Wait, You Don't Mean.... Amnesty International, LIES?

[quote name='CTLesq']And it can't be trusted because it didn't support your view of detainee treatment at Guantamo?

Maybe because the Newsweek article was based off faulty intellignece? And YOU won't even go so far as to say the article was correct!

EZB: you misinterpretted PAD's comment soley to be argumentative.

The bottom line people is that Amnesty isn't doing itself any favors with these absurd, outlandish claims.

CTL[/QUOTE]

See, the fact I won't say it's correct disputes your first statement. Personally I think it is generally correct, but not necessarily that particular incident.

Though you have no idea of the quality of the intelligence used here, and you don't want to take into account the negative PR effects a report like this could have, if it says the wrong things.

An internal investigation done, by the entity that would be blamed for it, is not very credible. It's admissions may be, but its denials aren't.
 
[quote name='camoor']Using this logic, 99.25% of America is CarrotTop's bitch.[/QUOTE]

Its his world. We just live here.

index2.html
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Did you ever see the video where the kids were dragging a Game Cube behind a car? Then set it up to work? Then they burned it for a few seconds, set it up and it worked? Dropped it from a high spot, set it up and it worked? That was funny.

Just setting a Koran on fire and going HAWR HAWR HAWR isn't funny. Putting in a video where you claim to be seeing if God will strike you dead for descecrating his word? Yeah, that can be funny. It's all in context, not just wanton destruction.[/QUOTE]

If you're muslim and you burn it then nothings wrong, if you're christian and you burn a bible then nothings wrong. But if I take a devout followers bible/koran etc. and burn it then there's a problem. Also, if I was muslim and burned a bible, or a christian and burned a koran, it's more questionable and may indicate a hatred for the other religion, but not on the same level.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']If you're muslim and you burn it then nothings wrong, if you're christian and you burn a bible then nothings wrong. But if I take a devout followers bible/koran etc. and burn it then there's a problem. Also, if I was muslim and burned a bible, or a christian and burned a koran, it's more questionable and may indicate a hatred for the other religion, but not on the same level.[/QUOTE]

Oh that there was such understanding and compassion for the Christian religion in any one of the other anti-religious threads on this forum.

Amazing that you people are willing to trade in the number two thing you hate (Christinanity) for the number one thing you hate: America.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Amazing that you people are willing to trade in the number two thing you hate (Christinanity) for the number one thing you hate: America.[/QUOTE]

Now you know if we really hated America we'd be perfectly quiet while we watched your President Bush destroy the things that make it great. :lol:
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Oh that there was such understanding and compassion for the Christian religion in any one of the other anti-religious threads on this forum.

Amazing that you people are willing to trade in the number two thing you hate (Christinanity) for the number one thing you hate: America.

CTL[/QUOTE]

I don't see anyone desecrating bibles in any of the threads. You're simply bashing the left for not being devout "Fristians". Sorry, but my version of Christianity doesn't involve Jesus approving of prison abuses.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']I don't see anyone desecrating bibles in any of the threads. You're simply bashing the left for not being devout "Fristians". Sorry, but my version of Christianity doesn't involve Jesus approving of prison abuses.[/QUOTE]

Oh and you subscribe to an Islam that allows for beheadings?

You get my point.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Oh and you subscribe to an Islam that allows for beheadings?

You get my point.

CTL[/QUOTE]

Christianity did at one point, too (the Crusades, which coincidentally, the word Bush has used to describe his war on terrorism).

Whoops, looks like I'm bashing Fristianity again.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Christianity did at one point, too (the Crusades, which coincidentally, the word Bush has used to describe his war on terrorism).[/quote]

Yawn. And Christianity got over it. The issue isn't as narrow as pissing on a holy book. It is the overall shitting on religion, specifically Christianity as a whole.

