Disney blocks next Michael Moore film

[Fuzzpilz]

...but saying that Bush and his administration are culpable for the actions of a sick group of soldiers and perhaps their immediate leaders is just silly.

No, it isn't. Let's assume for a moment that some low-end meatheads having fun is really all there is to this. Question: how come these people were running a prison? They were completely unprepared for this kind of task. There's more to prison guarding than shooting people if they try to get out. So why the hell were they there?
They were there because further up the line nobody was paying attention to who was doing what. That's a very, very grave failure. Note that hardly anything happened until the pictures reached the public. And it's not as though nobody knew about it.

And what do you make of the evidence that there's rather more to it? It isn't just aforesaid meatheads trying to save themselves by pushing some of the blame further up the chain of command. Heard the phrase "special access program" recently? The idea that this is one of these gone out of control is plausible enough even for those few of us who don't wear tinfoil hats.

The Arab Shiites and Sunni Kurds, who make up 80% of Iraq's population, were not appalled by this behavior in the prison because Hussein had done far worse before.

Yes. Everybody in Iraq is saying "Hey, these people are torturers too, but they're not quite as bad as the ones before them. GO USA!!"

Plus, they actually have met other U.S. soldiers and they know that the soldiers are not sexual deviants, or rapists like most of Saddam's soldiers.

The ones being taken into the new army the US are setting up, you mean?

[Saddam was bad! It's good that he's gone!]

If you honestly believe any of us think Saddam wasn't a Very Bad Person(tm), you might want to just stop talking.

So these men in the prison are not "true" believers of the faith, no matter how much they claim to be. They are extremists.

All of them? And certainly? Are you sure? And would that excuse anything? Considering the way the US have been behaving over there, I wouldn't be so quick to accept their judgment of who is or might be a Horrible Extremist as gospel.

[Scummbuddy]

real quick, we do know that those attempting to, or affiliated with the bombing, while 'claiming' to be doing it for thier religion, are not. real followers know not to kill oneself, as that is an act which would be an afterlife equivalent to christianity's hell. they as well, are upset at the bombing, and also that they are trying to parade around stating they are religous when they are not.

[Sutebi]

So, I was reviewing previous posts, and I seemed to have missed this one:

Yeah, you're right. Hitler was innocent.

Someone brought up Hitler, Junc. Godwin's law in effect, so my argument prevails! Huzzah! Now this topic can smoothly melt into posts with more pictures of zany robots till it dissapears onto the pages of the past.

[Fuzzpilz]

What, so they blow themselves up just to be jerks? Or because they think it's fun?

You're not getting the point. It's not that we think some obscure sura tells them "oh by the way, start suicide bombing in 1300 years or so" and that every true Muslim should commend them for doing it, it's that they believe it is right. They think it's their duty, they think they're doing God's work. What you (or anybody else) think their ideals should be according to the Qur'an etc. doesn't matter at all to them.

It's a bit more tricky with the people further behind, but I think that they too are mostly in it because of their insane beliefs.

[juncmodule]

while 'claiming' to be doing it for thier religion, are not

I'm sorry but you can not assume that you know someone's religious beliefs. I'm sure that a majority of Muslims do NOT think that these people are going to paradise and agree with you. This doesn't change the fact that the few Muslim wackos that there are, are doing it because they believe they get something out of it. I'm not saying that it's the Muslim way, I'm saying that it's the "extremist muslim" way. While a lot of people seem to fail to see the difference, I feel that I do see it.

Someone brought up Hitler, Junc. Godwin's law in effect, so my argument prevails! Huzzah! Now this topic can smoothly melt into posts with more pictures of zany robots till it dissapears onto the pages of the past.

What!?

You are right because I brought up Hitler!?

Look, this isn't about who is right and who is wrong. If that is why you are posting, to prove that you are right, just stop.

I don't believe that everyone should believe what I believe. These are my opinions.

later,
junc

[Matt Brown]

I really dont understand why people say, "yeah, what we did was wrong, but saddam was worse" DUH! We KNOW that saddam was a tyanical dictator...and that he murdered people...that's why we're there. the fact that my country has to rationalize its behavior by maintaining its "not as bad as the last dictator" disgusts me.

We are supposed to have the high ground. America doesnt torture people, or at least the arent supposed to. You cant write it off as war, or heat of the moment. it a disgrace, and somebody needs to take the hit. the first guy gets a dishonerible discharge and a year in the pen. if a prison guard did that in the states, he'd get at least 5 years. why should this be any different?

also, giving these prisoners pork is such is pretty terrible. its like rounding up a bunch of Mormons and giving them all bud lights. you cant do that. Yeah, these guys are evi.. we're not asking for hot tubs and hot babes. Treat 'em like any other prisoner back home...give them food to eat, and clothes on their back. You'll save american lives that way.

[Sutebi]

Junc, what you say about muslim extremists is not much different than the American soldiers who were involved in the prison scandal. I know there is a difference between these extremists and normal Muslims. I have tons of Muslim friends, and I understand Islam very well so I know that these guys are just dangerous extremists. This is just like how the American soldiers are not like the other American soldiers.

So just like I would not ask that any religious leader take responsibility for these extremists unless he himself told them to do the dangerous things they do, why should Bush or his administration take responsibility for actions that are not their fault at all. If any member of the Bush administration were to take responsibility for this, I would consider them an even better person considering it is in no way their fault.

But, once again, you cannot hold all Americans and their leaders accountable. I mean, say a couple of frat boys do some bad things at a party.  You can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the bahavior of a few, sick and twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Junc - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to me, but I'm not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!

*Gets up and leaves the table*

[Scummbuddy]

*The whole fraternity walks out single-file behind Sutebi humming ala Animal House.

