What keeps this country in order, loyalty of some sort

[Mike Rotch]

Originally posted by neon_duke
In other words, you made some smug, postmodern, off-the-cuff comment so that you could sound all edgy and avant-garde. Then a number of intelligent people rebutted it. Since you had no actual thinking behind your comment, just a premanufactured, facile opinion you picked up somewhere that seemed cool, you now find yourself unable to defend it. So you tell us to move on, rather than actually try to come up with a response.

 

[Seito4Counter]

I thought this forum was for trumpeting one's opinion, (with little regard for the reader) hence the forum title Opinions.

Also I did not mean to say that it is not possible to attain wealth ethically. By all means it is. However, I mean to say that in the system America has, many people forget their ethics in the pursuit of wealth. This is not something unique to the states, but nevertheless it seems painfully obvious in the u.s. Just turn on the tele. Every commercial appeals to a persons lust or greed. A bombardment of unethical ideas, or ethical ones, does change the shape of a society. So, yes people can make money ethically. I wonder how many people actually do that. Considering recent scandals there are quite a few who do not.

 

[Mike Rotch]

Originally posted by Seito4Counter
Just turn on the tele. Every commercial appeals to a persons lust or greed.

That is the point of advertising. Are you telling me that adverts in Japan, the UK or Russia are clean living, innocent pokes at the consumers wallet? No. They too try to lure the consumer by stimulating lust and greed.

 

[Seito4Counter]

No doubt this is true in other countries.. but it seems to be (especially in Japan) a matter of ad agencies copying u.s. styles and formats, or U.S. agencies making commercials in foreign countries.

I suppose what I should get at is the general decline in morality and ethics that the world has undergone and I believe that the U.S. is the center of this decline.

 

[Danoff]

Decline in ethics or increase in publicity of poor ethics?

Don't you think there were lots of unethical people back in the 1800's? We just didn't hear about them as often.

...and advertising using sex or greed is not poor ethics. It's smart. It takes into account the natural design of man.

Perhaps what you are noticing is freedom in the US. Freedom to behave badly, and freedom of the press to report nasty stuff. If that's what's catching on in other countries, I have to say I think it's for the better and I'm proud to be at the "center" of it.

 

[Seito4Counter]

So you mean to say that the glamorization of sex, violence, drugs, and the glamorization of a U.S. society being superior to all others is a good thing? and is intelligent? My lord I hope your vision of what is good never occurs. Unfortunatly, your wonderful basket of freedom is headed that way. I do agree though that I said it wrong. While I am not sure if there are more or less ethical people, ethics do not seem to be encouraged in day to day life in the states, I know because I just lived one.

Now bringing up freedom, the U.S. isn't that free. You now live in a country which can strip you of your citizenship and then torture you or throw you into prison. What a wonderful freedom. Also using the scapegoat that because my country is free we can do what we want, is no excuse at all for unethical behavior. It seems that the U.S. is full of bickering bigoted slobs that have little respect for themselves or anyone else. Of course this is not every U.S. citizen. Most likely not even half. However it is now acceptable to be unethical in U.S. society. It is not portrayed as something to be shameful or worried about. I find that while a society can function like this, it becomes very.. sketchy. An eden of idiots and a**holes who like to get off, get high, and get rich. Wonderful.

 

[milefile]

The people in America are free. All people everywhere are born free. Their governments enhance it or deter it. If you are not free it is your own fault.

And who was stripped of citizenship, tortured and imprisoned? I didn't hear about that.

Here's your morally superior Japan...

JAPAN: Largest sex industry market for Asian women. Over 150,000 non-Japanese women in prostitution, mostly Thai and Filipino women. East European women have also been noted. Japanese men constitute the largest number of Asian sex tourists. The sex industry accounts for 1% of GNP and equals the country's defense budget. One "sex zone" in Tokyo, only 0.34 sq. km., has 3,500 sex "facilities"; strip theaters, peep shows, "soaplands," "lovers' banks," porno shops, sex telephone clubs, karaoke bars, clubs, etc.

 

[Seito4Counter]

I did not call Japan morally superior. It was written in new legislation that the government if it is assumed that one has acted "in an unpatriotic manner" that their citizenship can be revoked. This would naturally imply that one could be treated however.

 

[milefile]

Uh huh. Naturally.

So I suppose Japan is just copying America there, right?

