Topic: The Disaster Of Iraq - Enough Is Enough! (Read 12649 times)

Demosthenes · « **Reply #25 on:** May 12, 2004, 03:10:29 PM »

Nothing that requires the violation of individual rights is "necessary".

The ends do not justify the means. That IS the issue.

As I mentioned, I think a lot of things are necessary too... military, roads, schools, just to name a few.

I don't have a problem paying for them.

I DO have a problem being FORCED to pay for them. I DO have a problem FORCING OTHERS to pay for them.

The initiation of force on individuals precludes any society from being a civilized one.

Law · « **Reply #26 on:** May 12, 2004, 03:20:50 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

Just to head off what I know is coming, the "if you don't like it, get out" argument is just as invalid here as it is when the Religious Conservative Right claims that people that don't like living in a "Christian nation" can get out as well.

Uh, you have not, nor will you ever, hear that argument pass my lips.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #27 on:** May 12, 2004, 03:27:53 PM »

I didn't mean to imply anything there, dude. Just covering all the bases.... that's the usual response I get. I'm glad you don't fall into the "usual crowd" where that goes.

Anonymous · « **Reply #28 on:** May 12, 2004, 03:42:44 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

I DO have a problem being FORCED to pay for them. I DO have a problem FORCING OTHERS to pay for them.

But how can it be voluntary? Is there a way to say if you pay taxes you can reap the benefits of the things you mentioned above while if you don't pay, you're on your own and you use those benefits? I don't think so. And what about those individual rights you care for so much? Does it mean that if you refuse to pay taxes, there's no one around to enforce those rights available to you? Suppose you choose not to pay taxes and you want to sue someone because they did something that goes against your rights. Unless you want a system where you'll have to do everything on your own, like pay a the salary of a judge when you take his time, pay a fee to use the courthouse, pay for the prosecutor, etc, then the only other option is to have the government provide these services to you.

I understand what you mean when you say it's not right to be forced. But the alternative would create more problems. If you have a better solution, by all means post it. But you can't split a country in two and have half the comunity being amish like and the other half being what ever the hell it is we are.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #29 on:** May 12, 2004, 03:42:59 PM »

I'd like to respond to this in greater detail.

Quote from: TheJudge

Taxation is theft? That's a little strong. Like law said, taxation is necessary for a country to function.

That's very debatable.

Quote

Theft is when something is taken from you against your consent. So if you want to be literal then yes taxation is theft for a lot of people. I pay taxes with consent. To me taxation isn't theft. Like everyone else, I often don't like how my tax money is being spent, but that is a seperate issue.

When I had an operation not long ago, I didn't get a bill when I was done. I got 12 years of education without a bill. Yes, taxes are taken from us and we cannot avoid them. There are laws to force us to pay taxes. But we are getting it back every day. When you drive to work or anywhere else, how do you think that pavement ended up there? Someone paid for the raoads you drive one and for the bridges you cross.

There are other ways of paying for things that don't involve the use of force.

Quote

It's those "robbers" that took money from every single paycheck you earned. So is it really theft when in the end you are enjoying the benefits?

It is when no choice is given about it.

If a group of bullies takes your school week's worth of milk money on the playground, but gives you three days' worth of juice (even though you didn't necessarily want juice), you'd still be wronged, even though you "benefitted" from the exchange.

Except for the fact that you're down two days' worth of milk money and you're sitting on three juice boxes that you didn't ask for.

What it boils down to is allowing individuals decide for themselves what they need, and for individuals to decide for themselves what they have is "excess" and what to do with that excess if they choose to.

Anyone who argues in favour of using force to redistribute wealth "for the good of the whole" waives their right to argue from a position of morality, in my opinion. That position nullifies it.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #30 on:** May 12, 2004, 03:59:46 PM »

Quote from: TheJudge

Quote from: Demosthenes
I DO have a problem being FORCED to pay for them. I DO have a problem FORCING OTHERS to pay for them.

