welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Hey guys guess what I'm going to say about Iraq!!!!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Willem



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6306
Location: wasteland style

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Question to the Americans of the forum or at least people who know this:

Does the American president control the country on his own? Like a dictator? Does he make all the decisions by himself? Does he chose what America will or will not do, without anyone else's judgement?
Because, y'know, judging from everyone's replies about "oh! I hate Bush! etc", he does control everything.
_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tyr



Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 31
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The man can't pronounce "nuclear" and initially thought FEMA had handled Katrina well.

So, I very much doubt it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12142
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Willem wrote:
Question to the Americans of the forum or at least people who know this:

Does the American president control the country on his own? Like a dictator?

Ideally we'd have this thing called "checks and balances" but this particular administration has been carefully and quietly trying to dismantle that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Willem



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6306
Location: wasteland style

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WheelsOfConfusion wrote:
Willem wrote:
Question to the Americans of the forum or at least people who know this:

Does the American president control the country on his own? Like a dictator?

Ideally we'd have this thing called "checks and balances" but this particular administration has been carefully and quietly trying to dismantle that.


Fun fact: I actually know this. I'm just a bit annoyed at the whole "kill/impeach Bush" thing.

Edit: I know about the checks and balances thing. I'm not starting on the whole dismantling thing there;
_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tyr



Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 31
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, why don't they impeach Bush? Clinton got an impeachment for getting a blowjob and lying about it. Bush led an entire country into a war based on false information, and he gets his second term. Why?

Answer: Clinton, just like John F. Kennedy years before him, had become inconvenient when he was impeached. Bush is just as much a convenient tool as he's always been, so he stays.

DISCLAIMER: I hated Clinton almost as much. Almost.


Last edited by Tyr on Sun Sep 03, 2006 12:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marik



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 1234

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 12:47 pm    Post subject: no srsly? Reply with quote

Tyr wrote:
Prohibition was a farce initiated by ethnoreligious groups, anyway.


It came frum lettin' them wommins vote >:[
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tyr



Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 31
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Y'all reckon? Get 'em pregnant and lock'em in the kitchen, I always says.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marik



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 1234

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 12:50 pm    Post subject: mow eeeaerr whoa loook conspiracy theeeory Reply with quote

Tyr wrote:
Well, why don't they impeach Bush? Clinton got an impeachment for getting a blowjob and lying about it. Bush led an entire country into a war based on false information, and he gets his second term. Why?

Answer: Clinton, just like John F. Kennedy years before him, had become inconvenient when he was impeached. Bush is just as much a convenient tool as he's always been, so he stays.


This sounds pretty wide-reaching. I'd say the real reason is simpler:

Clinton made a no-no when there was an opposing party in charge of the Senate. Bush made a no-no when there was an allied party in charge of the Senate.

The 'validity' of an impeachment charge often only plays along party lines.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tyr



Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 31
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd accept that reasoning, too, since it still fits with what I said, but I insist the river of shit runs a lot deeper than that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marik



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 1234

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:08 pm    Post subject: lord baron ünterbheitt ühmlauut Reply with quote

Well, the idea you're running with -- a no doubt fascinating web of shadowy überpolitic -- is based on the idea that Bush is still useful.

To who, though? He's been a political liability to the G.O.P. for over a year now, he trainwrecked neoconservatism, and he's even made a mess of the PNAC's long-term goals.

I don't see him being very convenient to anyone, unless he's being made out to be the tool what axes the checks-and-balances system to pave the way for teh new world ordars.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tyr



Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 31
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Exxon-Mobil, Halliburton, flagrant lies about environmental problems that would support limits on industry emissions, pissing on the Kyoto protocol which would have the same result, sales of ports to Arab interests, running up debts to support massive tax cuts for higher-level earners, Saudi oil money (including the bin Laden family), totally disproportionate obsession with terrorism, which is the major threat to his corporate interests (not the car accidents that kill thousands more Americans every year, for example), the masses of classified documentation over 9/11 ...

There's nothing shadowy about it. I know that you have to approach "anarkist kooks" with a degree of skepticism, and I respect that, but it's different when the evidence is consistently in front of your eyes. He's a willing and highly visible tool. Kerry would have been a slightly more nuanced tool.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10693
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If anything, were I to entertain the idea that Bush is a puppet, based on his flagrant failures and quiet successes, I would have to assume that he is less a tool of the neocons than of industry. To what end I wouldn't hazard a guess (MONEY), but at the same time that Americans despise the conflict in Iraq, our UN ambassador is a joke, we've alienated many of our allies, etc. we've also managed to replace top department heads with people holding diametrically different philosophies (like Stephen Johnson, EPA Administrator and guy who exposes children to pesticides). Given the relatively easy passage of the Clean Water and Clear Skies acts (compared with, say, the renewal of the Patriot Act and McCain's torture measure), all the stuff at NASA, etc... well, it seems like he's screwing us hard with the left hand so we don't notice we're being screwed with the right one, too. The notable exception being ANWAR, and thank goodness for that.