 

[Sage]

Originally posted by Seito4Counter
So you mean to say that the glamorization of sex, violence, drugs, and the glamorization of a U.S. society being superior to all others is a good thing? and is intelligent? My lord I hope your vision of what is good never occurs.

I hope it does. His vision of a perfect world is Capitalism, and so is mine.

I must say though that danoff didn't state that glamorizing drugs was a good thing (I don't even see him mentioning drugs in his post), nor violence, nor glamorization of U.S. society being superior to other. Sex, yes, but the others, no.

Also, if you dislike the loosely clad women on TV so much, then why watch those shows? And if you're referring to commercials, then either buy a TiVo, scan a few other channels during your show's commercials, or write a letter to the station if it really bothers you. It's never particularly bothered me (a lot of it is stupid BS, but it doesn't actually offend me), so I haven't done any of the above.

Now bringing up freedom, the U.S. isn't that free. You now live in a country which can strip you of your citizenship and then torture you or throw you into prison. What a wonderful freedom.

Well, if you do something illegal, then yes. I don't do illegal things, so I don't worry about that stuff.

Also using the scapegoat that because my country is free we can do what we want, is no excuse at all for unethical behavior. It seems that the U.S. is full of bickering bigoted slobs that have little respect for themselves or anyone else. Of course this is not every U.S. citizen. Most likely not even half. However it is now acceptable to be unethical in U.S. society. It is not portrayed as something to be shameful or worried about. I find that while a society can function like this, it becomes very.. sketchy.

I realize just as well as you do how many idiots there are, but I still don't understand why you're limiting it to the U.S., or even claiming that it's a bigger problem in the U.S. than elsewhere. Have you ever lived in Europe? in Australia? in Asia? I can tell you that having been to Thailand many times during my life, I'd much rather live in the U.S. (though I must say it's not a bad place to visit, especially the tropical areas. Visit, though.)

[...] who like to get off, get high, and get rich.

What's wrong with sex, what's wrong with drugs/alcohol, and what's wrong with money? The only thing I might have to explain is drugs/alcohol, but if the stupid want to kill themselves, they can go ahead, as long as I'm not affected. And if they do it in such a way as to affect people, that's where the judicial system butts in.

 

[Danoff]

So you mean to say that the glamorization of sex, violence, drugs, and the glamorization of a U.S. society being superior to all others is a good thing? and is intelligent? My lord I hope your vision of what is good never occurs.

I didn't say anything about US superiority. My answer to you question is yes, in a way.

I mean to say that the glamorization of sex, violence, drugs, and the glamorization of the US society being superior to all others is a good thing in that it is allowed to freely happen here .

If you have a problem with what people are doing with their freedom, you have a problem with human nature. Do I think that prostitution is moral? No. Do I think it should be legal? Absolutely. I am not so conceited that I believe I know what is right for others. You should not be either.

Now bringing up freedom, the U.S. isn't that free. You now live in a country which can strip you of your citizenship and then torture you or throw you into prison. What a wonderful freedom.

I assume you're talking about the anti-terrorism legislation that was pushed through by our presdient. I honestly don't know what it says, so if you want to pick at it you'll have to post a link to the wording. It is the beauty of a free press, however, that unpopular actions taken by our country will result in newly elected officials that will make it their duty to change the law. America is a democracy, so not all laws that are passed are ever enforced.

That is how I disagree with parts of that legislation and continue to claim that I am free.

Also using the scapegoat that because my country is free we can do what we want, is no excuse at all for unethical behavior.

That is right. I don't morally condone some behavior and I think that their using the excuse that it is legal is not a moral justification for their actions. I think that some legal acts are morally reprehensible, but that they should stay legal so that it is the individual rather than the community that has the final say in what is right. Again, not coneited enough to claim that I know what is right for others... blah blah blah...

It seems that the U.S. is full of bickering bigoted slobs that have little respect for themselves or anyone else.

It seems that you are a person who likes to make generalizations based on nationality.

Of course this is not every U.S. citizen. Most likely not even half.

This is meaninless in light of your "full of bigoted slobs" comment. It's a lame attempt to get away with the previous statement.

However it is now acceptable to be unethical in U.S. society. It is not portrayed as something to be shameful or worried about.

