The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/ 0,2763,1121981,00.html
Yeah, I know; someone is gonna say "It's in the Guardian so it can't be true", and then not offer anything to actually rebutt it.
Whatever the truth of the matter, it makes for thought provoking reading.
Yeah, I know; someone is gonna say "It's in the Guardian so it can't be true", and then not offer anything to actually rebutt it.
Whatever the truth of the matter, it makes for thought provoking reading.
Basically, Skarra, although the US forces are trying, they're taking up a job they can't handle.
They should NEVER have gone in like that unless world security was under threat. GW and Blair convinced the world that there were WOMD in there, ready to destroy us all.
Putting it simply, they lied.
They should NEVER have gone in like that unless world security was under threat. GW and Blair convinced the world that there were WOMD in there, ready to destroy us all.
Putting it simply, they lied.
Light wrote:
> Uhh...I did no such thing. I commented on just why I found the
> information you provided untrustworthy, and gave reasons for why data
> provided by a US Government source should be taken with, at best, a
> pinch of salt. I hardly think giving full reasons for disagreeing
> with the links is 'ignoring' them.
Sorry, that was a poor choice of words. I meant discounted.
> Wow...you've gone to the far end of sophistry to excuse the US
> troops. And I can't fault your analysis of the language used. Tell
> me, would you have been quite so willing to torture the language of
> the article to look for possible excuses had this been a report of
> Iraqi troops mistreating journalists?
I know that the way US troops act is quite different to that of the Republican Guard. Thats why i know this was not, not a rare, but un-common incident.
> As to not being frequent...well, certainly less people are being
> killed with no reason or due process under the American rule. But
> there seema to be one incident a week at the moment, and that's just
> the ones that make the mainstream press. And in each case, we see the
> US military and government has been evasive and tried to give out
> something less than the whole story. So tell me; what's the
> difference between the US lying about the murder of civilians, and
> Saddam Hussein doing it? Other than the numbers killed by Saddam of
> course.
When the US do it, more often than not, its an accident. Perhaps avoidable, granted, but not intentional. But i agree that its wrong that they try to cover up such incidents. But how many of us try to save face when we screw up, unfortunatly, they just do it on a bigger scale.
> Furthermore, I hope that this constant evasiveness and outright lies
> from the US Government gives you some idea of just why I refuse to
> unconditionally trust the data on the links you provided?
It does, and its your prerogative to do that, but being an optamist myself, i try to accept it, and not discount it just because its from a branch of the US Gov. I hope you can see it's not a blind faith i hold, just a more optamistic one. I don't ignore the bad in Iraq, i just believe the good outweighs that, as i believe the sites.
> It's not the actual methods I take issue with. It's the fact that
> they were used on innocents, who had been falsely accused of firing
> on US troops. And this won't have been the first time I'm guessing.
> So can you imagine what kind of impression the US troops are creating
> among the Iraqi people with behaviour like this? Do you honestly
> think anyone is going to be grateful for the priviledge of being shot
> at and intimidated by an occupying foreign power who behave with as
> much arrogance as Saddams old troops?
Well if two US troops bring in some Iraqi's, and say these may be terrorists, then they must be put through the proccess to prove they arn't. Know what i mean?
And i recognise that thanks to this type of behaviour, it does nothing for the co-alition's apperance to the Iraqi people. But this may all change within the next few months. The War weary/ on edge troops have just started to be rotated with frest troops. I hope they will act differently.
> But, back to my point. Events like this do, regretably, still
> happen,
> but not to the same frequency, or brutality as similar arrests under
> Saddam. So, again, occupation may not be superbly great, but merely
> the lesser of two evils.
>
> Mm, quite so. But it's still an evil however. And it's very difficult
> to be so philosophical about it when you're the ones being treated
> like second class citizens in your own country by an occupying power.
> You're an intelligent chap; surely you can see how this constant
> trickle of coalition screw ups could well lead to a torrent of
> discontent and hatred?
It could, and towards the end of the war, i was hoping for a better occupation. But, as i said, even though it's been screwed up, its better than under Saddam. I think the Iraqis could have better, but it could be much, much worse.
> All that said, nuff respect to you for even trying to defend what
> happened. Especially as you've gone to the trouble to use facts and
> provide reasons for your opinions.
Much apprecaited. As i said, i can't say the troops are blameless, but i was just trying to give a different perspective than gun ho Americans arresting for no reason.
> Uhh...I did no such thing. I commented on just why I found the
> information you provided untrustworthy, and gave reasons for why data
> provided by a US Government source should be taken with, at best, a
> pinch of salt. I hardly think giving full reasons for disagreeing
> with the links is 'ignoring' them.
Sorry, that was a poor choice of words. I meant discounted.
