Who on EARTH thought that we'd ever torture Saddam? Gimme a break! Jeebus.

Now, should he be driven around in a Popemobile wearing a tu-tu through the streets of Iraq to show him what his people really think of him? Sure! Is that torture? Hell, no. At least not the kind that Good Mr. McCain went through. It's public berating.

koningwoning...you didn't do anything when he gassed people either. So don't give the hawks a break, break the hawks!"

You mean like invade his country and remove him from power?

I have a feeling his Soviet allies wouldn't have cared for that to much.

I don't think it would be wrong to drug him for info.

re: Jessica Lynch

"She is a brave soldier."

...or an inept soldier, if you ask other soldiers. It's all relative.

CatholicSamurai sez: "By your logic we should blame God for evil since Lucifer was once one of His boys."

Oh No! The Invisible Cloud Being has been invoked!

No, CatholicSamurai, I am merely pointing out that policies have real consequences and it is stupendous hypocrisy for us to strut so pompously on the moral high ground regarding Saddam Hussein, as we've seen this week. It is grotesque and embarrassing. Taking no responsibility for scum like Saddam is simply a case of contorted rationalization. Anyone engaged in it should be ashamed of themselves, or make an appointment with a shrink.

koningwoning...you didn't do anything when he gassed people either. So don't give the hawks a break, break the hawks!"

You mean like invade his country and remove him from power?

I have a feeling his Soviet allies wouldn't have cared for that to much.

"You're in denial. Just because you don't want something to be true doesn't mean it isn't.

You mean like your argument that we had influence over saddam during the 80s when he was a soviet ally?

OK, we're both in denial.

"Along with others, we supported him during his heyday of citizen-abuse, and that's the facts, Jack."

By 'support' you mean "not invading and removing from power'

Some questionable policy choices were made, but what it comes down to is that all those Iraqis would be alive if SADDAM had choosen not to kill them.

HotWingConspiracy

re: Jessica Lynch

"She is a brave soldier."

...or an inept soldier, if you ask other soldiers. It's all relative.

Or, relatively speaking, one could say she was bravely inept.

The fact that someone has to say that openly is pretty frightening.

Shut...UP sez: "While I do that, you can still let me know how the US was responsbible for saddam killing his people."

If you can't see the connection, you don't want to and there is no point in going on with you. I could provide you with all the evidence in the world and you still would deny it, because you don't want to accept it no matter what. It contradicts your ideology and therefore it cannot be true for you.

PC LOAD LETTER sez: "That's AFTER the 1979 coup in Tehran. Just look at the equipment. Iran fought Iraq with US-made jets. Iraq fought back with Soviet-made jets. We supported him because he was the enemy of our enemy."

Dig deeper and you'll find lots of direct aid. Like I said, you can call it statecraft or realpolitik if you like, but it doesn't make it right, and it renders the our moral posturing hypocritical. Grotesquely hypocritical.

Given the probability that saddam never posed much of a threat the the US, torturing him for info would be of questionable value, so I don't see a big moral dilemma. Now if they caught bin laden, that's another story.

Add me to the list of people who would rather have seen McCain as the Republican nominee. I'm sure (as a moderate) that there would have been more than a few things that I would have disagreed with a President McCain over. But I would have respectfully disagreed, unlike that case with the spoiled, lazy frat boy in the oval office now.

Xeonicus, you'd be surprised at how many of your fellow Americans would happily torture Saddam Hussein (for fun or information, or both).

Saddam may deserve to be tortured since he did it to other people, but that doesn't make it right (or an effective means of interrogation), and that's what McCain was driving at, I think.

Shut...Up
I didn't actually give him money and tell companies that they could sell all kinds of bacterial shiat either, I'm not the one who's picture is taken while smiling and shaking hands with Saddam while he's trying to invade another country.....
I didn''t mean invade his country, I meant maybe sever diplomatic relations and not keep on supplying him money & info.

What I mean (in the end =) When wil we all ever understand that helping our enemies enemy NEVER is good.

anyone thought about this one? we had tikrit surrounded for HOW long? and no one thought to poke around? bullshiat. i believe we had him awhile ago, and were waiting for the holidays to boost morale. isn't it convenient that we just happened to have a translator handy when we found him? the standard operating procedure is to drop a grenade down first, spelunk later. isn't it convenient that he "introduced himself" just before the crucial split second? it works like this: open, toss, close. less than a second, all told. so i care not if i sound like a conspiracy nut, i just don'e trust the PR. and on torture... kudos to mccain for following OUR CODE OF CONDUCT, which is military doctrine, and standard procedure. hero, my ass.