In some parts of the country, among some groups of people, what I consider unethical behavior is considered ethical. I would hardly claim that it is nationwide. I stated somehwere else on this board that all Americans are immigrants. We have such a diverse group that you would find lots of people you consider unethical who would say that same about you. I do not pass judgement upon them. I only hold myself to the morals I think are right.

I find that while a society can function like this, it becomes very.. sketchy.

The US is far from sketchy, unless sketchy means most physically and economically powerful nation on the planet.

 

[Seito4Counter]

1. No, I wasn't born in the u.s. and spent a good deal of my life abroad. (Former Yugoslavia, Germany, Italy)

2. So, it is ok that society freely accepts sex, violence, and drugs running through its television rooms? That is rather disgusting. I doubt the U.S. was founded with that in mind. People back then could not even conceive of something like that, to the founders having such things be public would be heresy. Also to be supremely free, is it not my right to be conceited and have my opinion of what others should do? Or is it the case that I must conform to the idea that i have to be ever-accepting?

3. I certainly hope that the homeland security legislation is repealed, and that these people are tryed as criminals against the state for the damage and debt they have caused. (that is very unlikely )

4. Yes, America is diverse. It is full of imigrants. I would tend to believe that no matter what religion however, a certain set of rules and a moral code still partains. Whether Orthodox, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Bhuddist, or Hindu each caries a similar guideline for living. Also each of the involved texts of each religion (which in my opinion are very beautiful) carry a very similar message. Respect thy neighbor, blah blah. Now as America was founded as a Christian state (now this is purely opinion) I believe that people with these ethical beliefs (not only christians, every religion) should be the citizens of this country. Not some Athiest freak show in San Francisco or something of that sort. Hell, Israel does that lmao.. But thats my opinion, it didn't happen and won't happen. Anywhere. (this is an opinions forum right?)

5. Accepting the fact that people have the right to degrade themselves depresses me, and seems like a submission to human avarice. Who decides what people have the right to do? Well not the president, not me, probably holy texts (Go KORAN! torud is ok too...)

6. As far as the U.S. being the most powerful, well, that is sort of circumstantial. The states better be wealthy after WW2. Every country had to rebuild and the U.S. was the only power left with a newly developed industry and infastructer. The worlds marketplace. Could have been anybody else in the same situation. Also, Europe is beginning to become self-sufficient. Soon the only lapdogs for the u.s. will be Japan and possibly Australia and Britain. (but those englishmen and australians aren't dumb..) (Japan is just screwed.. China and no guns..)
But how powerful is America when no one sells here? And when they stop selling here? The dollar is declining isn't it? As countries stopped buying oil in dollars and switched to euros.. The U.S. is sort of done.. being a superpower that is.. its going to balance out now.

As for that anti-terrorist legislation, it is the Patriot Act. http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/whatsnew/report.asp?ObjID=nQdbIRkDgG&Content=153

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Seito4Counter
I did not call Japan morally superior. It was written in new legislation that the government if it is assumed that one has acted "in an unpatriotic manner" that their citizenship can be revoked. This would naturally imply that one could be treated however.

No, it wouldn't naturally imply that at all. Citizens of other countries are free to travel to America and enjoy the protection of laws and due process while they are here. Torturing a person is illegal in America, whether that person is an American citizen or not.

I would like you to point out a real example of where people have been tortured by the American government. Even police brutality cases are actively prosecuted. I would say that the US has a far better human rights record than virtually any other country on the planet. This is not offered as a scientific truth, but as a general opinion. I don't really have time to cite chapter and verse at the moment, but I will do so if requested.

You may point to the Iraqis and other suspected terrorists being held in US prisoner camps. But remember this:

1) There is no evidence those people are being mistreated in any way.

2) They are not accorded true protection by the Geneva Convention, because they are not actual soldiers. When you have a name, rank, and serial number to give, then you are identified as a foreign national soldier and are treated as such. If a terrorist chooses to step outside the accepted rules of warfare to suit his own purposes, he cannot then hide within those rules when that suits his purposes. You either play it straight up, or you play it under the table, but it goes both ways.

 

[Danoff]

2. So, it is ok that society freely accepts sex, violence, and drugs running through its television rooms? That is rather disgusting. I doubt the U.S. was founded with that in mind. People back then could not even conceive of something like that, to the founders having such things be public would be heresy. Also to be supremely free, is it not my right to be conceited and have my opinion of what others should do? Or is it the case that I must conform to the idea that i have to be ever-accepting?