> Wow...you've gone to the far end of sophistry to excuse the US
> troops. And I can't fault your analysis of the language used. Tell
> me, would you have been quite so willing to torture the language of
> the article to look for possible excuses had this been a report of
> Iraqi troops mistreating journalists?
I know that the way US troops act is quite different to that of the Republican Guard. Thats why i know this was not, not a rare, but un-common incident.
> As to not being frequent...well, certainly less people are being
> killed with no reason or due process under the American rule. But
> there seema to be one incident a week at the moment, and that's just
> the ones that make the mainstream press. And in each case, we see the
> US military and government has been evasive and tried to give out
> something less than the whole story. So tell me; what's the
> difference between the US lying about the murder of civilians, and
> Saddam Hussein doing it? Other than the numbers killed by Saddam of
> course.
When the US do it, more often than not, its an accident. Perhaps avoidable, granted, but not intentional. But i agree that its wrong that they try to cover up such incidents. But how many of us try to save face when we screw up, unfortunatly, they just do it on a bigger scale.
> Furthermore, I hope that this constant evasiveness and outright lies
> from the US Government gives you some idea of just why I refuse to
> unconditionally trust the data on the links you provided?
It does, and its your prerogative to do that, but being an optamist myself, i try to accept it, and not discount it just because its from a branch of the US Gov. I hope you can see it's not a blind faith i hold, just a more optamistic one. I don't ignore the bad in Iraq, i just believe the good outweighs that, as i believe the sites.
> It's not the actual methods I take issue with. It's the fact that
> they were used on innocents, who had been falsely accused of firing
> on US troops. And this won't have been the first time I'm guessing.
> So can you imagine what kind of impression the US troops are creating
> among the Iraqi people with behaviour like this? Do you honestly
> think anyone is going to be grateful for the priviledge of being shot
> at and intimidated by an occupying foreign power who behave with as
> much arrogance as Saddams old troops?
Well if two US troops bring in some Iraqi's, and say these may be terrorists, then they must be put through the proccess to prove they arn't. Know what i mean?
And i recognise that thanks to this type of behaviour, it does nothing for the co-alition's apperance to the Iraqi people. But this may all change within the next few months. The War weary/ on edge troops have just started to be rotated with frest troops. I hope they will act differently.
> But, back to my point. Events like this do, regretably, still
> happen,
> but not to the same frequency, or brutality as similar arrests under
> Saddam. So, again, occupation may not be superbly great, but merely
> the lesser of two evils.
>
> Mm, quite so. But it's still an evil however. And it's very difficult
> to be so philosophical about it when you're the ones being treated
> like second class citizens in your own country by an occupying power.
> You're an intelligent chap; surely you can see how this constant
> trickle of coalition screw ups could well lead to a torrent of
> discontent and hatred?
It could, and towards the end of the war, i was hoping for a better occupation. But, as i said, even though it's been screwed up, its better than under Saddam. I think the Iraqis could have better, but it could be much, much worse.
> All that said, nuff respect to you for even trying to defend what
> happened. Especially as you've gone to the trouble to use facts and
> provide reasons for your opinions.
Much apprecaited. As i said, i can't say the troops are blameless, but i was just trying to give a different perspective than gun ho Americans arresting for no reason.
Skarra wrote:
> With regards to the news article, all i can say is, if it's true, and
> it probably is, then shame on them(the US Troops). They shouldn't
> have behaved like that.
>
> However, i still believe that Iraq is better off now than under
> Saddam. Light, i gave you links, and you ignored them.
Uhh...I did no such thing. I commented on just why I found the information you provided untrustworthy, and gave reasons for why data provided by a US Government source should be taken with, at best, a pinch of salt. I hardly think giving full reasons for disagreeing with the links is 'ignoring' them.
> But now,
> incidents like this one are not frequant, and it's difficult to judge
> troops in a combat situation, when we've never been in one. The
> article sais the reporters were mistreated, but it doesn't give a
> refrence to time. By that, i mean, the US troops could have been in a
> poor frame of mind after the crash, thus leading to the poor
> treatment of the reporters. However, i saw nothing to suggest that
> the reporters were mistreated whilst they were being processed. It
> makes a reference to the fact that they were brutalised for three
> days, but that could mean they were mistreated whilst being taken
> into custody, but them just interigrated.
Wow...you've gone to the far end of sophistry to excuse the US troops. And I can't fault your analysis of the language used. Tell me, would you have been quite so willing to torture the language of the article to look for possible excuses had this been a report of Iraqi troops mistreating journalists?
As to not being frequent...well, certainly less people are being killed with no reason or due process under the American rule. But there seema to be one incident a week at the moment, and that's just the ones that make the mainstream press. And in each case, we see the US military and government has been evasive and tried to give out something less than the whole story. So tell me; what's the difference between the US lying about the murder of civilians, and Saddam Hussein doing it? Other than the numbers killed by Saddam of course.
