The problem in Iraq : Iraqis lack a sense of humor !

[Cyrus]

This is the real problem in Iraq, they just can't understand the American sense of humor. In the United States it's good, clean fun to have a guy strip you naked, put a hood over your head, tie your hands behind your back and kick your ass around the room. (Sometimes the guy will do this to you and your friends at the same time - it's jsut American "group humor".) Sometimes the guy will invite over a girl friend to take part in the fun and pose for pictures. Electical jolts to the genitals give off the most guffaws when the girls are present.

But Iraqis don't get it. They just don't get it.

My opinion? It's their backward Muslim religion that's to blame.



"60 Minutes" link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/27/60II/main614063.shtml)

[Utah]

Pretty minor stuff really, especially compared to what happened in that country before hand. I think if you asked them if they would prefer a Saddamm acid bath or a bullet to the head versus some humiliating pictures, they would all respond, "ah, Ill take that picture thing"

This is pretty much a non-event beong blown way out of proporation. Unfortunately, this was done simply because some jackasses were cruel - which is unacceptable. However, I would have no problem if they had done this on a more systematic scale for a purpose (eg, to save american or Iraqi lives), like "you get captured and this is what you can expect"

[Cyrus]

"Pretty minor stuff really, especially compared to what happened in that country beforehand."

Oh I see. This is not then just AMERICAN HUMOR. It's also a REMINDER to the Iraqis of what was happening during Saddam's dictatorship so that Iraqis embrace ...democracy. I get it.

"This is pretty much a non-event. Unfortunately, this was done simply because some jackasses were cruel - which is unacceptable."

You are coming and going at the same time! Congratulations. Only quarks and Bush apologists are capable of that! (Either this is "minor stuff", a "non event" -- or it is "unacceptable". Can't be both at the same time. We are not in some quantum Iraq, you know. We are in the real Iraq.)

"I would have no problem if they had done this [torture and humiliation] on a more systematic scale for a purpose, like you get captured and this is what you can expect"

So you condone torture and humiliation as a MEANS TO AN END. Brilliant.

(Must be some END...)

[Cyrus]

Despite evidence to the contrary, looks like the AMERICANS and the BRITISH have the same sense of humor! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3675215.stm) /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Now if we could only learn what those POLISH guys are up to in Iraq...

[paland]

What ever happened to the ol' helicoptor toss? You know, the one where you take a couple of prisoners, fly them up, toss one of them out, then listen to the other babble.

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty minor stuff really,.. This is pretty much a non-event..

[/ QUOTE ]

You are so right. In fact, this thread is in the wrong forum. It needs to be in the psychology section, since it's really a topic on how even just a little power can corrupt some people (what was it, fewer than ten people who participated in these sick shenanigans?).

[Cyrus]

"This thread is in the wrong forum. It needs to be in the psychology section."

You are so right. We should taker this to the psychology forum and analyze any douchebag (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=1&u=/nm/20040501/ts_nm/iraq_prison_report_dc_3) that would dare downplay those crimes.

"What was it, fewer than ten people who participated in these sick shenanigans?"

You mean you are glad it wasn't the whole 101st Airborn?

And if perchance you ever find yourself in the position those Iraqis were, just think of the sodomy and the pissing on your face and the electrical wires buzzing your dick as just shenanigans, like y'know Spring Break or sumthin'. Minor stuff really.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
And if perchance you ever find yourself in the position those Iraqis were, just think of the sodomy and the pissing on your face and the electrical wires buzzing your dick as just shenanigans, like y'know Spring Break or sumthin'. Minor stuff really.

[/ QUOTE ]


The fact that such things offend and upset you so deeply, should cause you to be quite relieved that the USA has prevented Saddam's thuggish Baathist Party machinery from executing even worse tortures on a widespread regular basis. In fact, your deep abhorrence of such things should probably have caused you to be for the war prior to the fact, but I guess that was too much to expect.

