it's stupid policy because you'll look like cretins if it is made public.

The results are nowhere near the same, let alone "much" the same.

I've said if before and I'll say it again. People who defend that war and any of the morons that started it are flogging a dead horse. You lost a long time ago. Now you are just humiliating yourselves.

Who's defending the war? I was opposed to it from the beginning, but I'm not naive to think that we can ever successfully back away from these mother****ers. The nationalists, tribal and factional fighters will be a non-issue once we've left, but the Islamists will be trying to reach out and kill us as long as there's one of them left alive anywhere.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun


YEAH! That is exactly what Boris and the others are arguing for! To shake their hands and give them daisies!



Come on, MTG.

Then what exactly are they *****ed up about? Or would you rather Fallujah still be a major staging area for insurgent fighters, and under their operational control? Face up, war is about killing the enemy, unless they back down.

[Odin]

All this *****ing in this thread misses the point. what matters is not if WP is a chemical weapon or not, what matters is how people in the Arab world THINK about it. This has just eroded any moral high ground he had over Saddam even further. So, congratulations, US millitary. You guys just made the people there hate us even more. *sarcasm*

[MichaeltheGreat]

The ones who hate us enough to do anything about it, hated us already.

The others won't particularly give a **** if we offed their buddies or relatives with 155 HE fires, well aimed small arms fire, HMGs, mortars, or if we prepped them with a little WP then used HE.

"Moral high ground" is a concept for western fops. It doesn't apply there.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Why don't you abandon this juvenile hand wringing about methods when you're *****ed upon about the entirety of the war? Especially when you can't even get the technical details right?

Because I and others like me have been completely proven right so far.

The grunts in question didn't start the war. They had a well-entrenched and determined enemy who had operated in the area for months. They used legal, operationally effective means to kill the enemy.

Standard military gobbledigook IMHO.

The results are nowhere near the same, let alone "much" the same.

I'm sorry I don't really have much of a preference how I am burned to death.

Who's defending the war? I was opposed to it from the beginning, but I'm not naive to think that we can ever successfully back away from these mother****ers. The nationalists, tribal and factional fighters will be a non-issue once we've left, but the Islamists will be trying to reach out and kill us as long as there's one of them left alive anywhere.

They're putzes who got lucky once. More people die from auto accidents than terrorism. This whole war is ridiculous political theatre.

Odin

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
Because I and others like me have been completely proven right so far.

Standard military gobbledigook IMHO.

I'm sorry I don't really have much of a preference how I am burned to death.

Then when the Army or USMC come, you better run.

They're putzes who got lucky once. More people die from auto accidents than terrorism. This whole war is ridiculous political theatre.

They're persistent putzes with a long term view of the world which doesn't have room for you.

[Boris Godunov]

It appears the methods do indeed matter, depending on who is employing them. From the DoD:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_22431050_91r.html

IRAQ'S POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL
WEAPONS -- IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES'
OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR
STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL
CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL
TO
PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE
PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE
POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN
BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI
BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ. THE WP CHEMICAL WAS DELIVERED BY
ARTILLERY ROUNDS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS

So let me get this straight:

Saddam tortures people: very bad, he's evil.
The U.S. tortures people: It's all for the good of our country.

Saddam uses WP against enemies: they're chemical weapons, he's very bad , he's evil.
The U.S. uses WP against enemies: they're not chemical weapons, there's no problem, it's all part of waging war.

And we wonder why our reputation around the world is in the toilet.

Wake up, folks: It's not about splitting legal hairs, it's about our image and ability to lead. Nobody will ever trust us again after this debacle.

[Ted Striker]

Boris = 100% correct


I'd also add on how we're the only country to ever use nuclear weapons.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Boris = 100% correct


I'd also add on how we're the only country to ever use nuclear weapons.

Not that I have unquestioning, uber-faith that our decision to use nukes during World War II was absolutely right, but to be fair we did only use nukes twice in our 50+ years of having the weaponry.


How many more times would less stable or more unbalanced nations would have used nukes??

[Ted Striker]

We seem to be pretty good at waging war over the past 50 years so "unbalanced" is relative in this equation.


During the Cuban Missle crises one of the Russian subs one of the captains was supposedly giving orders to launch but was overridden by one of his officers commanders, who we should all thank for saving us from Armageddon.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
We seem to be pretty good at waging war over the past 50 years so "unbalanced" is relative in this equation.


During the Cuban Missle crises one of the Russian subs was given orders to launch but was overridden by one of the sub commanders, who we should all thank for saving us from Armageddon.

I know -- we got our hands washed in blood several times in Latin American countries to establish dicta . . . . er, "democracies" but I was focusing on the history of use of nukes.

[Ted Striker]

It's a good argument but on the other hand the whole, "we're the only ones who are safe enough to use them," thing doesn't look to good to me, espcially when trying to make the point to other nations.

Also alot of people in power are still pushing for the development and use of tactical nukes, especially regarding the bunker busters.

Then there is the derivative issue of depleted uranium weapons.


I'd say a good start would be to cut our nuke stockpile in half. Certainly having this many nukes doesn't give us any significant tactical or strategic advantage, other than being able to blow up the world 10 times over as opposed to 5 times over.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
It's a good argument but on the other hand the whole, "we're the only ones who are safe enough to use them," thing doesn't look to good to me, espcially when trying to make the point to other nations.

Also alot of people in power are still pushing for the development and use of tactical nukes, especially regarding the bunker busters.

Then there is the derivative issue of depleted uranium weapons.


I'd say a good start would be to cut our nuke stockpile in half. Certainly having this many nukes doesn't give us any significant tactical or strategic advantage, other than being able to blow up the world 10 times over as opposed to 5 times over.

Good point -- I will elect you then.

Just don't get it twisted once you're elected.

[Ted Striker]

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

Then there is the derivative issue of depleted uranium weapons.

to be fair, the reason DU is bad is not because of radiation, but because it's a heavy metal, Uranium is not that radioactive.