OH GOD THE LIONS

[Chilly]

This morning I was reading an article in the New York Times (which is still the best newspaper ever you silly Republican bears), and I came across the most "Dawgged" eighth of an article (the article literally switched gears after most of the way through) ever. The ACLU alleged in some lawsuits that the U.S. government had thrown terrorists in Iraq into lion's cages and when the lions got close, removed them.

 

The best part was Rumsfeld said something like "Well thats pretty unconventional, but we'll look into it. I dont' remember reading any recors of lions".

 

I thought frivilious lawsuits were driving up the cost of healthcare, not healthcare and terrorism.

[Ghost of BiB]

This morning I was reading an article in the New York Times (which is still the best newspaper ever you silly Republican bears), and I came across the most "Dawgged" eighth of an article (the article literally switched gears after most of the way through) ever.  The ACLU alleged in some lawsuits that the U.S. government had thrown terrorists in Iraq into lion's cages and when the lions got close, removed them.

 

The best part was Rumsfeld said something like "Well thats pretty unconventional, but we'll look into it.  I dont' remember reading any recors of lions".

 

I thought frivilious lawsuits were driving up the cost of healthcare, not healthcare and terrorism.

505452[/snapback]

 

Reading the NYT at 3:30 AM? You must like it a LOT.

 

That honestly sounds like way too much work. Have to feed them, clean the cages...much easier ways to rattle people than using lions. Unless it's a Thai Midget Wrestling company or something. Tie and blindfold, fly them around for a few minutes telling them that if they don't talk, they will be tossed out. Then, hover about 1 foot off the ground and shove them out the door.

 

Oh, the looks on their faces! I love that one.

[KRC]

Tie and blindfold, fly them around for a few minutes telling them that if they don't talk, they will be tossed out. Then, hover about 1 foot off the ground and shove them out the door.

 

Oh, the looks on their faces! I love that one.

505466[/snapback]

 

You just can't beat the classics.

[KD in CA]

This morning I was reading an article in the New York Times (which is still the best newspaper ever you silly Republican bears),

 

 

Sure it is, especially if you don't want to bother with having to think up an opinion all by yourself! btw, what was the content of the daily BUSH BAD! editorial?

 

 

The Times is good for the Sports, Arts and Local. I'll take the WSJ for news and analysis.

[Campy]

Sure it is, especially if you don't want to bother with having to think up an opinion all by yourself!  btw, what was the content of the daily BUSH BAD! editorial? 

The Times is good for the Sports, Arts and Local.  I'll take the WSJ for news and analysis.

505529[/snapback]

Call me an idealist if you'd like, but I guess I'm the only one who thought that throughout history only the "bad guys" tortured prisoners, like only the "bad guys" use chemicals as weapons.

 

What does that make the US in this situation? By justifying torture our country's leadership joins some pretty nasty company, including that of Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime.

 

When will the American military be given orders to depose the despot leading our own country? I mean, isn't that the justification of "Bush War" since the whole WMD thingy turned out to be myth?

[OnTheRocks]

This morning I was reading an article in the New York Times (which is still the best newspaper ever you silly Republican bears), and I came across the most "Dawgged" eighth of an article (the article literally switched gears after most of the way through) ever.  The ACLU alleged in some lawsuits that the U.S. government had thrown terrorists in Iraq into lion's cages and when the lions got close, removed them.

 

The best part was Rumsfeld said something like "Well thats pretty unconventional, but we'll look into it.  I dont' remember reading any recors of lions".

 

I thought frivilious lawsuits were driving up the cost of healthcare, not healthcare and terrorism.

505452[/snapback]

 

 

this is an age old argument.....but when the guys in the red white and blue start sawing off heads....come talk to me.

[KD in CA]

Call me an idealist if you'd like, but I guess I'm the only one who thought that throughout history only the "bad guys" tortured prisoners, like only the "bad guys" use chemicals as weapons.

