Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flipside on April 23, 2005, 09:20:32 am
-
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050423/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/prisoner_abuse_army
General Sanchez and Sycophants cleared of all and any involvement or responsibility for Abu Ghraib...
But he might not earn his 4th Star. Let that be a lesson for being in command of, and therefore responsible for, troops who behaved in such a way!
However, a one-star General got punished. Well, I guess there are more Pawns than Knights....
-
I knew this would happen. Stupid administration just let them go.
-
"Leadership failiures".
Hehe, I love it. I guess that whole thing with Germany back in the 40s could best be described as a "slight border readjustment". You just know they've got some guy sitting in a darkened office at the Pentagon thinking up these wonderful terms and giggling like a schoolgirl. Like "intelligence failiures" or "stress positions"
As for the ruling, well, was anyone actually expecting something different?
-
Nope.
It's becoming more and more a fact that responsibility only applies to people below a certain 'social level'. It's the case across the world nowadays that people with the most important positions of responsibility are never held responsible for anything.
-
This hurts me inside.
-
by now you would think that I would have reached a point of desensitation that I would no longer be suprized by Bush&frends stupidity, but somehow I realy thought he at least would have hung these folks out to dry in an atempt to at least make it look like he didn't condone this. but I guess it's hard to realy get your mind around infinite stupidity.
-
Nothing stupid about it.
Nobody is going to do crap about it, they know it, why should they give a damn?
-
:yes:
-
Problem is, how long is 'Standing up to us could mean Nuckuler war' going to hold things back? How long before, particuarly in certain areas of the world, this no longer matters?
It's already starting to show, there are cracks in the Dam, and ignoring them is possibly the singuarly most dangerous thing America can do. No country can harm America, as such, but they can push America down a road where it harms itself and the rest of the world.
-
Yeah, the rules are only played to until the other guy gets desperate enough to take things to another level. Some people don't have much to lose and a lot to gain for their own people.
-
Scotland.
-
:wtf:
I say again :wtf:
-
I would second that :wtf: with a 'what the **** are you on about?' question.
-
I still think those photos were hillarious. Then again, I'm just sick.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
It's already starting to show, there are cracks in the Dam, and ignoring them is possibly the singuarly most dangerous thing America can do. No country can harm America, as such, but they can push America down a road where it harms itself and the rest of the world.
True dat. The empire is collapsing, and the nations of the world are more than happy to stand aside and watch it burn. Both the neolib Democrats and the Republican hawks have their own delusions about how to return to the glorious past when America was unopposed, the economy was soaring and the third world was ripe for the picking. Bush is betting that the solution is military, the Dems think that economic might backed by an iron fist in a very thin silk glove is the answer. Actually, there probably is no answer, the days of American hegemony are numbered. Now that they realize they're cornered, the only question is how much damage they'll do trying to find a way out.
-
As much as possible! If we're going down, we'll take the world with us! :rolleyes:
-
Well this year my history class has been US History and I've learned that in the years after WW2 ended we would threaten other countries directly with nukes. North Korea, China, lots of people. and not the sissy threats like nowdays. "We've got nucular weapons!!!1" "Yeah, but you won't use 'em." "Oh yeah well, um, uh... we've got 'em." but back then it was "Yarr! Stop or we'll nuke ya!" "****, we saw what happened to Japan. We don't want that. Alright, we give." We need more of that. :nod:
-
:lol:
I don't think anyone needs more of that. I think we need more global cooperation and peace. :p
-
omg teh neo-hippies!!!!!1!1!!!!11!11
-
Originally posted by redsniper
Well this year my history class has been US History and I've learned that in the years after WW2 ended we would threaten other countries directly with nukes. North Korea, China, lots of people. and not the sissy threats like nowdays. "We've got nucular weapons!!!1" "Yeah, but you won't use 'em." "Oh yeah well, um, uh... we've got 'em." but back then it was "Yarr! Stop or we'll nuke ya!" "****, we saw what happened to Japan. We don't want that. Alright, we give." We need more of that. :nod:
Hmm.... you mean like the Cuba crisis? What happens if someone like China, or France, or India, or Pakistan, or the Uk, etc decides to do the same?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
True dat. The empire is collapsing, and the nations of the world are more than happy to stand aside and watch it burn. Both the neolib Democrats and the Republican hawks have their own delusions about how to return to the glorious past when America was unopposed, the economy was soaring and the third world was ripe for the picking. Bush is betting that the solution is military, the Dems think that economic might backed by an iron fist in a very thin silk glove is the answer. Actually, there probably is no answer, the days of American hegemony are numbered. Now that they realize they're cornered, the only question is how much damage they'll do trying to find a way out.