But how can it be voluntary? Is there a way to say if you pay taxes you can reap the benefits of the things you mentioned above while if you don't pay, you're on your own and you use those benefits?

Don't put people in a position where they have no CHOICE to "benefit" and the solution is a bit simpler.

I've used this example before; I'm sure you've seen it.

The city in which I used to live has a system of city-run trash pickup. All residents are required by law to have their trash picked up only by the city trash trucks. Contracting with any of the six or seven independent vendors that operate in the area is punishable by steep city fines.

Proponents (mostly on the city council... not very many people in general in that city are in favour of this system because it's expensive, inefficient, and very poorly executed, and it gives people no choice) always argue "but the trash MUST be picked up! And EVERYONE benefits from it!".

Never stopping to think for even a second that there is no reason whatsoever that the city HAS to be the sole entity to perform such a necessary function.

Don't forcibly pick peoples' trash up in this city, and you won't have people benefitting from it that don't want to pay for it.

Let people decide for themselves and it will still be done, and they'll have a choice about it and nothing to bitch about.

Besides... if the system were so great to begin with, why do they feel the need to FORCE people to use it via a retarded city ordinance?

I'll tell you the real reason: because the city includes the ridiculously high revenue from this expensive "service" (that EVERYONE benefits from

) in their budget and they don't want to find another source of revenue, and the concept of decreasing the already inflated, out-of-control budget is totally out of the question.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time going into practical examples of other ways the government can butt out of forcing people to benefit from "necessary" functions that can be performed in myriad other ways; it's easy enough for you to extrapolate from this example and see it as a metaphor for "government DOING" for people what their own choices and options can "DO" for themselves.

Think for just a second about things the government does that are NECESSARY FUNCTIONS that can be done in other ways.

Most of those other ways are cheaper to individuals and more efficient as well. And they don't involve the use of force to pay for them or to utilize them.

Quote

I don't think so. And what about those individual rights you care for so much? Does it mean that if you refuse to pay taxes, there's no one around to enforce those rights available to you?

Nowhere did I ever say that I wanted "NO" government. I just want a government small enough to fit inside the Constitution.

If you restrict the government to its legitimate roles, it's a heck of a lot easier to pay for when we're not paying billions of dollars to fight other peoples' wars, pay for other peoples' problems, line the pockets of corporate pigs at the government trough, and pay for political favors in a system that has become so corrupt and self-serving as to totally detach itself from accountability and realistic representation of any constituency.

And there are many ways of paying for such a minimal State that don't involve force.

Quote

Suppose you choose not to pay taxes and you want to sue someone because they did something that goes against your rights. Unless you want a system where you'll have to do everything on your own, like pay a the salary of a judge when you take his time, pay a fee to use the courthouse, pay for the prosecutor, etc, then the only other option is to have the government provide these services to you.

We don't need to get into all the excruciating details, but if the shoe fits...

I highly recommend reading Robert A. Heinlein's classic novel "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress".

That's precisely how justice works in the society presented in that book, and there are some pretty interesting ideas of other kinds that he "tries out" in his work. I'm not necessarily saying that something as simple as what Heinlein presents can work in the real world, but I am saying that other options should be considered before condemning everyone to living under the thumb of force to pay for EVERYTHING.

And again, if it were just restricted to that (which I consider to be a very legitimate role of government, no question), I wouldn't have nearly as many problems with taxation to pay for it, even though much of it can be conceivably paid for by other means.

Quote

I understand what you mean when you say it's not right to be forced. But the alternative would create more problems. If you have a better solution, by all means post it. But you can't split a country in two and have half the comunity being amish like and the other half being what ever the hell it is we are.

Actually, the burden of coming up with the solution isn't really mine... I'm just pointing out the rights that are being violated.

I say, if you want something done by the government, fine. Just find a way to pay for it without using force to do so. There are plenty of options available that don't have to involve taxation.