[Utah]

Poor poor Cyrus,

You are really grasping here. You are trying to take a minor event and use it to cast blame on the entire US military and the Bush administration. You know better. Thats like taking the vile comments about Tillman by a few left nuts and using that as a basic to say that all liberals are scummy anti-american dirtbags.

So you are shocked that you have over a 100,000 soldiers in Iraq and some didnt hold themselves up to the highest standards. Shocked I tell you -shocked!!!

"This is pretty much a non-event. Unfortunately, this was done simply because some jackasses were cruel - which is unacceptable."

You are coming and going at the same time! Congratulations. Only quarks and Bush apologists are capable of that! (Either this is "minor stuff", a "non event" -- or it is "unacceptable". Can't be both at the same time. We are not in some quantum Iraq, you know. We are in the real Iraq.)

So, an event cant be unacceptable and minor at the same time? hmmmm.....

So you condone torture and humiliation as a MEANS TO AN END. Brilliant

sure, why not? We will blow people to bits as a means to an end but we wont torture them as a means to an end. Please explain the moral difference between the two?

[ACPlayer]

How perfectly illogical.


They offend and disgust because these acts are being done in your name and my name. These actions are on our behalf and with our tacit acceptance.

Saddam Hussein offends and disgusts as well. The deaths of the US soldiers and the Iraqi civilians in this war offends and disgusts, specially as there was no cause for it in the first place (at least no cause that was in our interest-- and please spare us the nonsense that we went to rescue the Iraqi's).

[Cyrus]

"We will blow people to bits as a means to an end but we wont torture them as a means to an end. Please explain the moral difference between the two?"

And this from a man who says I'm "grasping"!

Yers, there is a difference between the two, even in war. I will leave you to your own devices to figure it out, maybe this will get you off this thread and save you more embarassment. (In case you haven't yet realized, you are defending torturers here.)

"So, an event cant be unacceptable and minor at the same time?"

Unacceptable is anything about which you cannot say "I don't care". Weren't you paying attention in kindergarden?

"You are shocked that you have over a 100,000 soldiers in Iraq and some didnt hold themselves up to the highest standards."

You are shocked that I am making perhaps a big deal out of this? Well it's not just me, it's about a million publications and TV stations around the world. They can't be all in the payroll of the Democratic Party! You are shocked perhaps that more soldiers did not torture Iraqis "as a means to a noble end", as you want it? Hang in there, more revelations are on the way. Or are you shocked that people don't put this "in perspective" and support the War in Iraq?

Well, here is some more proof that your War in Iraq is idiotic and criminal from beginning to end:

Coalition member-country admits intentionally killing innocent foreigners in order to score points witn America in War Against Terror (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/04/30/macedonia.terrorism.ap/index.html)

[MMMMMM]

A few rogues are just that. You seem to be claiming that you and I "tacitly approved" their actions. Now THAT is illogical.

You also appear unable to separate in your mind the alleviation of the sufferings of the Iraqis under Saddam Hussein, from our motives. Let me make this perfectly clear: regardless of our motives, it was a good--nay, a wonderful thing--for the Iraqis that they were liberated from Saddam Hussein's tortures and oppressions.

You may look at it as that we did good in spite of ourselves, if you wish. But for the victims of oppression and tyranny, the reasons why they got liberated don't matter. What matters is that they did get liberated from cruelest tyranny. You CAN follow that, can't you? That good can be done, and that the most important thing when good is done, is not the motives of the party doing it, but rather the benefits derived by the recipients.

[ACPlayer]

Another example of mis-direction, but lets take the two on.

First, of course they represent the US and by definition you and me. To deny that is deny that democratic govts and its actions are "for the people" of the country they represent. So, yes you have given tacit approval of the conduct by sending them in the first place and then not managing them properly.

Second, Saddam's departure from the scene is good for the Iraqis. The US presence on the scene is bad for the Iraqi's. These are not contradictory. We should have done what we could to get Saddam out (as could be said about many other dictators) but we did not have to go in and kill innocents and urinate on them to do so.