That is all, of course, merely if I were to entertain such an idea... really I think the guy's just a big dick.

[edit: CHEERS]
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dazedb42



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2348
Location: Margaret River, Australia

PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just came across this article in the metimes.com So apparently Rumsfield is going to be charged for authorising tortiure. The kicker? In Germany...that's right folks it was the only country they could find to prosecute these bastards.
A long read and I am not too sure about the quality of the info but a good read none the less.


Quote:
Commentary: Many top Bush officials guilty of violating anti-torture laws
Sherwood Ross
Middle East Times
September 3, 2006

WASHINGTON -- At least a score of high Bush Administration officials authorized, and hundreds of US military and other government employees committed, crimes involving the torture of prisoners captured in the Middle East, published reports and legal documents indicate.

Indeed, any impartial probe of the widespread abuse of prisoners in US custody could go well beyond the handful of prison guards who have been arrested and tried to date. The list would include top White House officials who designed the torture policies and Pentagon flag officers who executed them. It would include CIA officials and their contract pilots and immigration personnel involved in abducting suspects to be tortured. It would include doctors, nurses, and paramedics who abetted interrogators in torture. And the civilian contractors of the Department of Defense (DOD) who tortured, and foreign officials who turned suspects over to US authorities for torture.

In his May 8, 2004, speech, US President George W. Bush deplored "shocking conduct in Iraqi prisons by a small number of American servicemen and women." But he added, "We will learn the facts, the extent of the abuse, and the identities of those involved. They will answer for their actions."

As that's a very good idea, let's begin, starting at the top.

President Bush himself bears primary responsibility for torture for his arbitrary February 8, 2002, suspension of the Geneva Conventions that protect prisoners. This action set the tone for the prison scandals that shocked the conscience of the world with the publication in 2004 of the bizarre prisoner abuse photographs from Abu Ghraib near Baghdad.

As for Vice President Dick Cheney, he's been described by retired US Army Colonel Larry Wilkerson, Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, as the man who provided "the philosophical guidance that led to the torture of detainees." Wilkerson, who quit the State Department in January, 2005, said he didn't fault Cheney for wishing to keep America safe "but he'll corrupt the whole country to save it."

Department of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and his former defense undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz, both authorized torture practices. When Bush nominated Wolfowitz as World Bank boss, legislative counsel Christopher Anders of the American Civil Liberties Union lamented, "As privates and sergeants are getting jail time, top level officials are getting promoted." Human Rights First (HRF) has charged Rumsfeld with direct responsibility for torture. And the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) named Rumsfeld one of 10 defendants in a criminal complaint filed in Karlsruhe, Germany, for brutal acts of torture at Abu Ghraib.

CCR vice president Peter Weiss said CCR filed its complaint in Germany "because there is simply no other place to go" as the United States refuses to join the International Criminal Court, and Iraq has no authority to prosecute. Under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction suspected war criminals may be prosecuted anywhere.

Apparently, Rumsfeld did not put the military on the torture track without internal opposition. Then US Navy general counsel Alberto Mora, now retired, put up a diligent fight, according author Jane Mayer of The New Yorker. On December 2, 2002, Rumsfeld formally okayed coercive punishments such as "hooding," "stress positions," "exploitation of phobias," "deprivation of light and auditory stimuli" and other tactics long forbidden by the US Army Field Manual, Mayer wrote.

One torture victim was Saudi detainee Mohammed Al Qahtani, a terrorist suspect arrested in Afghanistan in connection with the September 11, 2001 skyjackings. According to Mayer, he was stripped and shaved, put in an isolation pen under artificial lights for 160 days, kept in a cold room, interrogated for up to 20 hours at a stretch, deprived of sleep, straddled by female guards, forced to wear a bra and women's underwear on his head, put on a leash and threatened by dogs, taunted that his mother was a whore, and forced to listen to blaring pop music.

It was Rumsfeld who appointed Stephen Cambone, the defense undersecretary who gave the orders to "soften up" Iraqi prisoners. Cambone told Major General Geoffrey Miller, former Guantanamo commandant, to go to Iraq to "Gitmo-ize" the interrogation process. Miller reportedly said, "You have to treat them like dogs" and okayed use of stress positions "for agonizing lengths of time," according to reporter Seymour Hersh. Cambone is named in the CCR complaint for his role in "creating a secret operation program whose mandate included committing war crimes."