In other words what we did at the end of the Empire.
-
don't take my post about nuking everyone too seriously :p
However, now I am being a little more serious, consider this: In World War II we bombed both Germany and Japan to hell. We leveled cites. We nuked a couple. Many civilians died. It was terrible; it was a war. But then we helped them rebuild and now they're successful, industrialized nations. In Vietnam we tried to use our military (whose job is to kill and destroy) as a police force (like we're doing in Iraq). And we got our butts handed to us. So when it comes to war you should go all the way or don't go at all. We shouldn't have to resort to war, but if we do we should make it a good one.
and now it's dinner time.
-
The problem is both Japan and Germany were immediate and direct threats. You can't apply that to any of America's wars since.
-
Originally posted by redsniper
Well this year my history class has been US History and I've learned that in the years after WW2 ended we would threaten other countries directly with nukes. North Korea, China, lots of people. and not the sissy threats like nowdays. "We've got nucular weapons!!!1" "Yeah, but you won't use 'em." "Oh yeah well, um, uh... we've got 'em." but back then it was "Yarr! Stop or we'll nuke ya!" "****, we saw what happened to Japan. We don't want that. Alright, we give." We need more of that. :nod:
That's cause no one else had the bomb, so there was no threat of mutually assured destruction. Even in the early days, when only the USSR had developed nuclear weapons (in addition to the US) you could still threaten nuclear reprisal and make it sounds genuine. But these days, not only would it be political suicide, but pretty much anyone worth threatening has a nuclear power with a vested interest in protecting them, so it's not really an option.
-
Originally posted by redsniper
don't take my post about nuking everyone too seriously :p
However, now I am being a little more serious, consider this: In World War II we bombed both Germany and Japan to hell. We leveled cites. We nuked a couple. Many civilians died. It was terrible; it was a war. But then we helped them rebuild and now they're successful, industrialized nations. In Vietnam we tried to use our military (whose job is to kill and destroy) as a police force (like we're doing in Iraq). And we got our butts handed to us. So when it comes to war you should go all the way or don't go at all. We shouldn't have to resort to war, but if we do we should make it a good one.
and now it's dinner time.
Perhaps it's worth noting that in World War 2 the Axis started the war? Moral imperitive and all that?
-
true, true... I'm not trying to justify the Iraq war or anything. I'm just saying that if we don't intend to follow through and have a serious war we shouldn't go in the first place.
-
Funny thing is, not one person has said that Sanchez should have been let off... so the Administration isn't just sticking it's finger up at the rest of the world...
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4483949.stm
Truly, these stalwart defenders of freedom can do no wrong.
-
Just goes to show how much bull**** the idea of 'Right' and 'Wrong' really is. It is, and always will be, in the eyes of the Judge.
For a country that just fought an election at least partly based around morals and what is 'Right' and 'Wrong', this seems an amazingly arrogant piece of administration.
-
Just after the incident, in an interview with Sky Italia TV, she said it was possible the soldiers had targeted her because Washington opposed the policy of negotiating with kidnappers.
If she's willing to say stuff like this I'd say the bullet hit the wrong person :rolleyes:
Regardless of whether or not the soldiers are guilty only a f**king idiot would think that Bush did it deliberately to discourage negotiations.