Right, because every comparison to Hitler is meant as a rigorous historical analysis, and comparing turning off the TV to Abu Ghraib isn't hyperbolic at all. Good thing you've got so much perspective.

I try my best to avoid any personal attacks in my responses. I am pretty vicious in attacking certain ideas though. I know that comes across as combative, but if you can bear reading what I said again, the only point I tried to hold viciously to was that being MORE angry at America for supporting Saddam than at Saddam himself is flat out wrong. Holding a higher bar of expectations for America is great and helps America out, but the place for that is in judging what one expects America to be. Holding America to a different bar than Saddam or Assad though is a tremendous disservice to Syrian and Iraqi people.

What I'm trying to get across in the examples I listed and my defense of that position is that hordes of people point at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and call for war crimes trials against Bush and Cheney. I agree with them, America should expect better of it's leaders. The trouble I have is when those same people then step forward and point at those same abuses and declare America no better than Saddam. That kind of ignorance is horrific, and when it's wrapped in the false flag of caring about Iraqi civilians I get mad.

The same applies to Raytheon, Assad and Syria. I share people's anger that people may be about to profit from death. I even share the belief that America is only considering involvement because it selfishly stands to gain. I even share the belief that American corporations like Raytheon are pushing only for what makes them money. I share the outrage at that. My trouble and what I am fighting to point out is why there is so much less outrage and indignation when Assad profits so much more, so much more directly, and by killing far more people? When within the very same conflict the voices damning America for considering a military attack are whispers when talking about Assad's own crimes it angers me. I don't feel it beneficial to point out that hypocrisy subtly.

If we want an example of what non-intervention is like, look no further than Africa. The DRC, Liberia, Somalia, Rwanda and on and on. I simply want to argue that people look at the entire picture instead of naively expecting America to act benevolently. That naivety wears on me even faster when it comes from those that knowingly submit evidence that America is no more benevolent than any other nation.

And to at long last answer your question, I believe targeted strikes against Assad will discourage his behavior in the only way that matters to him, by weakening him more than his attack strengthened him. It's why I point out Assad as no different than any other leader at his level. Their actions can predicted to be entirely based upon selfish gain and nothing else. If killing a million people with chemical weapons would end the war and give Assad back control,of his country he'd do it without a second thought. I am confident the only things that stay his hand is doubts that it would accomplish what he wants. On one side it would mean returning to running his country as his father had, and he may still hold out hope of avoiding that. More likely, he fears he doesn't have the support internally he needs to make such a push without someone else within his circle using the opportunity to usurp him. Circumventing those concerns is within Assad's power though, and all he needs is time. The other part staying his hand is the important one, that America or more likely Israel, is willing to launch counter attacks against his forces if he commits massacres on a great enough scale. I argue in favor of targeted strikes because they will weaken Assad and because that is the ONLY warning that will matter to him. Words become empty if this attack was ignored. Assad will escalate if he sees the chance, and then ignoring even larger attacks or delivering even harsher counter attacks become the choices.

So much horseshit, that if it were compiled virtually into a virtual Universe like ours in mere seconds it would suddenly implode from the horrendous amount of mass gain, leaving only a black hole behind--I would applaud as we collapse.

Second, as Cenk brings up, it's very nice indeed that no one ever bothers to mess around with the Pentagon or in it's entirety the military budget, except for a few canceled plane programs replaced by another tactical trident nuclear submarine, etc... It blows my mind that we as a people in America are fine spending unlimited resources, even into debt, to pay for death, killing, destruction, hatred, bad reputation--military and citizens/tourists, torture, Guantanamo (non-POW camp), illegal actions (politically motivated sometimes, soon it may be at home, other times it's not and you end up with...), Abu Ghraib Prison (soldiers obeying orders or not, it's hard to tell), etc...

Yet you bother to ask people to join together to pay for the humanities of our country, like the sciences (why do we use telescopes at 26 million dollars per year, it's a waste of money--IT DOES NOTHING--same with NASA, worthless), education (well my kids are not being taught the right things anyway so I might as well keep them at home), and the biggest black sheep: universal health-care (why should I pay for someone else's sickness, are they going to give me a random check when I'm not sick for a long time as a reward--it totally doesn't make sense; plus, I'm not paying for abortions, drug abuse, and all those liars that are not sick and abuse the system...)...

We are willing to pay for free and in fact reach into our wallets and give them ten more dollars each for killing each other, but just to simply provide health-care for all and be our brother's keeper, even 10 cents a day is too much.

The United States of America IS DYING and both political parties are just fine with it--in fact they are helping every day......

/Disgusted is where I'm at mentally; boiling with rage.

>> ^ipfreely:

@ VoodooV
Really? Please do name these Republican doing something "far far more despicable and against the law but rarely resign"


How about Bush and illegal domestic surveillance?

How about Rumsfeld and torture at Abu Ghraib?

Or Dick Cheney outing a CIA operative for political revenge?

>> ^MarineGunrock:
Just ask any of the Iraqi citizens that cheered, waved, said thank you to me and my brothers-in-arms. Ask the dozens more that I had the opportunity to have conversations with that tell me that they don't want us leaving, because when we do "bad men come."


We have asked the Iraqi citizens these questions, and every poll shows that %85 want us the fuck out of their country, and %75 think it's OK to fire at US soldiers.

When you have armored humvees filled with rednecks with big guns and itchy trigger fingers trapsing through your village, of course you're going to appear nice to them. When you have events like fallujah and Abu Ghraib, these people know better than to fuck with anyone wearing a US flag on their shoulder. It's common sense, not some misguided feeling that they're happy to have had USA destroy their country, torture and kill their citizens, and send over a million children into the underground sex industry.

