This is going to hit the news in the morning.....

[darin]

Learning how to use the 'quote' codes would really help me follow along.

I said that the plans that we used going in were terrible and that they were determined by civilians... and that the Chair of the Joint Chiefs publicly disagreed with RUmmy on the number of troops that would be needed to accomplish the reconstruction. He was right...Rummy was wrong. Now if you think that is fantasy, there is little left to discuss on that point.

No - you wrote "plans were ignored" - I'm saying that's simply NOT true. Chosing an 'alternative' plan is not 'ignoring plans'. Btw - have you READ or have access to all the contingency plans? We may have chosen the 'wrong' or an 'inadequate' plan - but that's different. What I find striking is you blame the violence in Iraq with our Failure to plan - and NOT 'radical muslims (a large portion are Iranian) who want to KILL all those who aren't of their faith.'

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...w113007S95.DTL

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in614905.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/in...14cfd6&ei=5088

http://english.aljazeera.net/News/ar...ArchiveId=3531

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...AA0894DD404482

I could go on...but you get the point.

They why villify JUST the crusaders?

I didn't... read my words in context...I was explaining the source of the enmity felt by muslims. Now clearly, muslims aren't going to feel enmity about the treatment of the crusaders at the hands of muslims, are they?

Do you feel compelled to argue just for the sake of arguing??

None of those links prove torture. Some show servicemen having killed Terrorists. That's not 'torture'. IF those cases are legit, they are cases of assult/murder. Different than your "(The US Military) has Tortured Iraqi Citizens" - Also, some aren't even stories about Iraq.

I agure when I see people lying or preaching half-truths. "Invading Christian Crusaders" was what you said gave the Terrorists their will to fight. Now, I took that as you meaning 'the crusades' - but re-reading, you could be calling CURRENT forces "Invading Christian Crusaders". Your context wasnt clear to me. Either way, it's dishonest for you to label the crusaders from history as 'invading' - when they were in fact, "defending'. And it's MORE dishonest to label CURRENT forces as "Invading Christian Crusaders" (if that's what you meant) for several reason; two I can think of off the top of my head are:

1) Not all Coalition forces are christians. A Large number are muslim. Some are Jewish. Some Atheist. Some "whatever".
2) It's a 'defensive war'

[retiredman]

If a prisoner is in custody, and his captors beat him until he dies...that is, by definition, "torture".

wow.

[Gaffer]

You're free to believe what you wish, aren't you. You believe fantasy. The people who made the call are civilians - (SECDEF, etc). Not everyone in the military thinks the same way. People present various courses of action to senior leadership who in the end, makes the call.

I said that the plans that we used going in were terrible and that they were determined by civilians... and that the Chair of the Joint Chiefs publicly disagreed with RUmmy on the number of troops that would be needed to accomplish the reconstruction. He was right...Rummy was wrong. Now if you think that is fantasy, there is little left to discuss on that point.

Yeah - I don't know of ANY Servicemember charged with 'torturing'.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...w113007S95.DTL

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in614905.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/in...14cfd6&ei=5088

http://english.aljazeera.net/News/ar...ArchiveId=3531

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...AA0894DD404482

I could go on...but you get the point.

They why villify JUST the crusaders?

I didn't... read my words in context...I was explaining the source of the enmity felt by muslims. Now clearly, muslims aren't going to feel enmity about the treatment of the crusaders at the hands of muslims, are they?

Do you feel compelled to argue just for the sake of arguing??

A bunch of leftie news papers whose credibility is in the trash and a muslim propaganda rag are your sources? Real balance in reporting there.

Your the one that brought up the "crusading christian invaders". And that is not the source of the enmity. The source is the koran and the hadath which orders all its followers kill or convert by the sword all infidels. And that land once possessed by islam always belongs to islam and must be retaken.

islam uses the guise of religion but its actually a theocracy, In non-mulsim countries its a theocracy within a soveriegn state.

[darin]

If a prisoner is in custody, and his captors beat him until he dies...that is, by definition, "torture".

wow.

In your world? Because it makes the USA look bad? Sure. Whatever you say.

Torture has a 'point'. Assult/murder does not. Torture is a means to an end.

[Gaffer]

If a prisoner is in custody, and his captors beat him until he dies...that is, by definition, "torture".

wow.

that is by definition....murder

[TheSage]

there is a difference between "cannot" and "ought not" don't you think?

I certainly am not forbidden by law from walking outside in the dead of winter wearing only a pair of swimming trunks.... but I really ought not do so.

But saying they "ought not" is a pathetic adhominem attack to shut them down. Logic is logic, right is right, regardless of a person's past history.

[CockySOB]

could you type that with a straight face?

You ask the man on the street in Baghdad if things are better now than they were four years ago.... then come back and talk to me.

To borrow your own "style"... have you asked someone on the streets of Baghdad if things are better now than they were four years ago? By your own reasoning, if not, then your opinion isn't worth much, is it?