Yup, it's your right to be conceited and have your opinion of what others should do. That doesn't make it good, but in America it is your right. Our society freely accepts sex as part of life. Violence is almost not tolerated at all. Look at the public outcry when a few people get killed. Here in LA we had a HUGE funeral service for ONE police officer that got killed in the line of duty. We'd never have a funeral that big for most other people that got killed doing their jobs.

Drugs are also not really tolerated by our society. But this is all public opinion... and public opinion about whether other people are acting morally doesn't matter that much.

Also, do you think that sex, drugs (alcohol), and violence were not around when our founding fathers set this country up? The country is designed as a place where people can be free to act in a manner they consider moral. I think that is fantastic.

3. I certainly hope that the homeland security legislation is repealed, and that these people are tryed as criminals against the state for the damage and debt they have caused. (that is very unlikely )

If it is misused it will get put away. I have respect for the problem of terrorism and realize that something must be done. I think that this bill was not written carefully with the constitution in mind, though.

4. Yes, America is diverse. It is full of imigrants. I would tend to believe that no matter what religion however, a certain set of rules and a moral code still partains. Whether Orthodox, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Bhuddist, or Hindu each caries a similar guideline for living.

Oh? Do you think that the religious practices where one must drink the blood of a recently killed chicken while worshipping gold idols is moral? I think it sounds similar to catholacism and that both should be allowed to practice.

5. Accepting the fact that people have the right to degrade themselves depresses me, and seems like a submission to human avarice.

It is submission to the sanctity of the individual. People have the right to fail and the right to succeed. They have the right to degrade themselves and the right to respect themselves. That is the best rule that man can hope to live with. That way they can freely choose which book to worship.

6. As far as the U.S. being the most powerful, well, that is sort of circumstantial.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with our social structure... the US, as a superpower, is far from over with. Every indication is that our country will continue to grow.

 

[Famine]

Originally posted by neon_duke
I would say that the US has a far better human rights record than virtually any other country on the planet. This is not offered as a scientific truth, but as a general opinion. I don't really have time to cite chapter and verse at the moment, but I will do so if requested.

Sadly not. The use of the death penalty in many states means that the US has a far worse human rights record than most countries on the planet.

I am not judging whether the death penalty is right or wrong, or that the US is right or wrong to have it - merely that it exists in the US and is condemned by Amnesty International, amongst others, as a human rights abuse.

 

[Seito4Counter]

Indication that the U.S. will continue to grow? Wow. Because of Iraq there is a debt that will take around 20 years to pay off. Also for the first time in European history there is a continental alliance brewing between Germany, France, and Russia. There are also talks in Europe calling for a united european army. This means that all those U.S. servicemen in Germany are going "bye bye". The states are running out of markets fast. As Europeans realize they no longer need the U.S. two things happen
1. The U.S. loses influence in European policies, and loses influence in the markets of their respective countries.
2. The U.S. gains huge competition.
Now when the average Iraqi Egyption Iranian or Indonesian wants to buy a soda (and there are alot of Iraqis Egyptians Iranians and Indonesians) are they going to buy the U.S. brand or the German one? Obviously, German. The U.S. invades and occupies their homelands. Why contribute to U.S. expansion? Instantly the U.S. looses markets. Brazil no longer wants anything to do with the States, China is out to make a buck for itself but as soon as it is more profitable to partner with Europe they will, as well as the fact that there is an economic bubble in China and when it bursts they will reconcider their partners.
It is due to U.S. political action that this is going to happen. Not just the last two years but since the 80's. If you would like to believe that after Bush is gone that everyone will love America again, you are sadly mistaken.
The U.S. without global trade is as any other country. A claim that the States will continue to grow is like saying that Rome would last forever. It didn't. Nor did England, or Spain. You say "every indication" what indication? Servicemen dying daily? Billions of dollars wasted daily? Are these indications? Growing anti-American sentiment?

About violence in the U.S. There is no public outcry when a U.S. bomb kills 6 kids in Afghanistan or Israel. Or atleast not one that I have heard.