Unless you people get to shit on the US. Then all of a sudden a religion (other than Christianity) is all of a sudden crucially important and above reproach.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Yawn. And Christianity got over it. The issue isn't as narrow as pissing on a holy book. It is the overall shitting on religion, specifically Christianity as a whole.

Unless you people get to shit on the US. Then all of a sudden a religion (other than Christianity) is all of a sudden crucially important and above reproach.


CTL[/QUOTE]

How is Christianity being shit on by the Government? By following the constitution? By not allowing the government to promote one religion over all others?
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Yawn. And Christianity got over it. The issue isn't as narrow as pissing on a holy book. It is the overall shitting on religion, specifically Christianity as a whole.

Unless you people get to shit on the US. Then all of a sudden a religion (other than Christianity) is all of a sudden crucially important and above reproach.

CTL[/QUOTE]

You're missing the entire point. We are not going to win the war on terror by creating more religious fanatics. Whenever one of these reports comes out and it brushed aside by the White House or Pentagon, it just shows how little we really care about winning over the hearts and minds of the Muslim world.

Any desecration of any prisoner's holy book is unacceptable regardless of their religion. This doesn't happen to Christians in US custody typically because the guards are either Christian themselves or fear the repercussions such actions would have.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Yawn. And Christianity got over it. The issue isn't as narrow as pissing on a holy book. It is the overall shitting on religion, specifically Christianity as a whole.

Unless you people get to shit on the US. Then all of a sudden a religion (other than Christianity) is all of a sudden crucially important and above reproach.

CTL[/QUOTE]

Waaaaaaaaah. :baby: Waaaaaaaah. :baby:

Religious intolerance is wrong. Period.

Religious nutjobs trying to impose their beliefs on everyone through Government intervention is also wrong. No wonder why people get pissed at fristians.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']You're missing the entire point. We are not going to win the war on terror by creating more religious fanatics. Whenever one of these reports comes out and it brushed aside by the White House or Pentagon, it just shows how little we really care about winning over the hearts and minds of the Muslim world.[/quote]

No, when a report which shows five instances of misconduct is blown out of proportion then we lose.

[quote name='MrBadExample']Any desecration of any prisoner's holy book is unacceptable regardless of their religion.[/quote]

Agreed.

[quote name='MrBadExample']This doesn't happen to Christians in US custody typically because the guards are either Christian themselves or fear the repercussions such actions would have.[/QUOTE]

Five instances.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Oh that there was such understanding and compassion for the Christian religion in any one of the other anti-religious threads on this forum.

Amazing that you people are willing to trade in the number two thing you hate (Christinanity) for the number one thing you hate: America.

CTL[/QUOTE]

uhhh, ok. My main point was desecrating the book taken or in the presence of the devout follower, but whatever.

Though, it's funny, thoughout much of christian history the middle east and china would have laughed at us as being barbarians. Civilizations trade dominance over time, it's always been that way.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']One instance it too many when it is dismissed out of hand.[/QUOTE]

And you would discredit the entire war on terror with that one instance if given the chance.

And that is your real motivation.

And it wasn't dismissed as out of hand by the US military.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']And you would discredit the entire war on terror with that one instance if given the chance.

And that is your real motivation.

And it wasn't dismissed as out of hand by the US military.

CTL[/QUOTE]

The War on Terror® was discredited the minute Dubya insisted we invade Iraq.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']The War on Terror® was discredited the minute Dubya insisted we invade Iraq.[/QUOTE]

Only among those who opposed the War on Terror before we invaded Iraq.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Only among those who opposed the War on Terror before we invaded Iraq.

CTL[/QUOTE]

Wrong! Thanks for playing. Please enjoy our copy of the home game.

There was extremely little opposition to the war on al Qaeda in Afghanistan. I know you'd like to pretend that all liberals and Democrats have viciously opposed Bush whenever he tried to do anything, but that's just not the case. When he went after the people who attacked us, he enjoyed broad national and international support. He squandered both.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Wrong! Thanks for playing. Please enjoy our copy of the home game.