[MMMMMM]

You can't expect anything so large-scale to operate flawlessly--morally speaking, managerially speaking, or otherwise.

The US presence on the scene is good for the Iraqis until the country is more secure and an Iraqi government is in place. To leave at once would ensure chaos, and quite possibly result in civil war.

[Utah]

Yers, there is a difference between the two, even in war. I will leave you to your own devices to figure it out, maybe this will get you off this thread and save you more embarassment. (In case you haven't yet realized, you are defending torturers here.)

Ah, so you cant answer the question. I didnt figure you could since there is no moral difference really.

I am not defending torturers. I am saying that the method is morally neutral. I fail to see how how torturing someone to achieve a goal is worse than bombing the s#$^ out of them to achieve a goal (this does not mean I condone all torture as legitimate). In fact, I pretty much think all methods of warfare are morally equivelant - including flying planes into buildings. The act itself might be morally wrong - but the method is certainly legitimate.

Unacceptable is anything about which you cannot say "I don't care

weak definition at best. So, lets I call a woman a b&$#%. Unacceptable for sure. But is that as unacceptable as gunning her down in cold blood? Should both of them be covered in the local paper and should the public make as big a deal for both events?

You are shocked that I am making perhaps a big deal out of this? Well it's not just me, it's about a million publications and TV stations around the world. They can't be all in the payroll of the Democratic Party!

You know better. Oh wait - Im sorry. I forget. We live in a bias neutral news world where the goal of the world press is to simply report accurate news. Although, I find it funny, as I am sure you do, that Al Jeezera hasnt shown pictures of insurgents using woman and children as shields.

Cyrus stupid moment of the week -

The artile you post has zero to do with Iraq and the murders took place Macedonia you doofus. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[dsm]

[ QUOTE ]
this thread is in the wrong forum. It needs to be in the psychology section, since it's really a topic on how even just a little power can corrupt some people

[/ QUOTE ]

Good observation. Anybody remember Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment?

Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment of August 1971 (http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/august22/prison2-822.html)

[WTF]

[ QUOTE ]
and the electrical wires buzzing your dick

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't seen any evidence of dicks getting buzzed. All I saw was a number of carefully staged photographs. One of which showed a wire going up and under a man's robe, which easily could have been, and probably was, attached to an article of clothing. If there had been any juice flowing threw the wire into that man's genitalia, his body would have been all contorted. No doubt.

[ACPlayer]

You can't expect anything so large-scale to operate flawlessly--morally speaking, managerially speaking, or otherwise

Why cant I expect it? It operated pretty flawlessly as a killing machine -- of course there was no morality there either.

If you are married and tell your wife "I did not have sexual relations with that woman -- it was just an abherrent few inches that found its way into her mouth". Wonder what she would say to that!

[ QUOTE ]
"If there had been any juice flowing threw the wire into that man's genitalia, his body would have been all contorted."

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, tell me about it. That guy looks so relaxed I can almost hear him saying, "Hurry up you guys, snap the F***ing shot already. My arms are starting to get tired."

[ QUOTE ]
No doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now here's a topic worthy of conversation. Gwen Stefani is so close to perfection. Now if somebody could only talk her into getting a breast job! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

iL douchebag

[Cyrus]

"Anybody remember Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment?"

You cannot file this under "unwanted consequences". The Military Intelligence commanders demanded from their military colleagues running the Iraqi prisons to "soften up" big time those held there. The "softening up" was left to the imagination of the guards. Then the M.I. were taking over for the serious stuff -- and don't expect any photos from those sessions!(Remember that the people in Abu Ghraib are held for anything ranging from suspicion of looting to being a member of the underground resistance.)

