• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Stuff about Iraq

robtex

robtex

Veteran Member
The torture of war prisoners is --given adaquate time of captivity almost inevitable.

In any miltary prision that holds members of the opposite side --who by definition are in the war to kill guys on your side consider the following

senerio one
1) The chances of at least one soldier having a mean streak is probably pretty high espcially if it is a big facility.

senerio 2
1) The chances of some soldiers having friends in the field whom are killed and wounded are great.

2) the soldiers feeling the grief are giong to expierence hurt, anger,fear and love

3) within the expression of those emotions is the need to let those emotions out.

4) So here you are a guard ..guarding men who can easly be symbols by which side they are on, of the guys who hurt or killed your buddy(ies).

senerio 3

1) prisoners come with information not known to the captive army. Or at the minimum it is perceieved that they have said info.

2) the information is a tool or a means to ends to further protect your forecs in the field

3) the prisoner likewise feels the information kept from you is a tool or means to an ends to protect members on his side.

senerio 4

1) As a prision guard during war time you came from an enviroment that was postitive and members of society were loving and caring more often than not

2) you went to society (war zone or by product thereof) where the realitionship is not negative it (for me) seems natural to vent those feelings and a negative way to vent those becomes plausable when surrounded by guarded enemies.

senerio 5

1) soldier is a patroit and doing his part in the war effort by guarding soilders
2) a measure output can be found in the killing of the enemy (emotional output is focus as opposed to mathimatical one)
3) soldier wants to feel the similar way about his part

the above one may seem abstract but it is the same reason why football players get ruff after the td is scored......they saw a positive action that they believed in and need to eject the emotional surge it gave them.

The point is (after my rambling) that I don't feel it is realistic for miltary prisions in a war zone not to commit war crimes. By any country. The bigger questions is before considering a miltary option (which many presidents seem to think is the 1st or only option) are smaller things like this collateral damage, families on both sides that will be on financial or economic ruin really factored in or are they ironed out after the fact? Of course in this case Bush went in without asking anybody.
 
t3gah

t3gah

Well-Known Member
Ever since the 600 dollar hammer and thousand dollar toilet seat all kinds of nasty things are being discovered about the way the US government actually gets things done after the votes are counted. People are suprised about stuff they see today but it's not new. They did horrible things to Japanese citizens during World War II and also to Germans during that time.

Face it, the government is two-faced.

Like the old saying, the left hand of the government doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

The only thing about that statement is that the government doesn't care if they do or not just as long as they get to keep their jobs. And since they make the rules and have the power to investigate or not investigate whomever they want they can do things with impunity.

[Bush] Can't fire Rumsfeld cuz he's doing a bang up job!

[media] but what about this business with the prisoners?
[rumsfeld] we're looking into the immediate chain of command (except me, i'm exempt)

[Bush after the Rumsfeld incident] Rumsfeld is doing a bang up job.

(Bush says this because he agree's with his staff on the comment because it sounds like the previous one, total agreement of an accessment.)

[Rumsfeld] Our lengthy investigation has proven that the guards acted on their own and their superiors had nothing to do with it.
[media] but some of those doing things are upper ranked officers and then there are the letters and memo's.
[Rumsfeld] we're looking into the chain of command (again I'm going to include myself or my staff in this investigation, well, not publically anyway)

[Bush] Rumsfeld is the person I chose and he's doing a bang up job.

[Rumsfeld] the reports are in and the pictures are bad and we're going to take steps so this doesn't happen again.

[media] yea right! we've heard this story before. like vietnam, korea, cambodia, germany, japan, etc.

[media] what about the 911 thing?
[politicians] we weren't prepared.

NO SUGAR!

[cia] ok boys back to roswell. gotta do what we're really paid to do.
[fbi] hey you cia guys, let us in on the secrets!
[cia] you're not one of us so we can't, sorry.
[fbi] but we work for the same government.
[cia] no we don't, yours plays by the rules and ours doesn't.
[fbi] oh come on, just one fact please!
[cia] talk to the head of homeland security.
[fbi] we can't he just resigned.
[cia] hahah, it worked!
[fbi] this is why 911 happened. the cia was busy doing god knows what!
[cia] we have to join forces? that's a contradiction in terms! we can't be like the fbi!
[fbi] this is great, we'll finally know what happened to jfk.
[cia] no you won't, our government says that's classified and you don't have the same security level as us. we will however let you see the stuff we're going to make public though.
[fbi] that's not fair!
[cia] that's our business!
[homeland security] are you boys playing nice over there?
[fbi] yes!
[cia] yes! (yes means yes except to O.J. and the CIA) (contra...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top