There was extremely little opposition to the war on al Qaeda in Afghanistan. I know you'd like to pretend that all liberals and Democrats have viciously opposed Bush whenever he tried to do anything, but that's just not the case. When he went after the people who attacked us, he enjoyed broad national and international support. He squandered both.[/QUOTE]

No you people were shocked into oking Afghanistan immediately after 9/11. Just as people were ok with the Patriot Act immediately thereafter.

Over time however the anti-war (really anti-American) contingent in this country have steadily attempted to turn public perception against the war in Iraq.

You cannot say that a majority of people did not support the war in Iraq initially because that is not the case.

As for international support perhaps you missed the international support the US has on dealing with Iran and North Korea.

The only international support the US "lost" was with France. And you people fail to recognize we never had their support in the first place.

Oh, and when multinational efforts don't work with Iran and North Korea don't blame the US if we decide to "go it alone" again.

Oh, thats right, the international community is so strong they can handle those two nations without the US.

Keep dreaming, and I have a viable EU constitution for you.

CTL
 
haha CTL..do you do any research before posting?

Here are the members of the Coalition of the Willing whose support we lost.

Netherlands, Ukraine, Poland, Portugal,Spain, Italy, Thailand, Hungary, Honduras, Dominican Republic, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines..

Not to mention the aid organizations who have left because stabliity issues.
 
[quote name='usickenme']haha CTL..do you do any research before posting?

Here are the members of the Coalition of the Willing whose support we lost.

Netherlands, Ukraine, Poland, Portugal,Spain, Italy, Thailand, Hungary, Honduras, Dominican Republic, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines..

Not to mention the aid organizations who have left because stabliity issues.[/QUOTE]

Silly CAG Poster, this is why politics are left to adults:

[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif] WASHINGTON -- The coalition that is currently engaged in the hard, dangerous work to disarm Iraq is strong, broad and diverse. [/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Nearly 50 nations are committed to ridding Saddam Hussein's regime of all its deadly, destructive and illegal weapons. To put this in perspective, the combined population of coalition countries is approximately 1.23 billion people, with a combined gross domestic product of approximately $22 trillion. These countries are from every continent on the globe, representing every major race, religion, and ethnicity in the world. [/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Diverse as this coalition is, each member shares a common goal. We seek nothing less than safety for our people. Many members have suffered from terror themselves; all understand the awful price of terrorism and the potentially catastrophic danger from weapons of mass destruction. [/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif] But, vitally, all have the will to face the gravest threat of our time -- the nexus between outlaw regimes, weapons of mass destruction, and terrorism. The world has seen what happens when countries that recognize emerging or present threats lack the will to meet them. Many times in the last century -- and as recently as the last decade -- the world failed to act in time to prevent a crisis or meet a threat. Some of the members of this current coalition had to live with the deadly and dreadful consequences of that failure for decades. [/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Some have only recently emerged from tyrannies imposed in no small part because of that failure. Months ago, the prime minister of Estonia told President Bush that he did not need an explanation of the need to confront Iraq. Because the great democracies failed to act in 1930s, his people lived in slavery for 50 years. [/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif]
20030123-1_s161-31-th-356v.jpg
The members of this coalition have not failed to act. They are contributing different personnel, services and materials, according to their means and expertise. The British 1st Armored Division is engaging well-equipped Iraqi units in the southeast, and securing the southern oil field and the vital port city of Umm Qasr, through which tons of humanitarian aid will soon flow. The Australian navy is providing gunfire support to coalition troops in Southern Iraq, and clearing the port of Umm Qasr of mines. Polish special forces have secured a key Iraqi oil platform in the Gulf. A Danish submarine is monitoring Iraqi intelligence and providing early warning. Czech and Slovak special chemical and biological weapon response forces are in Kuwait, ready to react to a potential Iraqi WMD attack anywhere in the theater.
[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Many more countries are providing supplies, logistical and intelligence support, basing and over-flight rights, and humanitarian and reconstruction aid. Other nations have the will to face terror, though not the means to participate in operations. Every instance of support, from every country -- no matter how small or large -- is helping to win this war, and every one is valued. [/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif] As the war progresses, and the situation on the ground evolves, the roles of many coalition members will grow. The farther coalition forces move into Iraq, the more need there will be for various specialized teams. And the more security improves, the more quickly relief and reconstruction efforts will be able to proceed into more parts of Iraq, with more coalition personnel providing essential services. And as the broader war on terror and the struggle against the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons continues, all nations will need, more than ever, to stand together to face the defining threats of our time. [/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Like the end of the Cold War, and the end of World War II, September 11 was one of the relatively rare earthquakes that cause lasting tectonic shifts in international politics. Long established alliances and venerable institutions are being tested. The international community can rise to this challenge, as it has risen to similar challenges in the past. The coalition currently assembled to disarm Iraq shows the way. Together, we are determined to do all we can to prevent Saddam Hussein, or terrorists with his weapons, from repeating September 11 on a vaster scale. By continuing to work together -- and by working to enlist as many countries as possible -- we can help prevent similar or worse disasters from arising from another source at another time. [/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Ms. Rice is national security advisor to President Bush.[/font]
 
