Another Abu Ghraib? - Page 14




 
--
Boots
 
March 20th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
No I live where people have to face reality. We call this place the real world.
March 21st, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
No I live where people have to face reality. We call this place the real world.
But not everyones "reality" is the same and some peoples reality is perceived.

March 21st, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB

But not everyones "reality" is the same and some peoples reality is perceived.

Only to a limit.
If you go off to the extreme you could just say this:
What happens: A guy shoots a kid in the face.
One guy sees this as entertainment
The other sees it as a serious crime
Both considered "realities," no?
Which one's right?
Remember when you exeed reality beyond a limit, you're in for the crazy house.


I think there are, in most cases, things that are pretty much the truth and stuff that is practically fiction.
THink of it as a pilot trying to land a plane. There is a set glide path (the truth). The pilot will follow the glide path, but never will the plane be perfectly on the path, regardless of how good he is, but the better pilot he is and the more ideal the conditions, the closer he is the the glide path and hence also the truth.
Some people are a bit higher, some people are a little lower, some maybe slightly to the left, sometimes slightly to the right, but as long as they don't deviate from the truth too much, they land on the mark. The better the person is trained/educated on the matter, the closer the person will be to the truth.
Hope this helps.
lIf it confuses you... ah well
--
Boots
March 21st, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
I will be a little more direct,
Quote:
03USMC Wrote:
No I live where people have to face reality. We call this place the real world.
My comment was meant to indicate that the reality he has to face is different to what others have to face.

However to respond to your truth thoery, I see truth as a straight line between the participents and the truth is a point somewhere on that line but not necesarily in the middle.
March 21st, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
Monty you have a point there about different realities everyone has to face.
Iraq is America's reality and for New Zealand, a distant, unimportant thing. So why ot just let the Americans deal with their reality while you deal with your reality?
Iraq might become my reality in a few months, we'll see how things go. Signing up etc. is a painfully slow process if you've lived your whole life overseas.
March 21st, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
Monty you have a point there about different realities everyone has to face.
Iraq is America's reality and for New Zealand, a distant, unimportant thing. So why ot just let the Americans deal with their reality while you deal with your reality?
Iraq might become my reality in a few months, we'll see how things go. Signing up etc. is a painfully slow process if you've lived your whole life overseas.

Because this so called American reality is impacting on mine and others realities therefore we have an interest in getting involved.
Lets be frank here for a sec and say that I doubt that you will find anyone around that doesnt support the US actions in Afghanistan but very few believe the assertions that Iraq was part of the terrorist threat and even less think that the main reason for attacking Iraq was to "free" the people of Iraq as prior to the first gulf war they were amongst the most well educated and forward looking peoples in the middle east.

Therefore it is my opinion that the attack on Iraq was little more than an act of unjustified agression by the US and UK add to this the fairly clear evidence that the "main" reasons given for the war were unfounded (WMD's Nuclear and Terrorist) you have a situation where the most powerful military in the world has been turned loose simply because one leader thought he had to make an example of another and quite honestly that is very dangerous you only have to look back to 1939 to see the results of that.

Unfortunately a lot of people on this board have gone on about the United States right to protect itself and indeed I agree with that but I dont think anyone seriously though of Iraq as a threat on top of this they have turned what was 13ish years ago a stable well educated and progressive sectarian state in the middle east into something resembling the Gaza strip on a bad day and whats worse is that it looks like it will be a pro-Iranian modelled state which isnt good for anyone.

Now undoubtably I will encounter the "replacing Saddam was a necessity argument which I agree with however it also needs to be remembered that Saddam was in the position he was because the west backed him to be there, France, Germany and the US happily sold him the WMD's that he used on his own people and you cant tell me they sold him these things on the grounds that he was never going to use them (or was it acceptable to gas Iranians but not Kurds) therefore they have to bear some culpibility in his crimes.

I think that covers it, time get the flame retardent out I guess.
March 21st, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
No I live where people have to face reality. We call this place the real world.
Yes, but in the real world where I live people have to front reality but looking to certain basic rules,called human rights.

We live in a globalizated world and the reality that you think is only yours affects the hole world.People that were in Abu Ghraib also had their own reality and their own world and I can imagine that they do not have good feelings concerning the US, this people will teach Hate to US to their sons,and this ones to their sons and so go on... and this hate will become their reality. If US argument to attack Irak was to liberate their people and give freedom( where are the MDW´s ?) I guess that the methods that you are using there are not very consecuent with your porpouses.
March 21st, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
Well, the point Monty, was not so much what the war was started for, but what the war stands for right now.
Right now it's about trying to bring order, stability and freedom (it's a very, VERY daunting task) to a chaos basket that was held together only by Saddam's tyranny. Right now the opponents of this are really street thugs. Don't be fooled into thinking those insurgents are fighting to liberate Iraq. They are not. They are simply trying to drive out the Americans so that they can rule their little piece of turf not dissimilar to street gangs. These people rely on America being out and a state of chaos ensuing otherwise well, if it's safe, who would bother to look to a gang for protection (a big chunk of gang income)?
That's what the mission is now.
I think the whole going into Iraq was debated like h3ll in here. And I think the charge that it was "illegal" is extremely ambiguous. I think all sides messed up badly in the runup to the war. Also remember, WMDs were actually just one part of the whole argument, but of course the one that got sensationalized both in the UN and in the press. There were other violations of 1441 that Saddam violated that the UN turned a blind eye to.