 

What does that make the US in this situation?  By justifying torture our country's leadership joins some pretty nasty company, including that of Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime.

 

When will the American military be given orders to depose the despot leading our own country?  I mean, isn't that the justification of "Bush War" since the whole WMD thingy turned out to be myth?

505586[/snapback]

 

I have always been willing to accept that "our guys" have had to do some pretty nasty things in the course of warfare and intelligence throughout our history. I wish the world was a nicer place, but protecting our country is an ends that justifies some extreme means.

 

I also tend to believe that heavily biased media outlets like the NY Times will publish anything to attack those politicians they don't like, truthful or not. I don't put a lot of stock in the lion story at this point. (By the way, no one answered my question -- what is the BUSH BAD editorial of the day in the Times? They haven't missed a day in five years, I'm sure today is no different)

 

I also believe that "the myth" wasn't anything of the sort. People who like to play up the real myth; that 'WMD didn't exist'. never seem to give a reasonable answer as to where they went, since it was pretty well accepted fact that he had them in the 90s.

[KD in CA]

this is an age old argument.....but when the guys in the red white and blue start sawing off heads....come talk to me.

505590[/snapback]

 

 

but...but...but....they had a woman rub up against the prisioners!!!! It's TORTURE!!!

 

 

[Campy]

this is an age old argument.....but when the guys in the red white and blue start sawing off heads....come talk to me.

505590[/snapback]

I think the issue at hand isn't the actions of terrorists. It's the actions of the United States. Justifying torture, for any reason, is wrong.

 

And as someone who is more familiar with what it's like to be locked and tortured than anyone else in country has said, it doesn't work. You tell them what you think they want to hear.

 

McCain said that when he was asked the names of his squadmates, he refused to answer. He was harshly beaten, and only then started talking. He gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers offensive line.

 

Now imagine if his captors had free reign to start kicking in doors and taking Americans into custody because there name was similar to, or the same as, a football player's. That would be acceptable to you?

 

That's essentially what's happening in Iraq, and sorry, but I'm not cool with that. It's not a right/left, lib/conservative, or Dem/GOP thing.

 

It's a "doing the right thing" thing.

[Campy]

I have always been willing to accept that "our guys" have had to do some pretty nasty things in the course of warfare and intelligence throughout our history.  I wish the world was a nicer place, but protecting our country is an ends that justifies some extreme means.

I wonder if you'd feel the same if the SS came knocking on your door.

 

I also believe that "the myth" wasn't anything of the sort.  People who like to play up the real myth; that 'WMD didn't exist'. never seem to give a reasonable answer as to where they went, since it was pretty well accepted fact that he had them in the 90s.

505600[/snapback]

The WMDs were given to Iraq by Reagan and Rummy during the 80s. They have a shelf-ife of about 10 years.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Call me an idealist if you'd like, but I guess I'm the only one who thought that throughout history only the "bad guys" tortured prisoners, like only the "bad guys" use chemicals as weapons.

 

What does that make the US in this situation?  By justifying torture our country's leadership joins some pretty nasty company, including that of Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime.

 

When will the American military be given orders to depose the despot leading our own country?  I mean, isn't that the justification of "Bush War" since the whole WMD thingy turned out to be myth?

505586[/snapback]

 

You're not an idealist; you're just wrong. The difference between "good guys" and "bad guys" is in the perception of the historian, which is why the bombing of downtown Tripoli is 'a sad necessity" but the bombing of lower Manhattan is a criminal act.

 

 

Is "use chemicals as weapons" a reference to this bull sh-- WP story that's bouncing around the news now?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

The WMDs were given to Iraq by Reagan and Rummy during the 80s.  They have a shelf-ife of about 10 years.

505606[/snapback]

 

No, they were manufactured by Iraqi industry bought mostly from the French and Germans. Which is why they have a shelf-life of less than 10 years; Iraqi QC wasn't all that great.