Furthermore, I hope that this constant evasiveness and outright lies from the US Government gives you some idea of just why I refuse to unconditionally trust the data on the links you provided?
>
> With regards to the interigation, the methods they(the US) used are
> common ones, and as i heard on the SAS show on BBC a while ago, all
> are ok under the Geneva confention.
It's not the actual methods I take issue with. It's the fact that they were used on innocents, who had been falsely accused of firing on US troops. And this won't have been the first time I'm guessing. So can you imagine what kind of impression the US troops are creating among the Iraqi people with behaviour like this? Do you honestly think anyone is going to be grateful for the priviledge of being shot at and intimidated by an occupying foreign power who behave with as much arrogance as Saddams old troops?
>
> But, back to my point. Events like this do, regretably, still happen,
> but not to the same frequency, or brutality as similar arrests under
> Saddam. So, again, occupation may not be superbly great, but merely
> the lesser of two evils.
Mm, quite so. But it's still an evil however. And it's very difficult to be so philosophical about it when you're the ones being treated like second class citizens in your own country by an occupying power. You're an intelligent chap; surely you can see how this constant trickle of coalition screw ups could well lead to a torrent of discontent and hatred?
All that said, nuff respect to you for even trying to defend what happened. Especially as you've gone to the trouble to use facts and provide reasons for your opinions.
> With regards to the news article, all i can say is, if it's true, and
> it probably is, then shame on them(the US Troops). They shouldn't
> have behaved like that.
>
> However, i still believe that Iraq is better off now than under
> Saddam. Light, i gave you links, and you ignored them.
Uhh...I did no such thing. I commented on just why I found the information you provided untrustworthy, and gave reasons for why data provided by a US Government source should be taken with, at best, a pinch of salt. I hardly think giving full reasons for disagreeing with the links is 'ignoring' them.
> But now,
> incidents like this one are not frequant, and it's difficult to judge
> troops in a combat situation, when we've never been in one. The
> article sais the reporters were mistreated, but it doesn't give a
> refrence to time. By that, i mean, the US troops could have been in a
> poor frame of mind after the crash, thus leading to the poor
> treatment of the reporters. However, i saw nothing to suggest that
> the reporters were mistreated whilst they were being processed. It
> makes a reference to the fact that they were brutalised for three
> days, but that could mean they were mistreated whilst being taken
> into custody, but them just interigrated.
Wow...you've gone to the far end of sophistry to excuse the US troops. And I can't fault your analysis of the language used. Tell me, would you have been quite so willing to torture the language of the article to look for possible excuses had this been a report of Iraqi troops mistreating journalists?
As to not being frequent...well, certainly less people are being killed with no reason or due process under the American rule. But there seema to be one incident a week at the moment, and that's just the ones that make the mainstream press. And in each case, we see the US military and government has been evasive and tried to give out something less than the whole story. So tell me; what's the difference between the US lying about the murder of civilians, and Saddam Hussein doing it? Other than the numbers killed by Saddam of course.
Furthermore, I hope that this constant evasiveness and outright lies from the US Government gives you some idea of just why I refuse to unconditionally trust the data on the links you provided?
>
> With regards to the interigation, the methods they(the US) used are
> common ones, and as i heard on the SAS show on BBC a while ago, all
> are ok under the Geneva confention.
It's not the actual methods I take issue with. It's the fact that they were used on innocents, who had been falsely accused of firing on US troops. And this won't have been the first time I'm guessing. So can you imagine what kind of impression the US troops are creating among the Iraqi people with behaviour like this? Do you honestly think anyone is going to be grateful for the priviledge of being shot at and intimidated by an occupying foreign power who behave with as much arrogance as Saddams old troops?
>
> But, back to my point. Events like this do, regretably, still happen,
> but not to the same frequency, or brutality as similar arrests under
> Saddam. So, again, occupation may not be superbly great, but merely
> the lesser of two evils.
Mm, quite so. But it's still an evil however. And it's very difficult to be so philosophical about it when you're the ones being treated like second class citizens in your own country by an occupying power. You're an intelligent chap; surely you can see how this constant trickle of coalition screw ups could well lead to a torrent of discontent and hatred?
All that said, nuff respect to you for even trying to defend what happened. Especially as you've gone to the trouble to use facts and provide reasons for your opinions.
Cyclone wrote:
> Hmmm, I wonder what happens when an apparantly free elction elects an
> extremist Islamic government, possibly anti-West.
>
> Haha
Well, if that happens, all i can say is Sh*t happens, and there ain't a dam thing we can do about it.
> Hmmm, I wonder what happens when an apparantly free elction elects an
> extremist Islamic government, possibly anti-West.