And my point isn't about practicality anyway... my point is that what you see as "necessary" still doesn't justify harming some in order to provide "benefit" to others or even ALL.

Find another way. Anything else, and we've made no progress towards civilization, and great strides away from it. Utilitarianist arguments say nothing to me but "the mob has spoken, we NEED, so we TAKE".

And that's not how I see things. I see nothing wrong with doing things that benefit society as a whole... but individuals come first. Society second. And I don't see it as impossible to do things with those priorities in mind.

Neither did the founding fathers. Idealistic? Damn straight. I won't deny that. The very concept of "rights" is an ideal.

And in my opinion, it's the only really legitimate approach to society. Any other approach has only one logical conclusion, and it relegates the rights of the individual to far, far below the hungry, writhing, grasping, naked FORCE of the mob that is society.

And that is no better than where we came from. Society taking private property by force to use for its own benefit -- even if individuals benefit as a possible result -- is the "might" of the masses making "right" by virtue of force and justification in need.

That's just a little too "law of the jungle" for me. I like to think we've advanced to well past "might makes right", but if anything, we're devolving back towards it.

Anonymous · « **Reply #31 on:** May 12, 2004, 04:17:51 PM »

I have a question about your garbage truck example. The city forces you to use that service so they can profit from it. OK so really, that's no different than taxation. They force you to do something in order to acquire funds to fund other public services (in principle at least).

But reading your example, the frustrations you express seem to revolve around the fact that the city is running this service like idiots. There are better service providers out there who are more efficient yet you can't use them. That's frustrating because that basic choice is denied to you.

Now suppose the city ran things very efficiently and the revenues would be pumped back into various municipal services. Suppose for an momment that this was a textbook operation where there's no corruption and everything is just 100% efficient. No one else on the planet could do it better. You are still denied your choice of dealing with someone else for your garbage disposal needs, but would you care as much? Are you more angered by the fact that incompetant arrogant corrupted idiots run the show or by the fact that you can't make the choice?

Demosthenes · « **Reply #32 on:** May 12, 2004, 04:23:36 PM »

Quote from: TheJudge

I have a question about your garbage truck example. The city forces you to use that service so they can profit from it. OK so really, that's no different than taxation. They force you to do something in order to acquire funds to fund other public services (in principle at least).

That's essentially it. They make enough to cover the basic operating costs required by the trash pickup itself, and they use the HUGE excess of revenue that they generate to pay for other pet projects. They also keep some of the excess aside in case they need it to pay for extra city plowing or anything else that goes over-budget for that year.

It's funny, but no matter what, there is never any excess left over at the end of the year though. They always find something on which to spend it.

Quote

But reading your example, the frustrations you express seem to revolve around the fact that the city is running this service like idiots. There are better service providers out there who are more efficient yet you can't use them. That's frustrating because that basic choice is denied to you.

Bingo. CHOICE goes a long way.

Quote

Now suppose the city ran things very efficiently and the revenues would be pumped back into various municipal services. Suppose for an momment that this was a textbook operation where there's no corruption and everything is just 100% efficient. No one else on the planet could do it better. You are still denied your choice of dealing with someone else for your garbage disposal needs, but would you care as much? Are you more angered by the fact that incompetant arrogant corrupted idiots run the show or by the fact that you can't make the choice?

If it were that good, they wouldn't NEED to force people to use it.

The way I see it, there is not one conceivable reason they should have to force people to use this system.

If it's cheaper than private alternatives, more efficient, provides better service in every way, then there is no way the private trash vendors in this area would get the business. If it were truly that much better in all ways, people would choose it based on those merits over other alternatives in an overwhelming majority and the revenue would be there without the need to force people to pay for it.

And if the city trash pickup system is NOT cheaper, more efficient or more effective, and can't compete with the private equivalents, then it doesn't deserve to exist, and CERTAINLY should not be the only option available by law no less.

That's despicable.