The military report is very explicit about what was going on in the prison. Don't rely on just the "souvenir" photos that the prison guards took, they "cover" only a small part of what went down. Read the relevant article (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact) about what military discovered was going on in American prisons in Iraq since the beginning. Of special interest is the part about the totally incompetent woman commander of a prison, in real-life a "business consultant" -- hah! She was posted there in order not to interfere with the "boys' work".

No, the torture and the abuse have been systematic from the beginning. At the beginning of course, only the "leftist" websites (http://talkleft.com/new_archives/002771.html) were protesting (since May 2003!) that severe abuses of human rights were happening in Iraq, by the self-professed "defenders of human rights", i.e. the invaders.

You can also take a look at what the British (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3675215.stm) discovered is going on in their units, just so that you don't feel alone in shame when looking at the pix.

Of course there will always be douchebags who find pictures of torture to be a cause for merriment.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
M: You can't expect anything so large-scale to operate flawlessly--morally speaking, managerially speaking, or otherwise

ACPlayer: Why cant I expect it? It operated pretty flawlessly as a killing machine -- of course there was no morality there either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're just resorting to emotonalism and employing rhetoric. It didn't operate flawlessly as a killing machine--there were quite a few snafus--though it's cute how you inserted the word "pretty" just to enable your rhetoric.

[ QUOTE ]
ACPLayer:If you are married and tell your wife "I did not have sexual relations with that woman -- it was just an abherrent few inches that found its way into her mouth". Wonder what she would say to that!

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on---you can draw a better analogy than that, can't you? ;-)

[Cyrus]

For someone who comes on all aggressive and arrogant in his posts, you're making points that are way too mushy and airy. But it's your time.

"So you can't answer the question. I didn’t figure you could since there is no moral difference really [between killing and torturing]."

I see you either play the fool or you are the real thing. I will not be baited into elementary issues but will only give you as broad a hint as possible : Check out the Geneva Protocols' text. You might ask yourself why the world considers morally unacceptable to torture a war prisoner but morally acceptable to kill the enemy in war.

Happy reading. (Or is that too much to ask?)

"In fact, I pretty much think all methods of warfare are morally equivalent - including flying planes into buildings."

Ah a moral relativist! We should have you stuffed. (No, better yet, why don't you give a call to Osama bin Laden? That's what he was saying all along. Osama and his people claim that blowing up buses and slamming airplanes on buildings is not different from "regular" warfare. Way to go, Utah!)

"The article you post has zero to do with Iraq and the murders took place Macedonia you doofus."

The article I posted was indicative of the war's idiocy and its criminal nature, from beginning to end. That was why I put it up for all to see, as I wrote. Only a war executed with such a twisted logic as the war in Iraq was could cause the intentional killing of innocents away from Iraq, only in order for the killers to score points with the United States!

And the killing is also revealing of the true motives of the countries participating in the "coalition". Why else would ...Macedonia join in the war against Saddam? Only a doofus would believe that countries such as Albania, El Salvador or Macedonia are keen to ...give democracy to the Iraqis.

[ACPlayer]

What's wrong with rhetoric? A great way to make a point usually. You may want to learn some debating techniques to help you make your points. There was zero emotionalism in my point, unlike the emotionalism that you frequently demonstrate on the subject of Islam.

The analogy is not all bad, as clearly Bush's Military's running of this war is analogous to Clinton's running of his penis. The furor over the penis was far greater than the furor over the treatment of the prisoners (I know you opposed the furor and thought it was much ado about nothing -- but you also know that the penis did not kill innocent people).

But there is definitely room for improvement in the analogy. Isn't there always?

[Utah]

I am neither arrogant nor agressive. I just dislike it immensely when people that have some intellectual capacity, like yourself, use such obviously flawed logic.


I will not be baited into elementary issues

Ah, like I said, you cannot answer the question. I challenge you to do it. How can you be baited into anything if you are merely stating what is so obvious? Please, I am the fool you believe me to be. Explain it to me.

BTW - rules of warefare do not by any means dictate what is morally correct. They only try to set the playing field - and they do a miserable job at doing so. Do you think our enemies (i.e., your friends) follow the Geneva protocals?