For the record, my boss is an Iraqi ex-pat who still has family in Iraq. While he worries about his family a lot, he has said that under Saddam there was no hope, whereas now at least, there is a glimmer of hope. Second-hand and unverifiable, but I take that as my source on what's going on over in Iraq. (My opinion is worth what you paid for it, so don't bitch, moan or complain because I really don't give a shit.)

[retiredman]

that is by definition....murder

no ...murder requires an element of premeditation. If the captor beats his captive in a vigorous interrogation, the beating is, by definition, torture.... but if the captive dies as a result of the beating, it is not "murder" per se unless it can be proven that the captor went into the interrogation with the predetermined plan to beat his captive to death. And even so.... he, by definition, would torture him to death.

There are plenty of cases - and I listed links to a very few - where American military personnel have beaten Iraqi and Afghani prisoners to death. I hope those links provided you with the knowledge you were missing Gaffer about American military personnel being court martialled for torturing prisoners.... I bet you're glad you aren't over there on active duty, or those links would be about YOU, wouldn't they? Hell.... you'd incarcerate all muslims in America for no reason other than your own fear and bigotry.

[CockySOB]

If a prisoner is in custody, and his captors beat him until he dies...that is, by definition, "torture".

wow.

Really? Care to cite a dictionary which supports your assertion? Or are you asserting your own opinion as truth without providing supporting evidence?

[retiredman]

To borrow your own "style"... have you asked someone on the streets of Baghdad if things are better now than they were four years ago? By your own reasoning, if not, then your opinion isn't worth much, is it?

For the record, my boss is an Iraqi ex-pat who still has family in Iraq. While he worries about his family a lot, he has said that under Saddam there was no hope, whereas now at least, there is a glimmer of hope. Second-hand and unverifiable, but I take that as my source on what's going on over in Iraq. (My opinion is worth what you paid for it, so don't bitch, moan or complain because I really don't give a shit.)

no bitching or moaning or complaining. I am happy to hear that there still is some glimmer of hope...and I hope that your boss's family makes it out safely.

[retiredman]

Really? Care to cite a dictionary which supports your assertion? Or are you asserting your own opinion as truth without providing supporting evidence?

tor·ture /ˈtɔrtʃər/ Pronunciation Key - noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing.
–noun 1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

One can assume that being beaten to deat IS excruciatingly painful n'est ce pas?

[retiredman]

But saying they "ought not" is a pathetic adhominem attack to shut them down. Logic is logic, right is right, regardless of a person's past history.

if it shuts them down, it is only because the truth hurts. I am not saying anything to shut anyone down...

and by MY way of examining this issue, there is no logic to invading Iraq. It was extraordinarily counterproductive. It has increased the size and commitment of our enemies...it has made us more despised and distrusted, not to mention it has made us fewer and poorer.

[TheSage]

no ...murder requires an element of premeditation. If the captor beats his captive in a vigorous interrogation, the beating is, by definition, torture.... but if the captive dies as a result of the beating, it is not "murder" per se unless it can be proven that the captor went into the interrogation with the predetermined plan to beat his captive to death. And even so.... he, by definition, would torture him to death.

There are plenty of cases - and I listed links to a very few - where American military personnel have beaten Iraqi and Afghani prisoners to death. I hope those links provided you with the knowledge you were missing Gaffer about American military personnel being court martialled for torturing prisoners.... I bet you're glad you aren't over there on active duty, or those links would be about YOU, wouldn't they? Hell.... you'd incarcerate all muslims in America for no reason other than your own fear and bigotry.

The fear is warranted. they would love to incinerate you. Only an idiot allows his known assailants to live.

[CockySOB]

no bitching or moaning or complaining. I am happy to hear that there still is some glimmer of hope...and I hope that your boss's family makes it out safely.

Actually, they're not leaving Iraq. In fact, he might be taking his wife and three daughters back to Iraq to visit his family relatively soon. Under Saddam & Sons, he was unwilling to put his wife and daughters at risk of rape (or worse).

BTW, he's already made one trip back in the past year and will probably make a few more trips in the next year or so. Iraq is rebuilding in ways that the MSM just refuses to highlight. At least according to my boss.

[retiredman]

Actually, they're not leaving Iraq. In fact, he might be taking his wife and three daughters back to Iraq to visit his family relatively soon. Under Saddam & Sons, he was unwilling to put his wife and daughters at risk of rape (or worse).

BTW, he's already made one trip back in the past year and will probably make a few more trips in the next year or so. Iraq is rebuilding in ways that the MSM just refuses to highlight. At least according to my boss.

I really hope your boss is right. According to a report released by the UN this week, nearly 40 THOUSAND Iraqi civilians have died in sectarian violence this past year and an even greater number wounded....in a country whose total population is 27M. Those death rates in America in a conflict here between democrats and republicans or southerners versus northerners or whites versus non-caucasians would be 400 THOUSAND dead and an even greater number wounded. How hopeful would you be in the face of such carnage here?