SHUT...UP

Please open a book, or do some research on-line. You are confusing Iran with Iraq, man. I know, they both look the same from a distance, they both start with an 'I', both have 2 syllables and both are just 4 letters long. I understand yuor difficulty, I am dyslexic as well! That said, you are sadly misinformed. Iran was getting military surplus from USSR, while Iraq was getting it's $ and weapons from the good ol' US of A.

I want to know who the hell says we SHOULD be torturing Saddam, or any of the other detainees???

To what end would it accomplish? we have them in custody. Whether they offer relative information is up to the interrogators. Torture is a completely un-necessary option. I submit that it is merely a salacious topic, there for open for discussion. But in the reality of the actual world that we live in, it is highly unlikely.

Iraq was seen as the counterweight to Iranian influence in the Gulf region during the 1980's. Just becasue saddam accepted help from other nations doesn't mean that he also wasn't one of our SOBs. If he hadn't blundered and invaded Kuwait, he might still be receiving US aid.

Shut...UP: I will try one more time.

Say you have a neighbor who is a crack addict with ten kids. He asks you for grocery money because he is too poor to buy groceries for his kids. You give him the money, and he spends it on crack. He asks for more money for groceries. You give him money, and he spends it on crack. The police come around and you swear on a stack of bibles he isn't smoking any crack, because you would hate to see him lose his kids. Then you give him more money for groceries, which he spends on crack.

Do you have any responsibility for his depravity, or is it all his own fault and no complicity devolves to you?

canoyeer:

"The Invisible Cloud Being". Man, you liberals share a chimp-like slave mentallity. I'm guessing your social circle thinks your a regular Bill Hicks with that 3rd grade comment, huh.

Anyway, back to your idiotic point: All you are doing is describing life. Every country makes pacts with countries that sometimes go bad in the end. The US and UK fought with Russia in WWII. Does that mean we should blame people like Churchill for the Cold War, since the UK was once an ally with Communist Rusia?

if wesley clark had said this, all you jackbooted jerks would be calling him a pussy.

SpoogeMaGoo writes:

Sigh... Too bad McCain is the last Awesome Republican to run for President.

Not even close...and at least the Republican Party has within its capability to make more...unlike a certain other political party, whose last awesome President/Presidential candidate died in 1963.

It is time we put awesomeness back in the white house!

To be frank I wouldn't vote for Howard Dean for city council, let alone a position of higher authority.

For one, he seems to get the whole money thing backwards. He thinks that *we* would work for *him* and he is too fond of talking about all the "wonderful" things he will do with his/our money--things he claims we need, and that somehow in the end we'll get paid back. My experience with people like Mr. Dean is that whenever I do the numbers, somehow I always end up short, and things of national and world interest that should get funded don't, because all the spare cash was already promised to some entitlement hungry special interest group.

At the same time, he seems to be of the opinion that the U.S. should be at the beckon call of the United Nations whenever it comes to foreign affairs. That might be fine if the other nations of the world didn't put national interests first, which clearly they do.

His idealism is dangerous and wrong for America.

On topic: McCain is right, we shouldn't torture Saddam. We should just execute him--and give every Iraqi who wants it a chance to shoot the body afterwards. Giving Saddam a forum to spout bullshiat while lying to our intelligence people serves no purpose.

--h

"while Iraq was getting it's $ and weapons from the good ol' US of A."

Really?



Now do you want to make grown up arguments or stick to your childish insults?

Gee thats tiny.

Anyways its weapons imports to Iraq from 1973-1990. The Soviets account for 57% and the "good ol' US of A" accounts for 1%.

Dear CatholicSamurai: Who is more stupid, the ape or the person who tries to convince the ape of his ideas?
You decide which you are?

I for one agree with Canyoneer: it's a difference between supplying aid while knowing that this is going to be used in a bad way and being an ally (standing shoulder to shoulder during war).

If my knowledge of history does not fail me (too lazy to Google) as soon as the war ended the UK & USSR were adversaries again.... Furthermore the evilness of the USSR lied in its starving of its people... not something you can do with the help of others.