Keep in mind now, I don't mean this to be the be-all-end-all example of government versus private alternatives. As an example it lacks in a lot of aspects that other services and functions that government serves that it falls flat on being 100% analagous to.

But it's a great metaphor in general and that's why I bring it up. WHY must it be forced? WHY do they disallow all alternatives?

Whom does disallowing choices really serve? The greater good? Individual citizens? Or the city council itself?

Those questions should be asked more often, on a much larger scale, by a lot more people.

Anonymous · « **Reply #33 on:** May 12, 2004, 04:44:07 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

Quote
Now suppose the city ran things very efficiently and the revenues would be pumped back into various municipal services. Suppose for an momment that this was a textbook operation where there's no corruption and everything is just 100% efficient. No one else on the planet could do it better. You are still denied your choice of dealing with someone else for your garbage disposal needs, but would you care as much? Are you more angered by the fact that incompetant arrogant corrupted idiots run the show or by the fact that you can't make the choice?

If it were that good, they wouldn't NEED to force people to use it.

The way I see it, there is not one conceivable reason they should have to force people to use this system.

The conceivable reason is that the picture I painted above is not realistic. The city, or other forms of goverment need money to function. I'm sure we all agree on that. But they can't be the most effecient at everything. They can't be experts in all areas. So they pass these laws to ensure their survival. To ensure the cash comes rolling in.

Quote from: Demosthenes

And if the city trash pickup system is NOT cheaper, more efficient or more effective, and can't compete with the private equivalents, then it doesn't deserve to exist, and CERTAINLY should not be the only option available by law no less.

That's despicable.

It is despicable. I agree. But they have to do this to survive (in theory). I recognise a lot of money is being thrown away constantly. I work for the government. It's scarry. But still, if you take that away, they still need funding from somewhere. And it always comes from some form of legislated taxation (direct or indirect).

Demosthenes · « **Reply #34 on:** May 12, 2004, 04:46:07 PM »

Quote from: TheJudge

The conceivable reason is that the picture I painted above is not realistic. The city, or other forms of goverment need money to function. I'm sure we all agree on that. But they can't be the most effecient at everything. They can't be experts in all areas. So they pass these laws to ensure their survival. To ensure the cash comes rolling in.

And I say that that does not justify the use of force against individuals. The "survival" of the city government's ability to pick up trash and plow the city streets is far, far less important than the rights of its citizens to decide for themselves what to do with their property.

The city does not have to be the only entity to perform those functions. Remove those functions -- any of which can be easily, effortlessly performed by other means -- and it doesn't NEED that kind of revenue.

The city government here was not established to corner the local market on trash pickup. That is not a legitimate role for it to take.

Nor is creating a legal monopoly on street plowing.

Nor is the recent several-million-dollar purchase of a local dump of a theatre (which had been owned by several money-bleeding businesses prior to the city's purchase of it). The city is not in the theatre business. Revenue of this theatre managed by private entities in recent years has always been far less than the cost of operation, which was why it was never a successful enterprise.

But never fear... the city blew several million $'s on purchasing it, so now the city is in the theatre biz as well.

Never mind the fact that it is a logistical impossibility for them to actually do anything other than lose taxpayer money on the operation on a yearly basis. Never mind the fact that the value of the property is actually considerably lower than what the city ended up paying for the dump.

Not to mention... never mind the fact that it is not the role of government to operate local theatres. Nothing could be further from it, in fact.

Quote

It is despicable. I agree. But they have to do this to survive (in theory). I recognise a lot of money is being thrown away constantly. I work for the government. It's scarry. But still, if you take that away, they still need funding from somewhere. And it always comes from some form of legislated taxation (direct or indirect).

But that's precisely my point!

They wouldn't need as much funding if they got out of areas they don't NEED to be involved in.

Like trash pickup, for starters.

And wars in Iraq that we had no business starting or being involved in.