[KD in CA]

I wonder if you'd feel the same if the SS came knocking on your door.

 

 

Yeah, because the SS was so civilized last time around.

 

I'm sure if the SS, al-Qaeda or the Red Chinese Secret Police ever come knocking on my door, they are going to do whatever the hell they want to, regardless of what the US has or has not done in the past. The idea that there is some gentlemen's code of warfare that will ensure our enemies treat us well if we're conquered is unbelievably naive.

 

 

What exactly is AQ going to do any worse that what they have done already and what they are already planning to do?

[Campy]

You're not an idealist; you're just wrong.  The difference between "good guys" and "bad guys" is in the perception of the historian, which is why the bombing of downtown Tripoli is 'a sad necessity" but the bombing of lower Manhattan is a criminal act.

I never tried to justify the bombing of downtown Tripoli.

 

Is "use chemicals as weapons" a reference to this bull sh-- WP story that's bouncing around the news now?

505609[/snapback]

WP is awfully sanitary. Call it what it is, white phosphorus, the most dengerous form of phosphorus that exists. It burns the skin and damages the heart, liver, and kidney.

 

According to an international treaty on the use of chemicals in combat, to which the US is a party, it's only to be used for illumination or cover.

 

It's been used as a weapon, which is a violation of both international and US federal law.

 

I don't know how you can claim that story is BS when the Pentagon acknowledgment its use against enemy fighters while trying to deny its use against civilians, but to each his own.

[Campy]

Yeah, because the SS was so civilized last time around. 

 

I'm sure if the SS, al-Qaeda or the Red Chinese Secret Police ever come knocking on my door, they are going to do whatever the hell they want to, regardless of what the US has or has not done in the past.  The idea that there is some gentlemen's code of warfare that will ensure our enemies treat us well if we're conquered is unbelievably naive.

There is no "gentleman's code," nor did I ever claim there was. There is right or wrong, and torture is wrong.

 

What exactly is AQ going to do any worse that what they have done already and what they are already planning to do?

505614[/snapback]

The minute you try to justify US actions by comparing them to those of terrorists, you lose.

[KD in CA]

There is no "gentleman's code," nor did I ever claim there was.  There is right or wrong, and torture is wrong.

 

It is certainly what you are implying. What does "I wonder if you'd feel the same if the SS came knocking on your door" have to do with anything then? If the SS shows up at my door, what I feel won't be very relavant.

 

 

The minute you try to justify US actions by comparing them to those of terrorists, you lose.

505622[/snapback]

 

I didn't compare the US to terrorists, and even if I did how exactly does that make me "lose"?

 

 

I just think that 'us v. them' is far more important (and objective) than 'right v. wrong'.

[Wacka]

I like the suggestion of I think, BiB. It consists of a battery, two clips and the terrorist's balls.

[cromagnum]

Should have kept the weapons inspectors in, now almost 3 years later might as well build permanent bases...

[Campy]

I just think that 'us v. them' is far more important (and objective) than 'right v. wrong'.

505628[/snapback]

I just think that the founding fathers would disagree. Remember, the whole reason they began the rebellion was because of "right or wrong," not "us or them." The whole point of the Constitution used to be to define right and wrong and to ensure that the US government was right more than wrong.

 

Using torture and justifying it by the actions of the terrorists (the sawing the heads off comment above), the torturers themselves become something pretty darn close to being terrorists. There's not much of a difference between the two actions. I don't think that torturing somebody is any more humane than just lopping his head off.

[bobblehead]

Is "use chemicals as weapons" a reference to this bull sh-- WP story that's bouncing around the news now?

505609[/snapback]

 

 

Are you referring to the White Phosphorous story? I'd like to know your thoughts on if it is BS or not, because on the surface it sounds really !@#$ing bad if we really did willy pete downtown Fallujah.

 

I can not believe we would do this, there has to be more to the story.