PR puff with no link or date? very convincing.


Edit: I found the article. It is from 3/26/2003! This isn't about the support we HAD but the support we LOST. What a joke, you knew your post was sh*t , so don't link.

Adults? yeah right.
 
I remember when rich first appeared here, I had high hopes for him. Here was a conservative with a head on his shoulder who actually had facts to back up his beliefs and was sane. He hasn't lived up to my hopes, but he's still probably the best of the major ones, mostly alright.

Seeing CTL's most recent post made me remember that.
 
[quote name='usickenme']a non-issue

As a person who is for human-rights it would seem logical to give money to the candidates who would best further that cause..

Did you expect he would give money to Bush or the GOP who has a platform of death penalty support (a key issue for AI). Get real[/QUOTE]

No, I really didn't expect Shulz to contribute to Bush. Look what he said about Bush in his vitriolic speech the other day! He obviously hates Republicans, and he hurts his cause by not being nonpartisan and just pointing things out. Making wild accusations and then admitting you don't know whether they're true or not is not the way to build up any credibility, you know.

The saddest thing about Shulz's press conference is that he spent virtually the entire thing bashing the U.S. Even if what he says is 100% true, there are far worse human rights offenders out there, from China to North Korea to Sudan, for example. It just makes them look like they have a domestic political agenda instead of a nonpartisan human rights agenda, and that's sad.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Making wild accusations and then admitting you don't know whether they're true or not is not the way to build up any credibility, you know.[/QUOTE]

You mean like "Iraq has WMDs and we know where they are"? "The war will pay for itself"? :D
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']You mean like "Iraq has WMDs and we know where they are"? "The war will pay for itself"? :D[/QUOTE]

Well, as your :D would indicate, you know this has already been debated to death. Personally, based on the evidence I have no reason to believe that our leaders didn't truly believe that they did know for sure that WMDs were there and where they were. However, I think that "the reconstruction of Iraq will be paid for with Iraqi oil money," a phrase often used by people like Paul Wolfowitz, is something sadly not often remembered a couple years later in the here and now. I think that can be characterized in the very least as a gross misrepresentation, if not outright falsehood.

Of course, this is straying rather far from the actual topic, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'] Personally, based on the evidence I have no reason to believe that our leaders didn't truly believe that they did know for sure that WMDs were there and where they were. .[/QUOTE]

Don't think this the wrong way, but you are sucker if you believe that. Both Condi and Colin stated in the Spring of '01 that Saddam didn't have WMDs and was effectively neutralized.


as far the Shulz's bashing the US. Well he is the head of AI in the US. And personally, I think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard then "well everyone does it". Additionally, AI has always spoken agains the US policies it doesn't like no matter who is president. I don't recall any conservatives bitching about AI when they where highly critical of Bill Clinton continuing the Iraqi Sanctions.