Back to the point. It's a different fight now. And as long as the politicians don't suddenly back up on their words, the soldiers still have a chance to keep theirs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by staurofilakes
Yes, but in the real world where I live people have to front reality but looking to certain basic rules,called human rights.

We live in a globalizated world and the reality that you think is only yours affects the hole world.People that were in Abu Ghraib also had their own reality and their own world and I can imagine that they do not have good feelings concerning the US, this people will teach Hate to US to their sons,and this ones to their sons and so go on... and this hate will become their reality. If US argument to attack Irak was to liberate their people and give freedom( where are the MDW´s ?) I guess that the methods that you are using there are not very consecuent with your porpouses.
Listen. I don't think you get it. Those who were involved in that abuse scandal have been dealt with either by court martial or by pretty much forcing them to retire (which by the way is a big deal). I think more than "reality" what you mean is perspective.
Those people who were in Abu Grahib as prisoners were not the people waving hello to be liberated anyways. Those guys are the thugs who are trying to kick America out so that they can control their little gang turf. You know the type. The most famous of those would be Mohamed Fara Aidid (Somalia). So don't make such a big deal out of it. American soldiers faced the consequences even when mistreating criminals.
WMDs were an early objective, probably the primary objective, but bringing freedom to the Iraqis was also a key objective... though it wasn't planned well enough.
March 21st, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
Quote:
staurofilakes wrote:
Yes, but in the real world where I live people have to front reality but looking to certain basic rules,called human rights.

We live in a globalizated world and the reality that you think is only yours affects the hole world.People that were in Abu Ghraib also had their own reality and their own world and I can imagine that they do not have good feelings concerning the US, this people will teach Hate to US to their sons,and this ones to their sons and so go on... and this hate will become their reality. If US argument to attack Irak was to liberate their people and give freedom( where are the MDW´s ?) I guess that the methods that you are using there are not very consecuent with your porpouses.


Listen. I don't think you get it. Those who were involved in that abuse scandal have been dealt with either by court martial or by pretty much forcing them to retire (which by the way is a big deal). I think more than "reality" what you mean is perspective.
Those people who were in Abu Grahib as prisoners were not the people waving hello to be liberated anyways. Those guys are the thugs who are trying to kick America out so that they can control their little gang turf. You know the type. The most famous of those would be Mohamed Fara Aidid (Somalia). So don't make such a big deal out of it. American soldiers faced the consequences even when mistreating criminals.
WMDs were an early objective, probably the primary objective, but bringing freedom to the Iraqis was also a key objective... though it wasn't planned well enough.
_________________
I pretend to work. They pretend to pay me.

I do understand perfectly what you mean. I know that the guys in prision in Irak are there for a reason. My point is that those guys, the prisoners, suffered of torture, and some people in the forum just can´t accep it, they call it stressor, humillation..whatever..torture! I am not saying that the US soldiers that did it should be judge in The Haya, that is imposible, at least while US does not sing The International Crime Court.
March 21st, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
The culture of the military is that they take care of their own. When those in their ranks screw up like this, it is the military that deals with them. The international court comes in to play when the military actually doesn't put them on trial and in fact sends people out to do these things on a systematic basis.

The conduct of the prison guards on the prisoners was unacceptable, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it torture.
It's just the way you wouldn't call someone killing one other person a massacre.
Torture... that is not a word to be taken lightly. From a torture chamber, people emerge with missing fingernails, fingers, hands, arms, feet, legs, eyes, tongues... sometimes carved into the shape of a "pig." That is their hands and feet are cut off as well as the tip of their nose. All kinds of permanent mutilation. You think I'm making this up? And then there's rape (which certainly qualifies as torture). THAT'S torture. Being stacked up naked into the shape of a pyramid is completely unacceptable and it is certainly abuse (if anything of the authority the prison guards have been issued) I think it's a tad silly to call it torture.
When you shoot a guy (which is a heck of a lot worse than stacking him up in a pyramid shape while alive), you commit murder. You haven't committed a massacre nor have you committed an atrocity nor are you guilty of crimes against humanity.