We are all found in double-secret probabtion. One more outburst from our Fraternity House will have us all out.

[Pumaman]

In the army, as in any business, accountability goes all the way to the top. Sure, Bush probably didn't know what was going on. But as the head of the army he is responsible for setting up the correct management structure so that any infringements at lower levels are flowed up the chain of command. The fact that this didn't happen shows that he has failed in his role.

Of course, everyone else in the chain between him and the soldiers on the ground is also responsible, but as the man at the top he had the power to sack them all and replace them if they were incompetant, so the final responsibility rests with him.

Your comparison with frat boys is flawed - peers are not in general responsible for each others actions. Soldier A is not to blame if Soldier B abused prisoners, because Soldier A had no power to order them to stop.

[Scummbuddy]

But then its just sad that we can't just assume people will just behave,

breaking news, we just found sarin gas, a WMD in baghdad

[Nacho]

breaking news, we just found sarin gas, a WMD in baghdad

What? Are you expecting coverage of this silly little bomb in the media? Naive! Al-Quaeda attempted to kill 80,000 people in Jordania last month and nobody really cared... That cool guys really don't want to hurt anybody![/sarcasm]

[Barcik]

It is a subject that requires a lot of thought, but it shows that no one can provide a "whole picture", as I said.

That is not quite what I meant by my piece of criticism. I know Bush isn't giving the whole picture, and I know Moore isn't doing so. That's why I think it was wrong by Moore to say what he did.

[MrColossal]

Bush probably didn't know what was going on.

And that sums up the last 4 years...

[DGMacphee]

Hopefully there won't be another 4.


On accountability:
I hear a lot of people saying that Bush and Co shouldn't be responsible for what a group of sick soldiers do. Okay, let's just say they didn't know what was going on and didn't give any orders (which is contrary to reports I've read).

However, as the guys at the top, they should know exactly what is going on in their department. For Rumsfeld to not know anything about the torture demonstrates a lack of scrutiny in the department of defense. Stuff like this shouldn't happen, and Rumsfeld is responsible for overseeing that.

As another example, let's just say the manager of a retail store hires a fresh-faced salesperson who demonstrates a great ability at doing his job. The salesperson does his job for two years and is promoted to assistant manager. Everything goes well for another two years. Then one day the assistant manager doesn't show up for work. It turns out he was laundering money from the company for the last four years. Not only that, he's had a history at this kind of thing. Now, granted, the manager wasn't responsible for the money actually disappearing. However, he was responsible for hiring the guy without doing a detailed background check. And the manager is responsible for keeping tabs on the store's finances. Thus, he's accountable.

Rumsfeld is accountable for overseeing the military. If something goes wrong, it shows incompetence on his behalf, just like my example of the store manager.

If you want a better example (and an Australian example), look up the name "Peter Hollingworth" on google. That's a prime example of being accountable for others' actions.

[Sutebi]

Well DG, you say hopefully there won't be another 4. Who else should be president? Do you think Kerry should be voted in? Truthfully, I do not like everything that Bush has done, and I do not agree with him on everything (like his actions towards illegal immigrants), but I will still vote for him over Kerry. Kerry lies a lot, and they are stupid lies that are easily found out to be false. Kerry also changes his stance on the issues at the drop of a hat. I don't think he would be a good president at all, and most people (democrats included) agree.

Also, rumor has it that if Kerry doesn't accept the nomination (which he might not) then Hillary Clinton might. And frankly, that would be a pretty bad four years.

And as for voting for Nader, I refer you to the Simpsons:
"We could all vote for a third party candidate!"
"Go ahead! Throw your vote away!"

[Ali]

The Simpsons MAY have intended that ironically, as a condemnation of the two party system.

But who can say?

EDIT: Good point Sutebi. Irony in the Simpsons!? I'd like to see that!

[Sutebi]

I can, they didn't.

[juncmodule]

There is something I agree with you on Sutebi.

For the most part.

I really don't think Bush or Kerry should be president. I also wouldn't mind giving Hillary a chance. Honestly though, I think she would get assassinated before she got there. Americans are not quite "evolved" enough for a female president yet. It think it's a shame.

I don't like Kerry either. However, for me my dislike of Bush outways that. If Kerry gets my vote, it will be a anti-Bush vote, and a pro-Kerry one. Once again the American government fails us. Two candidates, neither of which anyone likes.

I think most Americans agree with you and that Bush will get re-elected.

People just close their minds to things like the patriot act and the ignoring of evironmental issues with Bush. I just don't get it. Handing away your freedoms is VERY unamerican. Yet under this administration we have done just that, in the name of "fighting terrorism" and "patriotism". It's sad that this new version of "the war of communism" has been given the power it has. That power does nothing but give more terrorists support. They didn't have any allies before, now it's a "war". In war there are two sides. Good job world! (I say world because to be sure Bush isn't the only one responsible, Blair doesn't have to hold his hand, and neither does the rest of the world).

I think the Simpsons thing may have been intended to be ironic. However I must say that given the way our voting system is set up, it is a wasted vote. Which imagine that, in the "land of democracy", by voting, you can "throw your vote away!".

You mentioned before that we were badmouthing america Sutebi. You are wrong (and that is insulting). I am badmouthing people and situations that are ruining America. There is a HUGE difference.

later,
-junc

[SSH]

I do not like everything that Bush has done,.... but I will still vote for him over Kerry. Kerry lies a lot, and they are stupid lies that are easily found out to be false. ...

*cough* Weapons of Mass Destruction *cough*

[Ali]

Nasty cold you've got there. I think it's catching.

*cough* Genuinely won the election, didn't just have my Dad buy it for me *cough*