Want to know what else is sad? Taking one press conference as Amnesty International's stance on everything. Go to www.amnesty.org. They actually do mention human rights abuses in other countries (and have for a long time). They also explain why they single out the US. I think if you read that site with an open mind you might just find they aren't singularly picking on the Bush.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Don't think this the wrong way, but you are sucker if you believe that. Both Condi and Colin stated in the Spring of '01 that Saddam didn't have WMDs and was effectively neutralized.[/QUOTE]

The facts are that just about everyone, including most prominent Democrats and international leaders/intelligence services, believed he had WMD. Since such a vast majority of people believed this, I have a hard time believing they were all in on this "conspiracy."

[quote name='usickenme']as far the Shulz's bashing the US. Well he is the head of AI in the US. And personally, I think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard then "well everyone does it". Additionally, AI has always spoken agains the US policies it doesn't like no matter who is president. I don't recall any conservatives bitching about AI when they where highly critical of Bill Clinton continuing the Iraqi Sanctions.

Want to know what else is sad? Taking one press conference as Amnesty International's stance on everything. Go to www.amnesty.org. They actually do mention human rights abuses in other countries (and have for a long time). They also explain why they single out the US. I think if you read that site with an open mind you might just find they aren't singularly picking on the Bush.[/QUOTE]

I know they don't only talk about the U.S. All I'm saying is that it's a real shame that it comes off as if they are picking on the U.S. more than any other nation. All the things they claim to stand for are things I generally believe in. However, you'd better bet your ass that plenty of people just disregard what they say as being "anti-American" when some doofus like Shulz comes out and spews this bullshit about things of which he has no proof. What I want is for them to focus their spotlight on some of the real thugs of the world (Lukashenko, Mugabe, Castro, Karimov, etc.) instead of trumping up politically-motivated charges against the U.S. administration.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']The facts are that just about everyone, including most prominent Democrats and international leaders/intelligence services, believed he had WMD. Since such a vast majority of people believed this, I have a hard time believing they were all in on this "conspiracy."[/quote]

I think there was a lot variation in the degree of certainty (though the general public, worldwide, probably had greater disbelief).



I know they don't only talk about the U.S. All I'm saying is that it's a real shame that it comes off as if they are picking on the U.S. more than any other nation. All the things they claim to stand for are things I generally believe in. However, you'd better bet your ass that plenty of people just disregard what they say as being "anti-American" when some doofus like Shulz comes out and spews this bullshit about things of which he has no proof. What I want is for them to focus their spotlight on some of the real thugs of the world (Lukashenko, Mugabe, Castro, Karimov, etc.) instead of trumping up politically-motivated charges against the U.S. administration.

They go after them to, but what's more newsworthy? Also, who's more likely to change? Condemning mugabe is like banging your head against a wall, you have a shot at getting somewhere with the u.s.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']The facts are that just about everyone, including most prominent Democrats and international leaders/intelligence services, believed he had WMD. Since such a vast majority of people believed this, I have a hard time believing they were all in on this "conspiracy."[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone is saying that all the politicians who voted for the war were conspiring in any way. They believed that Iraq had WMDs because that's what this administration kept telling everyone. And at the time it wasn't completely unreasonable to trust them. Sadly, that is no longer the case.

I wish Kerry would have come out and said "I voted for the war because I believed the President wouldn't lie about intelligence in order to take our country to war. Today I would not make that same mistake."
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I don't think anyone is saying that all the politicians who voted for the war were conspiring in any way. They believed that Iraq had WMDs because that's what this administration kept telling everyone. And at the time it wasn't completely unreasonable to trust them. Sadly, that is no longer the case.

I wish Kerry would have come out and said "I voted for the war because I believed the President wouldn't lie about intelligence in order to take our country to war. Today I would not make that same mistake."[/QUOTE]

It's true, even after Vietnam and Watergate, the public trusted the President not to flat-out lie to them about the reasons for going to war.

W may have gotten the revenge and corporate oil source he always dreamed of, but it was at the cost of many American lives and the trust of at least half of America.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']The facts are that just about everyone, including most prominent Democrats and international leaders/intelligence services, believed he had WMD. Since such a vast majority of people believed this, I have a hard time believing they were all in on this "conspiracy."
.[/QUOTE]


never claimed it was a conspiracy (but that is one way to try to marginalize someone you are debating). Yes, just about everyone thought he *may* have had weapons...but there was also a lot of doubt. Doubt that was never explored, investigate or even mentioned by this administration. Doubt that was silenced by a rush to invade. (remember it was Bush who, in essence, kicked out the inspectors).

My bro hit the nail on the head before the war. He said "I'll bet Saddam doesn't even have any WMDs but he need to keep that impression up so he still has power and relevance". So either my brother was smarter than the entire administration or they weren't telling you something.
 
[quote name='usickenme']never claimed it was a conspiracy (but that is one way to try to marginalize someone you are debating). Yes, just about everyone thought he *may* have had weapons...but there was also a lot of doubt. Doubt that was never explored, investigate or even mentioned by this administration. Doubt that was silenced by a rush to invade. (remember it was Bush who, in essence, kicked out the inspectors).

My bro hit the nail on the head before the war. He said "I'll bet Saddam doesn't even have any WMDs but he need to keep that impression up so he still has power and relevance". So either my brother was smarter than the entire administration or they weren't telling you something.[/QUOTE]

Hindsight is 20/20, my friend. Sure there was doubt, but most of our illustrious elected officials seemed to believe pretty strongly that the intelligence indicated that he had WMD. That is why large majorities voted the authority to go to war.

And you all on the Left are way, way too quick to label people liars, but anything to bash Bush, right? I haven't seen any convincing evidence that he wasn't just as fooled by the intelligence reports as a lot of other people were...like John Kerry.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']They go after them to, but what's more newsworthy? Also, who's more likely to change? Condemning mugabe is like banging your head against a wall, you have a shot at getting somewhere with the u.s.[/QUOTE]

I would say I think the worst abuses are the most newsworthy, especially when they are backed by solid proof. Why not talk more about proven genocide in Sudan than alleged abuse with no proof at Guantanamo? Obviously the latter gets more headlines, but like I said, it makes AI come off as having a partisan political agenda, which is unfortunate to say the least. And calling for Rumsfeld/etc. to be arrested and the spiel about Bush was just over the top, petty and irresponsibly stupid.

And I would say that things in places other than Guantanamo would be far better to get changed, like people getting killed in a lot of places. There's very little outcry, comparatively, over millions killed in Sudan and people killed and imprisoned in authoritarian regimes like Zimbabwe, Cuba, Uzbekistan, China, Burma, etc. Isn't the point of the report to highlight those places and people involved in serious human rights abuses? But instead they focus their moment in the spotlight on some things happening to a handful at Guantanamo, and worse they don't even know if those things are true. Shameful, really.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Hindsight is 20/20, my friend. Sure there was doubt, but most of our illustrious elected officials seemed to believe pretty strongly that the intelligence indicated that he had WMD. That is why large majorities voted the authority to go to war.

And you all on the Left are way, way too quick to label people liars, but anything to bash Bush, right? I haven't seen any convincing evidence that he wasn't just as fooled by the intelligence reports as a lot of other people were...like John Kerry.[/QUOTE]

Apparently your hidesight isn't 20/20. Re-Read my post. There were people BEFORE THE WAR who doubted the WMDs. Like Scott Ritter, Colin Powell, David Albright( a former United Nations weapons inspector) and others. Also I know for a fact that the evidence presented to Congress was skewed one way. Don't tell you believe the old "everyone saw the same intel" line. By the way, they took the word gullible out of the dictionary. There was a consitant tangible pattern of manipulating the intel. Doesn't that trouble you in the least? Ever read the 'Downing Street Memo' ?

As for Bush being a liar. Well, I've never said that he was in regards to the War. I have stated that he wasn't honest with the people and congress. You people on the right are equally willing to blindly defend Bush...who's fault..anyone but Bush, right?

But I do know Bush has lied to the people on other matters. That is fact, not a quick label.

But even if poor little georgie was fooled by bad intel..that is almost as bad. Especially considering the people behind the bad intel have consistantly been rewarded..often by Bush himself.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I would say I think the worst abuses are the most newsworthy, especially when they are backed by solid proof. Why not talk more about proven genocide in Sudan than alleged abuse with no proof at Guantanamo? Obviously the latter gets more headlines, but like I said, it makes AI come off as having a partisan political agenda, which is unfortunate to say the least. And calling for Rumsfeld/etc. to be arrested and the spiel about Bush was just over the top, petty and irresponsibly stupid.[/quote]

Well, I think there was a confusion over the term newsworthy, I meant what would a newspaper company think would get more attention and reading, not what is actually more important.


And I would say that things in places other than Guantanamo would be far better to get changed, like people getting killed in a lot of places. There's very little outcry, comparatively, over millions killed in Sudan and people killed and imprisoned in authoritarian regimes like Zimbabwe, Cuba, Uzbekistan, China, Burma, etc. Isn't the point of the report to highlight those places and people involved in serious human rights abuses? But instead they focus their moment in the spotlight on some things happening to a handful at Guantanamo, and worse they don't even know if those things are true. Shameful, really.

It would be better to change those things, but it is more likely to change what happens in 1st world nations.

Personally, I think a strong military/peacekeeping mission should be undertaken in sudan. Not an invasion per se, but a forceful ending of the conflict in darfur and maintaining order (which seems to be what the people there want), but not control of the country or that part of the country.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Apparently your hidesight isn't 20/20. Re-Read my post. There were people BEFORE THE WAR who doubted the WMDs. Like Scott Ritter, Colin Powell, David Albright( a former United Nations weapons inspector) and others. Also I know for a fact that the evidence presented to Congress was skewed one way. Don't tell you believe the old "everyone saw the same intel" line. By the way, they took the word gullible out of the dictionary. There was a consitant tangible pattern of manipulating the intel. Doesn't that trouble you in the least? Ever read the 'Downing Street Memo' ?[/QUOTE]

You know "for a fact" that the intelligence presented to Congress was skewed? Are you a staff member for a senator or something? How the hell do you know what was and wasn't skewed? The simple fact is you don't know anything more than what you want to believe, or what you've read on Democratic Underground or something similar. Just accept the fact that you don't really know, but have suspicions (I do too...I think most people do, but that doesn't make them facts).

[quote name='usickenme']As for Bush being a liar. Well, I've never said that he was in regards to the War. I have stated that he wasn't honest with the people and congress. You people on the right are equally willing to blindly defend Bush...who's fault..anyone but Bush, right?

But I do know Bush has lied to the people on other matters. That is fact, not a quick label.

But even if poor little georgie was fooled by bad intel..that is almost as bad. Especially considering the people behind the bad intel have consistantly been rewarded..often by Bush himself.[/QUOTE]

There aren't many politicians, I would argue, that can say they've never lied. The facts are that Bush has in the very least misled people on some issues, like the cost of the Medicare drug benefit, for example.

As much as you'd like to label anyone who doesn't fit into the don't-despise-Bush category as a ultra-right-wing neocon warmonger, it's just not either/or. You're showing your rabid Bush hater stripes again. Just because I would argue Bush=! total scum doesn't mean I believe Bush=saint.
 
bread's done
Back
Top