Also on the note that there is no evidence that prisoners are being mistreated, they are in freaking Guantanomo. I doubt if they were we would know about it. Its a military installation and the U.S. has the right to prohibit access to media personel. As far as Americas track record.. debatable. The U.S. has had its little Manzanar period of the 1940's. That wasn't a very nice thing to do to people. The U.S. has done some pretty gruesome things to people.. I wouldn't say the U.S. has a better or worse track record for such things. Remember that even though some third world dictator pulls the trigger, if we give the trigger to him, its our fault. (Iraq and Israel) Because the U.S. has had far greater military prowess than other countries, it must be under far greater scrutiny that other countries. Otherwise it would seem that the U.S. likes to bully people into it's beliefs.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Seito4Counter
Also on the note that there is no evidence that prisoners are being mistreated, they are in freaking Guantanomo. I doubt if they were we would know about it. Its a military installation and the U.S. has the right to prohibit access to media personel. As far as Americas track record.. debatable. The U.S. has had its little Manzanar period of the 1940's. That wasn't a very nice thing to do to people. The U.S. has done some pretty gruesome things to people.. I wouldn't say the U.S. has a better or worse track record for such things. Remember that even though some third world dictator pulls the trigger, if we give the trigger to him, its our fault. (Iraq and Israel) Because the U.S. has had far greater military prowess than other countries, it must be under far greater scrutiny that other countries. Otherwise it would seem that the U.S. likes to bully people into it's beliefs.

So, because it is an unknown, you automatically assume that we are torturing and depriving the Guantanamo prisoners of all their rights? I assume the opposite. The US has everything to lose and nothing to gain by torturing prisoners. You have nothing but your innate anti-American sentiment to say they are. It's only remotely a draw because neither of us truly knows.

Yes, the US had concentration camps during WWII. Note that these people, while deprived of their rights, were also conspicuously not tortured or massacred. Manzanar was not in any conception similar to Auschwitz.

Do the words "Bataan Death March" mean anything to you? They should. You owe it to yourself to know a little more history than you appear to, particularly if you're going to spout opinions like you do.

I wish you luck in getting out of this horrid place just as fast as you can manage it. God forbid you spend another moment in a land of fascist bullies who can arrest you at any time, deprive you of your citizenship, and then imprison and torture you.

Sounds a lot like Eastern Europe.

Famine, I'll cede that Amnesty International considers capital punishment as a human rights violation. I'll also note that the only capital crimes are 1) Some particularly brutal incidences of premeditated murder, and 2) high treason. Treason is the only capital crime that does not involve the perpetrator having already directly killed another human being. And there are dozens of countries that consider treason a capital crime. So I'm not lending that one much credence.

 

[Famine]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Famine, I'll cede that Amnesty International considers capital punishment as a human rights violation. I'll also note that the only capital crimes are 1) Some particularly brutal incidences of premeditated murder, and 2) high treason. Treason is the only capital crime that does not involve the perpetrator having already directly killed another human being. And there are dozens of countries that consider treason a capital crime. So I'm not lending that one much credence.

Agreed. There is a common misconception that the UK still has the death penalty (by hanging) for High Treason, but it was in fact repealed and changed to life imprisonment in 1987.

But again, I am not judging the death penalty - or the US's use of it. Just the facts, ma'am.

 

[Danoff]

Indication that the U.S. will continue to grow? Wow. Because of Iraq there is a debt that will take around 20 years to pay off. Also for the first time in European history there is a continental alliance brewing between Germany, France, and Russia. There are also talks in Europe calling for a united european army. This means that all those U.S. servicemen in Germany are going "bye bye". The states are running out of markets fast. As Europeans realize they no longer need the U.S. two things happen
1. The U.S. loses influence in European policies, and loses influence in the markets of their respective countries.
2. The U.S. gains huge competition.
Now when the average Iraqi Egyption Iranian or Indonesian wants to buy a soda (and there are alot of Iraqis Egyptians Iranians and Indonesians) are they going to buy the U.S. brand or the German one? Obviously, German. The U.S. invades and occupies their homelands. Why contribute to U.S. expansion? Instantly the U.S. looses markets. Brazil no longer wants anything to do with the States, China is out to make a buck for itself but as soon as it is more profitable to partner with Europe they will, as well as the fact that there is an economic bubble in China and when it bursts they will reconcider their partners.
It is due to U.S. political action that this is going to happen. Not just the last two years but since the 80's. If you would like to believe that after Bush is gone that everyone will love America again, you are sadly mistaken.
The U.S. without global trade is as any other country.