As I keep mentioning, reduce government to its legitimate roles and you will suddenly find that it's not nearly as expensive or necessary to drum up as much funding.

The local city government's budget is about 10x as big as it needs to be, because of its involvement in literally dozens and dozens of things it simply doesn't have any business being involved in. And it CERTAINLY doesn't justify holding up its citizens via the highway robbery they call "property tax" and "city sales tax" around here in order to stay involved.

And that's just the local city government mess. There are thousands and thousands of things the US Federal government is involved in that it has no business in.

And those thousands and thousands of things cost billions and billions and BILLIONS of dollars, each one taken by force to pay for.

And they get involved in more and more and MORE of these things every session.

Anonymous · « **Reply #35 on:** May 12, 2004, 09:12:08 PM »

They're certainly in a lot of places they shouldn't be. I'll give you that. And yes, they could back out of some operations and require less funding. And they should. I agree with you. However, no matter less funding they would need, they still need it. I don't think a government can operate only on the charity of it's citizens if everything was voluntary as you want it to be. How can you make a 5 year plan when your main source of income is unstable and unpredictable? Goverments would not be able to operate in your world, thus they would cease to exist and this would more than likely lead to more chaos than what we have today.

The good thing about democracy (which doesn't really work as you pointed out multiple times) is that a nation can change the government when they go overboard. But that's the citizen's responsibility to apply that voting right. If Bush doesn't get the curb in the next election, you'll only have yourselves to blame.

xolik · « **Reply #36 on:** May 12, 2004, 11:46:42 PM »

Quote from: TheJudge OMFGLOL!!!11

The good thing about democracy (which doesn't really work as you pointed out multiple times) is that a nation can change the government when they go overboard. But that's the citizen's responsibility to apply that voting right.

Now, now, many nations that aren't a democracy change the government when they go overboard as well. Violent, bloody revolution, that is. You know, kinda like what we did to England waaaaay back when. We didn't exactly vote the King of England out of our lives.

Not that I'm advocating that we march on Washington with sporting equipment or anything like that. **looks around for for Ashcroft hiding in the bushes** No, Sireee Bob.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #37 on:** May 13, 2004, 01:27:51 PM »

Licenses, fees, fines, tolls all apply to those who use/benefit. I get far less back from the government than I pay in as does my state. I give to charity, I volunteer, I help my fellow human beings. Taxation is inefficient at best and as my colleague, Demo has pointed out is basically theft in order to redistribute wealth (and to do it rather inefficiently). Roads can be funded through tolls, parks can be funded through fees, law enforcement through fines, general funds can be built up through licensing, fees, fines, etc. (i.e. radio stations paying a licensing fee more commensurate with the benefit they receive from the license, polluters being fined commensurate with the economic damage they do).

I too, would much rather see more foreign aid that money spent on congresspeoples' pet projects and subsidies.

biggyfred · « **Reply #38 on:** May 14, 2004, 09:03:12 PM »

Taxes should be applied in specific instances in which society as a whole benefits more than would if done on the individual level. By benefit, I mean economic gain solely. Personal gain should have virtually nothing to do with it.

I think roads, schools, and yes, healthcare should be taxed and provided by the federal government, but never EVER run by the government. There must be central planning to coordinate the ability of growth and sustaining of growth in economic terms. And that should be where government ends.

I think public schools should be privatized, and vouchers given. You want more quality (ie more expensive than the voucher provides), pitch more personal money at it. London's privatized schools have been extremely successful, and they're targeted at the middle and lower income students. Grades have gone up, parent involvment has increased considerably (since now the brats can be thrown the hell out of a good one), and the economic gain in terms of a well educated populace for the business community to cherry pick from cannot be measured.

Same with roads on the privitization deal, but future growth would require an oversight of projects in order to keep up with demand from the commercial demand for transportation, whether it's long haul trucks or Demo goin to work. We shouldn't be runnin roads to hell and back, but there should be a resonable expectation of able transportation.