Since we are on the subject - let me throw a hypothetical scenario at you. WW2 and the decision to drop the atomic bomb. What if we were able to achieve the same result by torturing 1 person? Would the bomb be acceptable and the torture be morally wrong? What about 100 people? 1,000, 10,000? You get twisted up mighty quick when you start to try and 'rate' things morally.

Ah a moral relativist! We should have you stuffed. (No, better yet, why don't you give a call to Osama bin Laden? That's what he was saying all along. Osama and his people claim that blowing up buses and slamming airplanes on buildings is not different from "regular" warfare. Way to go, Utah!)

We both might also both think pizza is a great food. That doesnt mean we share any sort of common goals. As I said, trying to assign morality to warefare tactics is a worthless exercise. Again, there is a big difference between tactics and actual actions - but I suspect you know that. For example, shooting someone in the head is a tactic and it is morally neutral. If can be used for acceptable means (self defense) or horrific means (sadistic murder).

In the end, as Ayn Rand and others have hypothesized, this morality stuff is all B.S. anyway. Tell me, where does morality come from?

The article I posted was indicative of the war's idiocy and its criminal nature

This artical had absolutely zero to do with Iraq. Zero. Go read it again. And again, you need to stop taking specific actions and extrapolating them out to a larger meaning. However, if you want to do that, we can have a lot of fun with the actions of the fringe left (or right).

[imported_Chuck Weinstock]

Also, somebody doesn't have a fashion sense. According to the "fashion" expert on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy (as interviewed on either Wait Wait Don't Tell Me or Waddya Know? I can't remember) they would have been much better off with a navy blue instead of the royal blue they are using.

Chuck

[adios]

So what should the US do about it? Pull out of Iraq ASAP? Use the time warp machine and have those responsible undue the deeds? Investigate the incidents and punish the guilty appropriately? What?

[Boris]

small potatoes. War is ugly. This is a normal part of the process. It is also why the Pentagon and the Bush Administration want very careful control over information that is reported to the media. Many people support an idea in principal and then chicken out or change their mind when confronted with reality. Well we (meaning the collective citizens of the US) signed up for this war so we should accept that this kind of crap will occur.

[CORed]

Our biggest problem in Iraq is that the leadership (up to and including the Commander in Chief) is incompetent. If you really want to get information from people and are not troubled by ethical considerations, drugs are much more effective than torture. (Not that I'm advocating either)

[Cyrus]

"This morality stuff is all B.S. anyway. Tell me, where does morality come from?"

There go two and a half thousand years of human endeavors to define morality! All for B.S. apparently.

"As Ayn Rand and others have hypothesized..."

Ah, Ayn Rand, Dan Quayle's favorite philosopher! At last, we are dealing with the heavyweights, with the colossuses of western thought. Socrates was a fag.

"You cannot answer the question [about torture and killing]. I challenge you to do it. Please, I am the fool you believe me to be. Explain it to me."

If you put it this way, alright. Here are today's highlights of war ethics :

- Torturing the enemy is not acceptable under the Geneva Protocols. Killing the enemy is.

- Even when the other side does it, you don't need to violate the ethics of war in order to win the war.

- If the other side violates the ethics of war, that doesn't mean that our side is given a free pass to do it too.

- It is to the detriment if the United States to violate the ethics of war. (This is a little complicated and needs elaboration but I said this will be brief : The U.S. aspires to global hegemony but along with military and political it must also offer moral leadership to the world, a facet of American foreign policy that is glaringly weak.)

"This artical had absolutely zero to do with Iraq. Zero. Go read it again."