Anyway, back to your idiotic point: All you are doing is describing life. Every country makes pacts with countries that sometimes go bad in the end. The US and UK fought with Russia in WWII. Does that mean we should blame people like Churchill for the Cold War, since the UK was once an ally with Communist Rusia?-CatholicSamurai

But when we make pacts with bad countries, acting all morally outraged after the fact comes off as phony and hypocritical. We knew saddam was an evil mo-fo almost from the get-go. I could have bought into the "we have to free the Iraqi people argument" if the fact that the US shared responsibility for feeding the monster had been included in the case by bush & co. Without that admission, the argument sounds just like ass covering for failure to find WMD. I cut my political teeth on realpolitic. That means I'm cynical before my time and insincere morality leaves me cold.

CatholicSamurai: I am not a liberal, but I am an agnostic and I find the invocation of God in these discussions tedious indeed. Screw you with your comments about "slave-mentality," thumper boy.

I'm done with you and Shut...UP and your situational ethics and moral relativism. For you, as long as it was convenient at some point in the past, there is no responsibility involved in supporting the Beast of Baghdad. 20 years ago it was OK, but now he is a bad man and we must execute him. Whatever fits the bill at any given point in time and then you wash your hands of the whole affair.

That is hypocrisy, not to mention a very curious position for a "christian" to take.

"You give him the money, and he spends it on crack."

I would point you to the above graph. It shows were saddam got his crack money from.

"I'm done with you and Shut...UP and your situational ethics and moral relativism."

and I thought we were having a nice conversation.

TampaBayDon
She is a brave soldier. She has given more then most of us farkers.

She should be commended for her fortitude, not for her skills as a soldier. Surviving what she did shows us she's tough and has willpower. Defending your comrades with a jammed weapon despite all risks to your life and actually having an affect on the enemy is bravery and skill. Judging by her survival and actually owning up to her commitment to the service, I'm sure she's got some brass balls and is a brave person. But sitting in a Hum-Vee during a firefight, surviving an accident, and living long enough in the hospital to get picked up by American troops pales in comparison to what others from her unit did (including the others in her Hum-Vee).

But don't believe me, I'm just paraphrasing what she's already said.

Ever felt one thing and said another? How does this work???? Hmmmm... Lets see... "OK Rahsheed.. go ahead and rape me but I still wont want the same for you or your leader..."... Ya right!

We have a military superiority over the rest of the world that isn't often seen. Rome had it, England had, others have had it, now we have it. But unlike those other empires, we did not actively enforce our will on our neighbors or the world. We did not tell the world "fark you, we're going to do what we want because you can't stop us." We have not been conquerors, we've been responsible. While some argue Iraq 2.0 was a change from this policy, the fact remains we need to be responsible with our power. Like a parent, we need to be above our base reactions, above petty anger, and above a rage-fueled desire to just hit something that's made us angry. We seemed to be the first country to really understand that fact and for awhile the rest of the world seemed to agree. Without this moral high ground, we just become another empire doomed to fall because we couldn't get along with others.

From every interview and article I've read, it appears Lynch understands this as well.

Okay, real quick....

Bad use of the hero tag. Maybe an obvious tag. Here's basically how the whole "torturing" discussion has worked since the capture:

US Government: "We've captured Saddam."
US Media: "You aren't going to torture him, are you?"
Donald Rumsfeld: "No."
Farkers: "Rumsfeld is a lying NAZI!!"

People are getting angry over the suggestion by the media that we might do something we never said we would. Don't you people have jobs??

Flypusher - I'm sad I have to agree. I always said that I would not grow up to be cynical, but when you realize that everything you see & hear is just cardboard settings in front of dungheap.... you smell the coffee!

So everyone not with the program yet: "WAKE UP!!!!"

Don't you people have jobs??

Yes, and Fark is how I survive each day without killing everyone in sight.

1) The only reason I brought up the God/Lucifer angle was not to bring up God in the conversation, but to show an analogy for the whole "Well, We supposedly gave Iraq all those weapons!" argument. If you were half as intelligent as you think you are, you would have picked up on it.