>
> Haha
Well, if that happens, all i can say is Sh*t happens, and there ain't a dam thing we can do about it.
Gaddafi Duck wrote:
> On anther note, US refusing Iraq open elections before the hand-over
> of power, which instead goes to a US-appointed government. Because
> 'the timing isn't right'.
>
> I believe we can quote everyone's f(r)iend Mr Kissinger for a good
> analogy of what's going on:
> "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go
> communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are
> much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for
> themselves."
>
> And we all know how that one panned out.
There is a chance that the US have learned from those mistakes. Also, the US appointed Government is just a temporary one. Elections will be held, but, regretably, not as soon as hoped.
> On anther note, US refusing Iraq open elections before the hand-over
> of power, which instead goes to a US-appointed government. Because
> 'the timing isn't right'.
>
> I believe we can quote everyone's f(r)iend Mr Kissinger for a good
> analogy of what's going on:
> "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go
> communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are
> much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for
> themselves."
>
> And we all know how that one panned out.
There is a chance that the US have learned from those mistakes. Also, the US appointed Government is just a temporary one. Elections will be held, but, regretably, not as soon as hoped.
With regards to the news article, all i can say is, if it's true, and it probably is, then shame on them(the US Troops). They shouldn't have behaved like that.
However, i still believe that Iraq is better off now than under Saddam. Light, i gave you links, and you ignored them. But now, incidents like this one are not frequant, and it's difficult to judge troops in a combat situation, when we've never been in one. The article sais the reporters were mistreated, but it doesn't give a refrence to time. By that, i mean, the US troops could have been in a poor frame of mind after the crash, thus leading to the poor treatment of the reporters. However, i saw nothing to suggest that the reporters were mistreated whilst they were being processed. It makes a reference to the fact that they were brutalised for three days, but that could mean they were mistreated whilst being taken into custody, but them just interigrated.
With regards to the interigation, the methods they(the US) used are common ones, and as i heard on the SAS show on BBC a while ago, all are ok under the Geneva confention.
But, back to my point. Events like this do, regretably, still happen, but not to the same frequency, or brutality as similar arrests under Saddam. So, again, occupation may not be superbly great, but merely the lesser of two evils.
However, i still believe that Iraq is better off now than under Saddam. Light, i gave you links, and you ignored them. But now, incidents like this one are not frequant, and it's difficult to judge troops in a combat situation, when we've never been in one. The article sais the reporters were mistreated, but it doesn't give a refrence to time. By that, i mean, the US troops could have been in a poor frame of mind after the crash, thus leading to the poor treatment of the reporters. However, i saw nothing to suggest that the reporters were mistreated whilst they were being processed. It makes a reference to the fact that they were brutalised for three days, but that could mean they were mistreated whilst being taken into custody, but them just interigrated.
With regards to the interigation, the methods they(the US) used are common ones, and as i heard on the SAS show on BBC a while ago, all are ok under the Geneva confention.
But, back to my point. Events like this do, regretably, still happen, but not to the same frequency, or brutality as similar arrests under Saddam. So, again, occupation may not be superbly great, but merely the lesser of two evils.
Hmmm, I wonder what happens when an apparantly free elction elects an extremist Islamic government, possibly anti-West.
Haha
Haha
Can't say I'm surprised, there's not much here that US soldiers haven't already been accused of.
From the article:
"Major General Charles Swannack, the commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, claimed that two US soldiers had provided sworn evidence that they had come under fire.
....
No weapons were found, the US military admitted."
LMAO, 'they do have weapons...' where've we heard that one before? :^)
On anther note, US refusing Iraq open elections before the hand-over of power, which instead goes to a US-appointed government. Because 'the timing isn't right'.
I believe we can quote everyone's f(r)iend Mr Kissinger for a good analogy of what's going on:
"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."
And we all know how that one panned out.
From the article:
"Major General Charles Swannack, the commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, claimed that two US soldiers had provided sworn evidence that they had come under fire.
....
No weapons were found, the US military admitted."
LMAO, 'they do have weapons...' where've we heard that one before? :^)
On anther note, US refusing Iraq open elections before the hand-over of power, which instead goes to a US-appointed government. Because 'the timing isn't right'.
I believe we can quote everyone's f(r)iend Mr Kissinger for a good analogy of what's going on:
"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."
And we all know how that one panned out.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/ 0,2763,1121981,00.html
Yeah, I know; someone is gonna say "It's in the Guardian so it can't be true", and then not offer anything to actually rebutt it.
Whatever the truth of the matter, it makes for thought provoking reading.
Yeah, I know; someone is gonna say "It's in the Guardian so it can't be true", and then not offer anything to actually rebutt it.
Whatever the truth of the matter, it makes for thought provoking reading.