Healthcare would be the trickiest, but the economic gains are greatest. Assuming someone seriously came along tomorrow to begin these reforms, none of us would probably be alive to see a successful healthcare reform, so I can't in good faith argue for it at the present time.

No more pet projects, hell, slash government representatives' income and perks by 50% to start.

You do all this, you keep a military that's in a lean fighting shape, and your tax bill would go from 25% to 5-7%. We should also slash the corporate tax from 33% to 15%, with our eyes on an eventual 8-10%.

Anything financed by the feds, state, or city that cannot provide obvious, tangible economic benefit is being financed through a criminal act. Period.

And on topic, this ignorant bullshit in Iraq would never have been considered, not least because of the complete lack of economic gain.

Anonymous · « **Reply #39 on:** May 17, 2004, 08:58:13 AM »

Quote from: biggyfred

I think roads, schools, and yes, healthcare should be taxed and provided by the federal government, but never EVER run by the government.

There's a slight problem with this. Let me give you a real life example.

I work for the governement of Canada. One of the things I do is beta test a government built application prior to releasing it to 34 other government departments. We were looking for an org chart software that could connect to our database and generate org charts in an automated fashion. three years ago, after examining various products, I recommended to our cluster that they purchase the org chart software from www.nakisa.com. As part of the deal, I recommended that they should negociate a renewable 3 year price protection on the cost of liscences and annual maintenance fees.

They gave us a great price initially. We liked the product, it met our requirements, the price was good and the product was bilingual. Three years have past now and it's time to renegociate. If we want to keep using this product, our prices have doubled overnight. And I assume they will do so again in 3 years and so on.

The problem with the private sector providing a service where there is little competition is that you end up with the short end of the stick, which is prompetly shoved up your ass. It's costing more in the long run to have things done by someone else vs to do it yourself in cases like this.

On the other hand, the government has proven to be very incompetant in doing things on their own, particularly in building applications. So there is a lot of room for privatisation but only as long as you have enough competition for the job. This keeps the prices resonable and allows mobility. When these requirements cannot be met, it's can lead to a dependency. The private sector is always going to take advantage of that situation.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #40 on:** May 17, 2004, 12:19:55 PM »

Back on the subject of the war, I just read this.

Oooooooh... they found one shell that was probably made back in the 80's, that contained a "small amount" of sarin nerve agent, and by all indications, the insurgents that used the shell in their improvised roadside bomb didn't even realize it.

Well, that's enough for me. That MORE than justifies 700+ US military deaths and thousands of injuries and disfigurements.

xolik · « **Reply #41 on:** May 17, 2004, 01:58:51 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

Back on the subject of the war, I just read
Oooooooh... they found one shell that was probably made back in the 80's, that contained a "small amount" of sarin nerve agent, and by all indications, the insurgents that used the shell in their improvised roadside bomb didn't even realize it.

Well, that's enough for me. That MORE than justifies 700+ US military deaths and thousands of injuries and disfigurements.

/tin foil hat

Thus, it begins. Oh sure. One little shell only. For now. See? They DID have naughty things over there! Now, where's the rest.... **time passes** Oh! Look at this HUGE stockpile of Very Bad Weapons and Gasses that we've just found! And right before the election, too! WOW! Who saw that one coming, right? /tin foil hat

Don't let me disrupt your little dance, Demo and Judge. I'm just passing through.

Leonidas · « **Reply #42 on:** May 17, 2004, 08:10:29 PM »

Shit, to think I supported this war when the president was making the "case." To think I trusted him, that Saddam Hussein had the capability to cause harm to us somehow. Now 1 year, 700+ American fatalities, and 0 weapons of mass destruction later, and I've seen the light and flip-flopped my postition faster than John Kerry. The worst part is that an alarming amount (42% last I saw, but still, that's a fucking lot) still believe that the president was right to invade Iraq, and based on this will do their damndest to elect the asshole again. Or is the worst part that our troops are stuck in a volatile region for at least five more years and we have to continue to pay for it in dollars and blood?