One form of torture begins with "extreme rendition." Alleged terror suspects have been abducted by the CIA and flown to be tortured (and/or murdered) in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Morocco, Jordan, and Uzbekistan, etc. The practice was begun around 1996 under US President Bill Clinton and vastly expanded by Bush after 9/11. Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security council director, and counterterrorism boss Richard Clarke, have been identified as having approved extreme rendition. Clinton, of course, is also culpable. Right now, Italy would like to lay its hands on 22 CIA agents who three years ago abducted Milan resident cleric Hassan Osama Nasr for torture in Egypt.

CIA pilots involved in extreme rendition flights, as well as their boss, former CIA director Porter Goss and CIA ex-counter-terrorism chief Cofer Black should be called to account. Recall Goss asked Congress to exempt CIA operatives from any law banning torture and Black told Congress, "After 9/11, the gloves came off." Any European officials who transferred suspects to the CIA are culpable.

One human rights consortium said last April it has documented the involvement of over 600 US military and civilian personnel for the abuse and torture of 460 detainees.

A spokesman for the Detainee Abuse and Accountability Project, Professor Meg Satterthwaite of NYU Law School, said "detainee abuses were widespread, and few people have truly been brought to justice." Added Tom Malinowski, of Human Rights Watch, one of the participating groups, "We've seen a series of half-hearted investigations and slaps on the wrist."

As former US president Jimmy Carter writes in Our Endangered Values (Simon & Schuster) the "superficial investigations" into torture conducted by the Pentagon "have made it obvious that no high-level military officers or government officials will be held accountable..."

The United States may be holding 11,000 prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at Guantanamo, Cuba, Human Rights First says. So far, more than 100 prisoners are said to have perished in US custody. Captives include 800 Pakistani boys aged 13 to 15, some of them tortured, the International Red Cross has charged.

A key architect of the "new paradigm" torture policy is ex-White House legal counsel Alberto Gonzales, now attorney general, author of a torture memo in January of 2002. He dismissed the Geneva Conventions banning torture as "quaint."

His predecessor, Attorney General John Ashcroft, told Bush the conventions outlawing torture did not apply to Taliban detainees. The CCR sued Ashcroft on behalf of Canadian citizen Maher Arar, who was abducted to Syria and tortured. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and FBI agents who arrested Arar at JFK Airport and put him on a plane to Syria are culpable.

In addition to Ashcroft, the CCR suit cited Larry Thompson, acting attorney general said to have signed the rendition order; FBI director Robert Mueller; J. Scott Blackman, regional INS director; Edward McElroy, then INS director for the New York City district; and INS commissioner James Zigler.

High Bush aides responsible for torture include Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, who on August 1, 2002, drafted what became known as the "torture memo." Also, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff who, when head of Justice's criminal division, advised the CIA it was okay to use water torture.

Other law violators include John Yoo, now a University of California professor, who advised Bush the Geneva Conventions did not apply to detainees; Jack Goldsmith, who drafted the torture policy for Gonzales when he headed Justice's Office of Legal Counsel; David Addington, Cheney's top lawyer and a principle author of a White House memo justifying torture of terrorism suspects; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy who had oversight for Abu Ghraib and like prisons; and former Pentagon general counsel William Haynes II, author of memos rationalizing torture.

That such policy memos were translated into action was established by Human Rights Watch, which reported prison interrogators in the Baghdad area got a lecture from military lawyers saying Geneva Conventions did not apply and torturing was legit.

Among military officers involved in torture are:

- Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, US senior commander in Iraq for about a year starting in June, 2003. His memo of September 14, 2003, authorized use of interrogation techniques such as dogs, isolation, and stress positions. Major General Walter Wojdakowski was his deputy commander in charge of an involved military intelligence brigade and is one of those named in the CCR criminal complaint. And Major General Barbara Fast, cleared by the US Army of any wrongdoing, served as chief of intelligence for Sanchez.

- Colonel Thomas Pappas, head of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, was in charge of Iraq prisons and therefore responsible for what took place. He is also named in the CCR suit for torture "amounting to war crimes." Lieutenant Colonel Steve Jordan, of 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, is said by CCR to even have witnessed one detainee's death caused by his subordinates' mistreatment.

- Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, with direct charge for Abu Ghraib and subsequently demoted to colonel, admitted to violation of the Geneva Conventions by holding so-called "ghost detainees" in secret. Sanchez, Pappas, and Karpinski are named in an ACLU complaint. Also, Captain Carolyn Wood, who oversaw interrogation at Bagram prison and approved the use of dogs and stress positions.