...and then the sun and moon align to form an eclipse on Washington D.C. That is when ecuador will stop buying any plastic actions figures made in the US to show their hatred for all things American. The anti-american sentiment in ecuador spreads to easter island when mars and jupiter align causing the tides to alter by 1 nanometer. The result is NO MORE EASTER ISLAND TRADE!!!! ... and the US crumbles and falls to anti-american sentiment and complex doomsday scenarios.

A claim that the States will continue to grow is like saying that Rome would last forever. It didn't. Nor did England, or Spain. You say "every indication" what indication? Servicemen dying daily? Billions of dollars wasted daily? Are these indications? Growing anti-American sentiment?

...um.... the last 200 years. I couldn't care less if France, German and Russia gang up on the US. They have the collective might of a 3 year old girl. If they hate the US, that's their problem.

 

[Seito4Counter]

I dont automattically assume anything. But, I will not rule out the possibility. America had everything to lose and nothing to gain by invading Iraq, so I wouldn't be surprised if this coke monkey in the white house does something along those lines. Also this country has been free for a very long time.. I am surprised that you would be willing to even give up an ounce of civil liberties. My point is that the U.S. should NOT end up like other countries. I will not go as far as to say that the U.S. is anything like the ussr or warsaw pact countries. But do you not find it alarming that your country is now tracking foreigners and taking actions to deprive people of their civil rights? I think that is something to be very concerned about.

As to "collective might of a 3 yr old girl" well, the current abilities of the U.S. are so impressive. Not being able to supress guerilla actions in a DESERT! HA! so you stay in your opinion and neglect of Europe. Enjoy the next twenty years mate.

 

[Captain Coffee]

Originally posted by Seito4Counter
As to "collective might of a 3 yr old girl" well, the current abilities of the U.S. are so impressive. Not being able to supress guerilla actions in a DESERT! HA! so you stay in your opinion and neglect of Europe. Enjoy the next twenty years mate.

It would be easy for us to suppress guerilla actions in Iraq. The point is that we would rather lose American soldiers than put unnecessary risk on Iraqi civillians. If all we were interested in was killing Saddam, we would have turned the whole country into a slab of asphalt and flown back home 2 hours later. But despite popular non-American opinion we don't operate that way.

 

[Seito4Counter]

Ahem.. There are plenty of Iraqi bistandards that have been casualties.. So dont feed me that bologna.

 

[Danoff]

Ahem.. There are plenty of Iraqi bistandards that have been casualties.. So dont feed me that bologna.

He's right. We try to avoid innocent iraqi casualties at the loss of our own troops.

You cannot deny that if we didn't care about bistandards we could have turned the country into asphalt without losing a single US soldier.

 

[Captain Coffee]

I did not say there were none. Civillians get killed in wars. But do not tell me that we are not CAPABLE of suppressing Iraqi guerillas. We are QUITE CAPABLE of doing it. We do not accept what would happen to civillians if we did it that way, so we do not.

Here is some information from www.caabu.org - a nonAmerican human rights website - about Iraqi civillian casualties. I hope you read it.

The number of civilians killed or wounded since the war ended in northern Iraq is higher than it was during the conflict, Human Rights Watch said today.

Extensive research at five hospitals and morgues in Kirkuk and Mosul suggests that the high civilian tolls can be attributed to general lawlessness after the collapse of local authorities; the ready availability of weapons and ammunition; and the vast stores of ammunition and ammunition components left behind by the Iraqi military, including landmines, rocket-propelled grenades, and other explosives.

Many of the victims have been children who play with explosives or pick up unexploded ordinance (UXO) as toys and sustain serious injuries as a result.

"In some ways, the peace has proved more lethal than the war," said Hania Mufti, London Director of the Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch.

At the al-Zahrawri Hospital (formerly al-Jumhuri Hospital) in Mosul, for example, emergency room records show that three civilians were treated on April 22 after an unidentified person riding a motorbike tossed a grenade in their direction. Another ten patients were brought in that day after a looting incident in the Hawi al-Kanisa area of the city. Three of them later died of their gunshot wounds.

The Iraqi authorities stored up huge amounts of ammunition and small arms in homes, schools, and other sites in residential areas in the run-up to the war. At the al-Bayda' Secondary School for Girls in Kirkuk, Human Rights Watch researchers on April 13 found one classroom still stacked with dozens of boxes of ammunition, including rocket- propelled grenades, 82mm and 100mm mortar shells, and 12.7mm machine gun bullets. The guard at the school told Human Rights Watch that the Iraqi military had brought the ammunition to the school about five or six days before the start of the war, leaving one sentry in the classroom, and that students had been obliged to attend their classes in these conditions.

