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

[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

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[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

[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! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

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 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 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 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.