- Lt. General William Boykin reportedly advised Cambone to use water torture and to humiliate captives via religious taunting. Participating doctors, nurses, and paramedics who aided torturers at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere would be culpable as well.

- Air Force General Counsel Mary Walker, who headed a Rumsfeld working group on interrogation guidelines, rationalized that some criminal conduct was "not unlawful."

- Lt. Colonel Stephen Jordan, former supervisor of interrogators at Abu Ghraib was named in the CCR complaint as having "clear knowledge" of ongoing abuses, and Lt. Colonel Jerry Phillabaum, commander of a military police battalion that oversaw Abu Ghraib was said by CCR to have failed to report war crimes.

- CCR also filed a class action suit in Federal court against Titan Corp. of San Diego and CACI International of Arlington, VA., and three of their employees, Stephen Stefanowicz and John Israel of CACI, and Adel Nahkla of Titan for abuses Abu Ghraib. Plaintiffs said they were hooded and raped, stripped naked and urinated on, prevented from praying, beaten with chains and boots, and forced to watch their father tortured to death. CACI has strongly denied the charges.

Title 18 of the US Code makes it a crime for an American to commit torture "outside the United States" and authorizes fines and prison terms of up to 20 years. If deaths result, those convicted may be jailed for life or executed. HRF has charged as of April, 2005, 108 foreign detainees had died in US custody.

CCR president Michael Ratner said, "the existence of 'torture memos' drafted by administration officials and the authorization of techniques that violated humanitarian law by Secretary Rumsfeld, Lt. General Sanchez and others make clear that responsibility for Abu Ghraib and other violations of law reaches all the way to the top."

Calling for an investigation, Amnesty International's Jumana Musa, warned, "Torture thrives on impunity. By not holding accountable the people who drafted and implemented the policies, the US government is giving a wink and a nod to torturers worldwide."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17125
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:00 am    Post subject: Re: mow eeeaerr whoa loook conspiracy theeeory Reply with quote

Marik wrote:
Tyr wrote:
Well, why don't they impeach Bush? Clinton got an impeachment for getting a blowjob and lying about it. Bush led an entire country into a war based on false information, and he gets his second term. Why?

Answer: Clinton, just like John F. Kennedy years before him, had become inconvenient when he was impeached. Bush is just as much a convenient tool as he's always been, so he stays.


This sounds pretty wide-reaching. I'd say the real reason is simpler:

Clinton made a no-no when there was an opposing party in charge of the Senate. Bush made a no-no when there was an allied party in charge of the Senate.

The 'validity' of an impeachment charge often only plays along party lines.


actually, the house of representatives does the impeaching, the senate then tries the case. same difference, of course - in clinton's case, both houses were in the hands of the republicans, and in bush's case...both houses are in the hands of the republicans. and the parties have become so polarized, they are willing to do (or not do) things strictly on the basis of party loyalty. that said, in clinton's case, many of the house republicans had come in on a sort of anti-clinton plan, plus, he was succeeding with quite a few republicanesque items - anyway, the sex was just an excuse.

dazed: i haven't read your whole article (only because the whole subject plunges me into despair) - but i think it would be wonderful if germany (or anyone) managed to indict rumsfeld. the thing is, of course, that this administration has refused to sign the international court treaty - ostensibly out of fear that innocent americans will be railroaded with false war-crime charges, but i suspect actually out of knowledge that they would be very much at risk of being tried on perfectly legitimate and provable charges.

so i really hope the next president signs the treaty, noting that the court is made up of our allies, and why should we think they would have any reason to railroad some gi (especially since the court only acts in cases where the home country is unwilling or unable to press charges).
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dazedb42



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2348
Location: Margaret River, Australia

PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
it would be wonderful if germany (or anyone) managed to indict rumsfeld. the thing is, of course, that this administration has refused to sign the international court treaty - ostensibly out of fear that innocent americans will be railroaded with false war-crime charges, but i suspect actually out of knowledge that they would be very much at risk of being tried on perfectly legitimate and provable charges.


Aint that the truth. I don't understand how they get away with it. Mind you I spent a couple of days going through any prophecies relating to armageddon and what not and I've gone beyond despair. It appears to me that we are finally on a one way ride to self fufilling them. You have fanatics on both side of the fence setting themselves for a final show down. The one ray of hope I found was the Hopi prophecy concerning the great cleansing.

The times they are a changing.... I just hope my loved ones make it through. BTW all festers are more than welcome to come and join me in the safest spot on the planet.





Wow that makes me sound crazier than I really am. <3 to the good people and even the others.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group