Storing ammunition in a functioning school is a violation of international humanitarian law.

At the al-Razi Hospital (formerly Saddam Hospital) in Mosul, one doctor in the emergency ward told Human Rights Watch that during the coalition bombing raids, most civilian casualties were the result of ammunition left behind by the Iraqi army in and around the city.

"The [Iraqi] army placed ammunition and weapons in between houses and among civilians in preparation for the war," the doctor said. "But the Americans did not attack these civilian areas. When the army withdrew, they left behind bombs, bullets, and machine guns. People, mostly children, picked these up and they exploded."

The doctor said that he treated about fifteen burn cases every day in the course of an eight-hour shift, often children who were trying to light loose gunpowder.

Another doctor at al-Razi Hospital in Mosul said on April 21 that he was often treating "tens of cases daily," mostly wounds sustained from landmines, exploding ammunition or bullets. He also said that Ba'ath Party loyalists were still present in the hospital and he could not speak freely, out of fear of reprisal attacks. "They are everywhere and they spy on us even now," he said, "so you can imagine what it was like before."

Injuries from sniper fire and hand grenades are still a major problem in Mosul, where the situation remains more volatile than in Kirkuk.

Doctors at the Azadi Hospital (formerly Saddam Hospital) in Kirkuk said that in the first three days after the city fell, they were treating around 70 patients every day, most of them civilians who had sustained bullet wounds, shrapnel wounds, and injuries caused by landmines and other explosives. Now, however, the numbers were falling to one or two a day, mostly children with burns on their faces and hands.

Anti-personnel landmines and ammunition are being found in holes dug in the ground in residential areas, while similar explosive materials were left strewn around the grounds of military bases on the perimeters of both Mosul and Kirkuk. The bases include the al-Khalid Garrison south of Kirkuk, a Republican Guard facility; and al-Ghazlani Garrison in Mosul.

So keep your own damn bologna.

 

[Seito4Counter]

The U.S. did not turn Iraq into glass, well because of international implications (although i doubt rumsfeld and his cronies care about the humanitarian ramifications) but because that would annihalate Iraqi infastructure. Buildings and roads that companies like Haliburton need.

Also, you can combat guerillas while minimizing civilian casualties. It called intelligence and secret service activity. In the case of Iraq you have a population which does not take to being conquered. Iraqi culture is an ancient one and I am sure Iraqis are proud of their nationalism. I don't think they like a bunch of gringos running around putting Israeli agents into their government (Chalabi).

Now I state that because the most effective way to combat guerillas is to get the local population to do it for you. To do this you must have the locals acknowledge the fact that the guerillas do not help them. In Iraq I am sure no one likes guerillas running around shooting people but I am sure they would like their country back.

You look at this combat as something that requires brute force, and without using brute force there will be casualties.... a very gringo attitude. This is the problem with U.S. command and was in Vietnam as well. You don't send an army for this type of mission, because it cannot combat guerillas without massive civilian casualties.

So in that case the U.S. CANNOT effectively supress guerilla actions, since it would not dare nuke a country so blatently. Your countries sons and daughters are dying in vain... for some sort of Bush type to make more money. On top of that you have an idiot commander Sanchez.. that man should not be allowed to hold a rifle, much less command an army, division, company, or battalion.

If you really wanted to "liberate" Iraq from Saddam, you organize a coup. An example being communist Poland. The U.S. did not go toe to toe with the USSR, but organized a coup...(the pope helped alot in that). Now, I am sure that someone in the government realized this.. So why did the U.S. not follow that model? Because the intention of the U.S. was not to liberate the Iraqis and give them their own government. The intention was to create a puppet state in Iraq. Unfortunatly this has been tried before.. and if the U.S. withdraws there will be huge civil war resulting in a 3 way partition of Iraq. Kurds, Sunni, Shiite. So, as I doubt America will win an intellectual war in Iraq, as they are the aggressors, it will be a long long time in Iraq, or an accepted "tactical withdrawl" similar to the 1970's.

So to tie this all together, don't feed me crap like the U.S. could just obbliterate the world.. and turn Iraq into dust.. it won't and wouldn't happen. That is a very childish recourse. I suggest you grow up and face the world as it really is.