June 30th my ass. Not with the way things have been going lately. Americans will be dying in Iraq for quite a while. It's far from over.

Anonymous · « **Reply #43 on:** May 18, 2004, 07:26:42 AM »

And lets not forget the 10000 civilian Iraqi deaths.

Click

Min · « **Reply #44 on:** May 18, 2004, 09:15:24 AM »

You guys have silly short memories. They found the W'soMD. Remember?

What ever happened to that guy anyway?

Demosthenes · « **Reply #45 on:** May 18, 2004, 09:26:25 AM »

gorgeous_si · « **Reply #46 on:** May 18, 2004, 09:37:21 AM »

Quote from: Detta

What ever happened to that guy anyway?

Maybe the army found out what he'd told us, and locked him up?

I can't believe I actually believed him for long enough to write a post about it!

Demosthenes · « **Reply #47 on:** May 18, 2004, 04:18:08 PM »

Linkage

Quote

If today's investigative shockers—Seymour Hersh's latest article in The New Yorker and a three-part piece in Newsweek—are true, it's hard to avoid concluding that responsibility for the Abu Ghraib atrocities goes straight to the top, both in the Pentagon and the White House, and that varying degrees of blame can be ascribed to officials up and down the chain of command.

Both stories are worth reading in full. The gist is that last year, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld put in place a secret operation that, in Hersh's words, "encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq."

...

Read together, the magazine articles spell out an elaborate, all-inclusive chain of command in this scandal. Bush knew about it. Rumsfeld ordered it. His undersecretary of defense for intelligence, Steven Cambone, administered it. Cambone's deputy, Lt. Gen. William Boykin, instructed Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who had been executing the program involving al-Qaida suspects at Guantanamo, to go do the same at Abu Ghraib. Miller told Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who was in charge of the 800th Military Brigade, that the prison would now be dedicated to gathering intelligence. Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, also seems to have had a hand in this sequence, as did William Haynes, the Pentagon's general counsel. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, learned about the improper interrogations—from the International Committee of the Red Cross, if not from anyone else—but said or did nothing about it for two months, until it was clear that photographs were coming out.

D'oh!

BTW, those two articles mentioned (the one from Newsweek and the one from the New Yorker) really are worth reading. The link to the Newsweek article goes directly to the third installment... I recommend going to page 1 of it and reading it from the beginning to get the full context.

This is pretty damning stuff, people. And it apparently goes all the way to the top.

Call me a naive optimist, but this is the kind of thing that can lead to war crimes indictments.

Leonidas · « **Reply #48 on:** May 18, 2004, 04:48:26 PM »

Quote from: gorgeous_si

Quote from: Detta
What ever happened to that guy anyway?

Maybe the army found out what he'd told us, and locked him up?

I can't believe I actually believed him for long enough to write a post about it!

You mean they didn't find weapons? Man, he almost had me back to supporting the war.

One of my consevative classmates made the point that the war in Iraq is indeed part of the War on Terror because hey, we are encountering resistance from terrorists in the form of suicide bombings. Hello, Saddam has been toppled, the country is plunged into chaos and anarchy, a large amount of people in the area resent the American and British occupation, and all that creates a favorable environment for terrorist activities. Because we find them now doesn't mean they were there in the first place. I get the feeling Saddam wouldn't have appreciated sharing his influence with terrorists.

xolik · « **Reply #49 on:** May 18, 2004, 05:40:45 PM »

Quote from: Leonidas

Hello, Saddam has been toppled, the country is plunged into chaos and anarchy, a large amount of people in the area resent the American and British occupation, and all that creates a favorable environment for terrorist activities.

Whoah, whoah, whoah! You mean to tell me that a chaotic environment might be the ideal place for terrorists to act? Wow.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: The Disaster Of Iraq - Enough Is Enough! (Read 12649 times)

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous