raid517

No I say all torture is wrong, whatever form it takes. We shouldn't have to 'compare' because plainly it shouldn't be happening.

I think really as far as 'support' goes, your case is overstated. There are many Muslims in our cultures too, but very few of them could be said to 'support' the actions of the extremists. If you are referring to the specific instance of Saudi Arabia - well I kind of agree - but there isn't a lot the US is going to do about that in any hurry. It's a choice between terrorism and oil. Which one do you think your government will choose? In any case the Saudis are slowly coming to terms with the idea that the terrorists represent as much a threat to them (or at least to the Saudi royal family) as they do to everyone else - and they too are realizing that they need to deal with it. They don't have much experience in this field - so it may take a long time before they have any real impact.

With regard to Iraq, well that's a kind of foregone thing. Ultimately it looks like the Iraqis will go their own way - and it may be nothing like what Bush and his chums envisaged.

The new interim Iraqi Administration has even invited Moqtada Al Sadr (America's sworn enemy in Iraq) to stand for office - and the US forces in Iraq have agreed to give up all claim on him. How ironic - and how unlike anything anyone envisaged the outcome would be, if somehow at some point down the line this guy was ultimately the one the Iraqis chose as their president.

GJ

JavaFox

Actually it's more a choice between terrorism and terrorism. Saudi Arabia isn't just the world's largest producer of oil, they are also the cultural and religious center of Islam. The only course we can pursue in Saudi Arabia is diplomacy -- military intervention will never be an option. If we tried with Saudi Arabia what we are trying with Iraq, the shitstorm generated in response will be so fierce, so angry, so incomprehensibly and uncontainably violent that it will make 9-11 and the Madrid bombings look absolutely bloodless in comparison. The Crusades will be back in full swing and it won't be happy.

It's all well and good to play the oil card (remember, though, that Europe is far more dependant on Middle Eastern oil than America is) but that debate tactic is shallow and tired. There's more to it --and anything, really-- than that. Look deeper.

raid517

Well I guess this is kind of where people mistake me for being 'weak on terrorism', because in reality I am aware of the risks that applying genuine military pressure to Saudi Arabia might entail. Maybe it would be a war - maybe bad things would happen - but that's what war is - horrible things do happen. But what I believe is that going after these guys at source may be the only way to deal with them. It might not be so terrible if we were able to demonstrate that we did have the will to win - no matter what the costs may be. Why? No one is talking about occupying Mecca. But there will come a time when a genuine display of our resolve may be the only possible route to success. I believe too that if the Saudis could be put between a rock and a hard place, if they could be made to feel vulnerable (by for example funding groups committed to democracy and to deposing the current regime) that they could be inspired towards change much more quickly than is currently the case. If they are led to fear their own downfall more than they fear the extremists - or the forces of democracy, I feel sure that they would quickly come to the conclusion that democratic change really is their only hope for survival.

For now I don't buy that all of this is just about benefiting the democratic aspirations of a few Iraqi citizens - and that somehow preserving the status quo throughout other parts of the region is purely being done in the name of religious sensitivity.

If this war is ever to end then we must bring about real changes. Much of people's resentment in these countries exists because they have seen us as traditionally propping up the repressive regimes which they are forced to live under - thus they turn to extremists as their only means of fighting back.

It isn't just about oil - although controlling the chain of supply is never a bad thing - its about showing real commitment too. And that is something that almost every American administration has lacked for the last 60 years whenever it came to considering the issue of democracy in the Mid East and the aspirations of the people of that region.

There are many reasons why this will never happen - and not all of them by any means have anything to do with terrorism, or with the difficulty and cost of bringing about any kind of real change.

If you want to know why it will never happen, look around you, switch on your TV, take a walk to your local shopping mall, open your wallet and ponder for a while at your Gold Card. There you will find the reasons why it will never happen. And there too you will find why the terrorists stand much more chance of winning this fight than we do.

GJ

PoopyTheJ

WEll, I think this war will not end at least for a LONG LONG time, since it gives the US an enemy. The US must remain at war, eternally, in order for it to be moderately succesful and peaceful. Here is the Report From Iron Mountain_ http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/iron.html
"War has provided both ancient and modern societies with a dependable system for stabilizing and controlling national economies. No alternate method of control has yet been tested in a complex modern economy that has shown itself remotely comparable in scope or effectiveness."

The report also pointed out that the authority of the government over the people stemmed from its ability to wage war. Therefore, without war the government might cease to exist:

"'war' is virtually synonymous with nationhood. The elimination of war implies the inevitable elimination of national sovereignty and the traditional nation-state."

It's important for enemies to be created as well from a control standpoint, read 1984, you've got Goldberg an imaginary leader of an imaginery resistance group created by thew gov't to carry out terror attacks terrorize the population and make them easier to control. These "radical" islamic groups are undeniably backed by Governments to give themselves an enemy it's an old trick, Hamas created by Israel, Osama Bin Laden was/is CIA. The US built the I believe it's the Kursk River Tank Factory, in Korea, the US was under UN direction, the General in charge of the US effort was a Soviet General. US bankers built the Nazi war machine in WW2, Lenin was backed by the same Wall street money. It's a big game, we're never gonna see relevant efforts to stamp out terror, things with real meaning because frankly it's way too damn useful. It's an opportunity for the federal Government to expand it's scope and authority, to make some money for the guys with the connections and make sure we're too lost and afraid to seriously question what our handlers are doing. The idea that Radical Islamics are behind all these attacks is kinda looney, when you consider I read somewhere, some republican saying "paraphrase" "Oh Iraq had huge stores of weapons where people could go in at any time and get weapons to fight the US" "/paraphrase" Look, how is that possible? If Saddam was a horrible dicatator and everyone is happy to be rid of him, why was he allowing everyone their pick of weapons? Dictators don't do that, they have gun control, you can't have it both ways. Open your eys and question whats going on, start implementing a BS filter, contradictions are not a natural state of affairs.

__________________

BMG_Cya=-

Hmmm...Killing hundreds, thousands of civilians, all in the name of an evil and racist
religion still gives these "rights holders" protection? Terrorists wage war without
making a worldwide, or even local declaration. The usual knee-jerk liberals see the
U.S. military, in it's most sincere efforts to avoid civilian casualties, and say
"See...the U.S. Government does it, why should these poor poor Jihad-ist's (absolute nuts),
be given any less the opportunity?"

The difference is, the U.S. has always tried to solve problems...conflicts, etc,
through it's own or the world's diplomatic orders...first.
When talking as lowly "infidels" doesn't work, then...and only then, does the U.S.
or any half-arsed developed country, make a formal declaration of war.

As far as these prisoners in Iraq being "tortured". Having your underwear pulled over your head, and a dog barking, not biting, barking at you, and not being given 5-star
sleeping quarters at the Persia palace of Paradise, pales in comparison to what these terrorists have done, without warning, without any modicum of sane reasoning, to thousands of children, mothers...you name it.

These "criminals" lost their rights when they blew up a school bus full of kids, or
<pick a headline>.

Your definition of "torture" please.

Saddam was in direct violation of several UN resolutions and world supported
mandates

That's the main justifiable reason for his butt being in a sling now.

Also, I have read and watched several documentaries about Hussein and his family.
This guy deserves whatever he gets, for bad or for worse.


*Note. I'm gonna make one more argument then quit, because you can't argue with
the...ahem...ill-informed and the predispositioned hatred mongers of the
United States.*

No comment needed there...

Have you actually read the Koran...the preachings of Allah?

Bleh...such a tired argument that has been going on for the last two years, in every
concievable type of forum on the internet.

I'll retire....for now.

raid517

Well clearly your reason for retiring is because you have nothing new to add. I confess I feel no empathy for people like yourself who feel inspired to hate entire races of people based on the actions of a misguided few.

Yes I have read the Qur'an, just as I have read the Bible - and several other prominent religious texts - and nowhere does it say that the mass slaying of innocents is an acceptable way to behave. This is a twisting by a twisted minority of what is to a large extent a fairly benign text. Even those parts that do appear to promote violence are no better and no worse than many of horrific things that are described in the old testament. Yet no one in our modern world really believes that anti-semtism is a good or acceptable ideology.

The Jewish god - the same god that is later spoken of in the new testament was fairly brutal in his time - but there are very few people here who would advocate interpreting those instructions literally today.

GJ

raid517

And need I remind you that some of the people who were tortured actually died. I doubt that happend as a result of someone tickling their gonads with a frilly feather duster.

Killing people is pretty final.

In any case we already had this conversation about why torture, in any form should not be accepted in a civilised society.

Like JavaFox said, if you allow it, if you condone it, what the hell exactly is it you are fighting for? What makes you any different from the guys you are fighting?


GJ

Roadee

Looks like this conversation has shaped up a bit.......glad to see it Only thing I am having a problem with is looking at the title of the thread "President above the law?", where does Oil, torture, and terrorists fit in to this discussion?


I would be glad to add something to the discussion.....that is on topic.....but from reading through this thread I think that you all have pretty much covered everything and made some really good points. Except for the "crap" that was thrown in to the discussion in the form of childish attacks.....it was very informing.

Have fun guys!!

__________________


We are born naked, wet, and hungry. Then things get worse.

raid517

Well torture has, since TC's original post related to the President saying that he reserved the right to use torture as an option with regard to captured al Qaeda and Taliban members. And since currently much of this pertained to recent events in Iraq too - I guess Iraq is relevant after all.

It is nice to be back on topic. Let's see how long it lasts.

GJ

Roadee

What about expanding this to a few other governments instead of just the US side of this? I mean clearly there are many different government leader's around the world that take advantage of there status, and as such refects us all.

__________________


We are born naked, wet, and hungry. Then things get worse.

raid517

Well there are not many other modern developed countries that are willing to openly condone the use of torture. I'm not entirely clear what you mean.

There are other governments who use it, but they tend to be repressive dictatorships like N. Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia and many others. I don't think any right minded American should feel better about themselves when it become necessary to compare their behavior to countries such as these.

GJ

sparky03

Oh come on.......

Saudi is a Monarchy......in the looses term's of course........not a dictatorship. But on the rest.....do you seriously expect anyone to believe that other "modern" countries are not capable.....or even practice such methods? Yeah.......the SAS are really nice guys

raid517

Saudi is an 'absolute monarchy' which is something quite different from a constitutional monarchy. They are in effect an absolute dictatorship - there is no question of anyone voting them out or of openly opposing them. If they did, they would no doubt land in jail.

As for the SAS - these guys are highly trained professionals. I doubt very much that a true professional would see any value in using torture to extract information - exactly because it is an extremely unprofessional thing to do. In any case as it stands it is an unwarranted slur - and I would ask you to provide evidence before simply opening your mouth and letting the first thing that pops into your head dribble out. The British Arm is a highly trained , highly professional fighting force. They have a world renowned reputation for both toughness and fair play - and I think it is reprehensible to set out to tarnish this reputation based on the actions of a separate force, over which they have little or no control. I am not saying that there has never been an instance of rough treatment in the battlefield. Such things may happen in times of war. But largely these incidents are confined to the battlefield - and even then if they did happen they have been both small and isolated in nature. What we are talking about here is quite different, which is the systematic and legally sanctioned by government use of torture on prisoners of war. Clearly Rumsfeld and his crew have been considering this for a long time - and have it seems overcame many of their own personal objections (if they ever had any) to approving its routine use. It seems somewhat of an amazing coincidence therefore to find that only a year or two after rumblings of this debate first emerged from the US government, that suddenly we are confronted by images of the type that recently emerged from Abu Ghraib prison - so much of a coincidence indeed that it hardly seems like a coincidence at all.

Well anyway I won't change my position - as this risks detracting from what has been said on this issue earlier. Suffice for the moment to say perhaps that for those who have little objections to the use of torture in these circumstances, then really perhaps you should think long and hard about who's side you are really on. The moment we adopt the same tactics as our enemy is the moment we let them win. If you use the same tactics you also become like them - and if you also become like them, then you too become the enemy. Perhaps therefore we will find that one day we may need to fight you too. I for one would see no reason to hesitate.

GJ

PoopyTheJ

The SAS is highly trained and professional but what then makes them above the use of torture exactly? http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...?oneclick=true

__________________

raid517

Well you guys always do this. You dig up old outdated sources and prop them up as 'evidence'. That source was first quoted early in 2002

I think you will find if you look at a little more recent source you will find that the SAS were later cleared of all charges. Even the guy in the civil case was later cleared.

The worst this amounted to was a little rough treatment in the heat of the battlefield - something as I said all forces are guilty of from time to time.

It is something quite different from officially sanctioned state torture.

In any case these guys were Australian. There were SAS - but not proper SAS. Lol I'm sure a lot of Australians blood will boil at that, but there you are.

GJ