2) That's sweet you are an agnostic. I hope that works out for you

3) I have to live in reality, where sometimes you have to deal with shady people to achieve a common good. Iraq was supplied 1% of their weapons by the U.S. The vast majority of Iraq's weapons were supplied by the U.S.S.R. Why are you blaming Russia for Saddam's slaughters?

4) Your idea of Christians being a bunch of pantywaist weaklings who would rather die than fight is dead wrong. You should read history books.

The Patriot Act does have some issues that I am concerned with, but the people who are acting like we are going to have a Brave New World or a 1984-type situation are the same people that overreact to everything else in the world.

Well, CatholicSamurai, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance...

With all of these Democrats saying how they would have voted for McCain, and how great McCain is... can you connect the dots to understand why he didn't win the REPUBLICAN primary.

McCain is a war hero, but a political populist, and a Republican in Name Only. Karl Rove didn't need dirty tricks to beat him. His ideas (or lack of original ideas) came out in the primary and he was defeated. That's how the process works.

CatholicSamurai

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and
CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah
45:7 KJV)

Bad use of the hero tag. Maybe an obvious tag. Here's basically how the whole "torturing" discussion has worked since the capture:
US Government: "We've captured Saddam."
US Media: "You aren't going to torture him, are you?"
Donald Rumsfeld: "No."
Farkers: "Rumsfeld is a lying NAZI!!"

With McCain the fact that he was tortured as a POW adds interest. Unfortunately too many people out there would seek to do bad unto others as was done to them. It takes morality to treat your enemies better than you were treated. I will agree that the hero tag is too much here, perhaps a new tag is in order, like "right on!" or something. (How many times do farker/ettes call for new tags anyway? How many tags would there be if all suggestions were acted upon?)

People are getting angry over the suggestion by the media that we might do something we never said we would. Don't you people have jobs??

Yes, but I can choose my hours.

An honest question regarding comments made earlier in this thread. Most seem to be of the mind that Saddam should be tried by Iraqis, under Iraqi law, following (I can only suppose) the formal creation of an Iraqi judiciary (unless they use a truth & reconciliation style committee, which I believe the governing Council recently set up).

My question, would Americans respect the judgement if Saddam were found not guilty? I know it's unlikely, and I'm not trying to troll, but most thought the OJ case was a slam dunk, so imagine Saddam gets Mohammed Cochrane to defend him, the glove doesn't fit on his hand, and all of a sudden, he's not guilty of his crimes. Would the US respect that judgement?

CS
1) In that view God is to blame. Make someone they way they are and then punishing them for doing that makes YOU the one to blame
2) feel the same way here
3) Where does the dealing with shady people end.... ever heard of the term accessory (sorry no spell check and no native speaker)
4) Wish they were a bit more. I thoutght Gandhi & Martin Luther King were good guys.... you probably prefer Rambo!

P.s. before you start - I believe as well, but I also have the capacity to choose what I am to believe in

McCain is a war hero, but a political populist, and a Republican in Name Only.

Kind of contradicts the "Republican party as a big tent" idea, doesn't it?

Ranxerox:

I know the verse. I explained my God/Lucifer angle in an post I made earlier.

Any man who dumps his trophy wife because she got gimp-legged from a car accident, then bounces right back to git hisself a bran-spankin' new trophy wife with GOOD legs, is my .

CatholicSam writes:

"The Patriot Act does have some issues that I am concerned with, but the people who are acting like we are going to have a Brave New World or a 1984-type situation are the same people that overreact to everything else in the world."

What do you think is worse, overreaction or apathy? Honest question.

Here's a brain frier, Ranerox and CatholicSamurai: did God order Lucifer to defy Him? (remember, angels are only extensions of God and do not have the free will we enjoy) Did Jesus order Judas to betray Him? Did God consciously create evil just to provide an enemy?

Did God consciously create evil just to provide an enemy?

Maybe we should ask Tatsuya Ishida.

My question, would Americans respect the judgement if Saddam were found not guilty? I know it's unlikely, and I'm not trying to troll, but most thought the OJ case was a slam dunk, so imagine Saddam gets Mohammed Cochrane to defend him, the glove doesn't fit on his hand, and all of a sudden, he's not guilty of his crimes. Would the US respect that judgement?

That is a very good question. As much as saddam deserves a bullet between the eyes, I could almost root for that to happen just to see how bush & co would react.

Almost, I said.