 

[Solid Fro]

Originally posted by Seito4Counter
If you really wanted to "liberate" Iraq from Saddam, you organize a coup.

I thought we (the U.S.) already tried that after the first Gulf War? The Shiites got 0wneD.

 

[Captain Coffee]

Originally posted by Seito4Counter
So in that case the U.S. CANNOT effectively supress guerilla actions, since it would not dare nuke a country so blatently. Your countries sons and daughters are dying in vain... for some sort of Bush type to make more money.

So to tie this all together, don't feed me crap like the U.S. could just obbliterate the world.. and turn Iraq into dust.. it won't and wouldn't happen. That is a very childish recourse. I suggest you grow up and face the world as it really is.

The second paragraph above are mighty big words to say after the first paragraph above. I suggest that you also grow up a little and look beyond knee-jerk reactions.

 

[Seito4Counter]

It was a shiite rebellion without U.S. backing.. they got massacred.

 

[Famine]

Originally posted by Seito4Counter
The U.S. did not turn Iraq into glass [...] because that would annihalate Iraqi infastructure. Buildings and roads that companies like Haliburton need.

If they were so bothered about infrastructure, why did they use the infamous carbon-fibre bombs, which spread fine carbon fibre filaments over electrical equipment and FUBAR the national grid? Or the Massive Ordinance Air Burst ("Mother Of All Bombs") which has explosive capability close to 10% of the Hiroshima bomb?

The US also has access (although I believe the French were the pioneers of it) to the neutron bomb, which obliterates living things, but leaves buildings standing (such a truism... ). And of course in the middle of a desert, who gives a flying f(unk)?

 

[Talentless]

Originally posted by Seito4Counter
Indication that the U.S. will continue to grow? Wow. Because of Iraq there is a debt that will take around 20 years to pay off. Also for the first time in European history there is a continental alliance brewing between Germany, France, and Russia. There are also talks in Europe calling for a united european army. This means that all those U.S. servicemen in Germany are going "bye bye". The states are running out of markets fast. As Europeans realize they no longer need the U.S. two things happen
1. The U.S. loses influence in European policies, and loses influence in the markets of their respective countries.
2. The U.S. gains huge competition.
Now when the average Iraqi Egyption Iranian or Indonesian wants to buy a soda (and there are alot of Iraqis Egyptians Iranians and Indonesians) are they going to buy the U.S. brand or the German one? Obviously, German. The U.S. invades and occupies their homelands. Why contribute to U.S. expansion? Instantly the U.S. looses markets. Brazil no longer wants anything to do with the States, China is out to make a buck for itself but as soon as it is more profitable to partner with Europe they will, as well as the fact that there is an economic bubble in China and when it bursts they will reconcider their partners.
It is due to U.S. political action that this is going to happen. Not just the last two years but since the 80's. If you would like to believe that after Bush is gone that everyone will love America again, you are sadly mistaken.
The U.S. without global trade is as any other country. A claim that the States will continue to grow is like saying that Rome would last forever. It didn't. Nor did England, or Spain. You say "every indication" what indication? Servicemen dying daily? Billions of dollars wasted daily? Are these indications? Growing anti-American sentiment?

About violence in the U.S. There is no public outcry when a U.S. bomb kills 6 kids in Afghanistan or Israel. Or atleast not one that I have heard.


Also on the note that there is no evidence that prisoners are being mistreated, they are in freaking Guantanomo. I doubt if they were we would know about it. Its a military installation and the U.S. has the right to prohibit access to media personel. As far as Americas track record.. debatable. The U.S. has had its little Manzanar period of the 1940's. That wasn't a very nice thing to do to people. The U.S. has done some pretty gruesome things to people.. I wouldn't say the U.S. has a better or worse track record for such things. Remember that even though some third world dictator pulls the trigger, if we give the trigger to him, its our fault. (Iraq and Israel) Because the U.S. has had far greater military prowess than other countries, it must be under far greater scrutiny that other countries. Otherwise it would seem that the U.S. likes to bully people into it's beliefs.

I hope they form their army. While I don't want a more powerful force than America, the better the overall militaries of Europe are, the less likely it is that we'll be called in to assist. Correction: I mean yelled at for not assisting in some way that pleases a socialist college kid from Barcelona.

And, while your presumption is understandable, the Iraqis can speak for themselves. We'll see what happens. You could end up being right.