(patiently) The artical (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/04/30/macedonia.terrorism.ap/index.html) has everything to do with the war in Iraq. To wit :

The U.S. is supposedly engaged in the War Against Terror. The U.S. twists tha arm of every nation in the world ("if you're not with us, etc") to join in that War. The U.S. invades Iraq as part of that wWar, joined by token soldiery from "coalition country-members". The participation of those countris, I submit, is a joke! They are only there to curry American favors - which only shows the moral and political bankruptsy of the war in Iraq. A moral bankrupsy that is evident, among other things, when a country-member intentionally kills off a bunch of illegal Pakistani immigrants and says they were terrorists in order to win brownie points from the U.S.

Go read it again.

[Cyrus]

Here's a serious and in-depth analysis along with a proposal.

Although I disagree with some of the author's remarks about the situation in Iraq, I found his arguments to be well made.

How To Get Out Of Iraq (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17103)

[Cyrus]

"Somebody doesn't have a fashion sense. According to the fashion expert on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy they would have been much better off with a navy blue instead of the royal blue they are using."

Hmmm. You might have a point about that blue.

I recently read an article about a Marine private first class returning home (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/05/02/INGBS6CGK61.DTL) from Iraq and according to the description he was dressed in blues. Also his father (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june04/son_04-20.html) found it appropriate to make a painting for the occasion and use some blue patina "to simulate moonlight" as he said. What gimps, huh?

[Utah]

There go two and a half thousand years of human endeavors to define morality! All for B.S. apparently.

Beautiful. Instead of answering the question you want to make wise cracks. But again you refuse to answer the question.....hmmm....I am starting to think you cant.

If you put it this way, alright. Here are today's highlights of war ethics :

-sigh- you have answered nothing. I feel bad for you because I realize you are in a tough spot. You spouted off and now you are trying to answer a question that has no answer. of course, some one of your intellect realizes that to say Geneva says its wrong says nothing of the nature of the two acts in question.

Funny how you completely avoided my question about whether it would have been better to torture 10 men or to fry 150,000+ people. -sigh-

(patiently) The artical has everything to do with the war in Iraq. To wit :

The U.S. is supposedly engaged in the War Against Terror. The U.S. twists tha arm of every nation in the world ("if you're not with us, etc") to join in that War. The U.S. invades Iraq as part of that wWar, joined by token soldiery from "coalition country-members". The participation of those countris, I submit, is a joke! They are only there to curry American favors - which only shows the moral and political bankruptsy of the war in Iraq. A moral bankrupsy that is evident, among other things, when a country-member intentionally kills off a bunch of illegal Pakistani immigrants and says they were terrorists in order to win brownie points from the U.S.

Now, if you wanted to make an argument that this was about the war on terror, well that would make a little more sense. However, that is not what you did - and you know it. This event had zero to do with Iraq. Hey, speaking of the war on terror, did you hear that little story about some planes flying into building? You might not of heard of it as it got so little play in the press.

[Cyrus]

"Again you refuse to answer the question.....hmmm....I am starting to think you cant."

I have already answered the question about torture and killing. "I can provide you with an explanatioon but I am not obliged to make you understand".

And you could do worse than study that cant fella.

"Funny how you completely avoided my question about whether it would have been better to torture 10 men or to fry 150,000+ people."

What is funny is the mentality you share with war criminals who think precisely along these lines (i.e. we tortured --and gassed and maimed etcetera-- thousands in order to save millions , and usually it's millions of our people, some superioor race or sumthin'). On closer look, it isn't funny at all.

"If you wanted to make an argument that [the killings in Macedonia] was about the war on terror, well that would make a little more sense. However, that is not what you did - and you know it. This event had zero to do with Iraq."

George W Bush is currently conducting a whole war, in a country called Iraq, right after conducting a war in another country, named Afghanistan, both explicitly part of the War Against Terror.

The events in Macedonia are directly and explicitly tied to that War Against Terror, part of which is supposedly (your folks' words) the war in Iraq. Both idiotically conducted and bound to fail. I can forgive you not understanding the part about failure since I accept you cannot see beyond petty politics, but not understanding the Macedonia part is doofus thinking. /images/graemlins/cool.gif