>> ^thepinky:
Ah, people can still handle American patriotism. The hatred isn't as intense or as widespread as some people seem to think. Of course it's there, but not to the point where G.I. Joe would be largely unwelcome.

It's not about the hatred for America, it's about the issue that the American GI Joe movie would have portrayed. With the images of Abu Ghraib, "enhanced interrogation" and bombed children's hospitals still in our heads, a GI Joe movie featuring America vs. the terrorists might not be preceived as a clear "good" vs. "evil" story as these hollywood movies often make it out to be, at least not overseas.

Mustafa Ayad, 34 yrs old Iraqi, father of two, accountant:



"I think Bush has dragged the reputation of America into the mud by his aggressive actions, and that Obama is trying to recapture that former presence it had in the minds and hearts of people all around the world. But he asks us to forgive and forget – that is too much. Forgive and forget a million Iraqis killed over the period of occupation? Forgive and forget the indignities and the humiliation of having to scuttle over to the pavement for the "Lords" to pass us on our streets? Forget – and forgive Abu Ghraib? And the list is long. I cannot forgive and forget my relatives who were killed, displaced or detained and humiliated for mere suspicion. We lost our homes, our livelihoods and our families most of whom fled. But in spite of that I am willing to listen. I am willing to give Obama the benefit of doubt. It remains to be seen what he can do to put my country back together."

Am still amazed Americans need to have this discussion, the "is it or is it not torture?" I think it detracts from the more important facts that came out from all this. The case for that has always been closed, its pretty clear from day 1 it was torture.

- the administration put torture forward as a policy
- the OLC wrote laws and legislation allowing torture to occur
- torture was renamed and regulated in an effort to legalize its application
- it was carried out in 3 US military complexes in Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and Bagram airbase
- it was actively applied by forward intelligence agents with the US military and was encouraged
- it was used as well through US cooperation with states that torture (egypt, syria, uzbekistan and etc)
- the administration lied about torture being 'isolated bad apples' post Abu Ghraib
- private military contractors were involved in its application and administration
- the military and intelligence apparatus was forced into producing results and green light into using torture techniques.
- far worse techniques were used other then water boarding which are still being blacklisted
- they did everything to cover it up, then spin the argument around one technique, then make it seem necessary, remember that once the scandal broke the KSM argument was put forward
- its been shown not to work at all no single intelligence agency has put forward any actionable intelligence produced through torture
- there has been no ticking time bomb scenarios a la 24
- there will be no persecutions of those who were responsible for these policies
- massive international damage to american standing

ya beat me to it RASCH!
the debate if torture is a political right or wrong,or if its its even justified
is IRRELEVANT.
let me say that again for those who got their intellect from a cracker jack box.
the debate on whether torture is righteous,or a political ideology is IRRELEVANT.
RASCH is correct.according to article 3 of the geneva convention,and CIA,NSA and fbi legal guidelines,waterboarding is considered TORTURE,therefore it is against the LAW.not just international law,but national.
dont like the law?then CHANGE it.
but bybee,addington and woo did not do that did they?
they created retro-active legislation that RETROACTIVELY gave immunity to those who were the architects of the iraq war.
if the bush administration was so righteous in the iraq war and its prosecution,why would they have senior white house legal counsel create laws to grant immunity..retroactively?
answer=because the prosecution of the "war on terror" was an illegal war,using illegal "interrogation techniques".
in the aftermath of world war 2,three japanese interrogators were executed.
their crime?...waterboarding.
which court prosecuted these japanese interrogators?....american.
there IS NO ARGUMENT....waterboarding is against the LAW..period.
so for those who feel they can turn this into a political diatribe are just being weak-minded,or even worse...tools for an establishment who left their ideologies a long time ago.
while bansheex may be corrct that in the past it was the democracts who were the chickenhawks,it is BESIDE THE POINT,and has no relevance to the current argument.
and QM's argument is just one big red herring,and avoids the real point in order to push his "i hate libs" polemic.
this IS NOT A POLITICAL TALKING POINT.this is about the honor of the USA and how we,as a nation,are all equal UNDER THE LAW.
jesse ventura put it perfectly,and i agree,i dont care if it was a repub,or a dem that knew about this,and either by action OR inaction allowed this perversion to go on.ALL of them should be held accountable.
this new development with the additional abu ghraib pictures NOT being revealed has me fuming.it smacks of political hubris.my guess is that some
prominent politicians will be exposed as having known about these abuses and let it slide for political expediency.i find this VERY distasteful.
no-one should be above the law.
and waterboarding is torture,it was developed for the sole purpose of producing a "false confession" and did nothing to gather or obtain pertinent information,but did a great job in making our country seem the hypocrite and made or soldiers far less safe.
and QM..please read up on the legalities please.the "national flag" defense was a construct by the bybee/addington crew to do exactly what you did here..
defend torture,and was corrected in 2006.that argument can no longer be used.
somebody else mentioned "citizen rights"..yeah..ok...
go check out MCA of 2006,patriot act 1& 2,victory act 1& 2.
all they have to do is deem you an "enemy combatant" and your whisked away to "secret rendition" club med.there was a post here a few weeks ago about a 16 yr old who was brought in under the patriot act,he lost all rights as a citizen.no habeas corpus,no rights of redress,the state does not have to produce evidence under the vague banner of "national security".
this whole things stinks to high heaven,reeking of political malfeasance and abuse.the worst thing is how it indirectly puts our soldiers in a much worse situation than before.and for what?...nothing,absolutely nothing.
i didnt serve my country to watch a bunch of gray haired chicken hawk pussies,who didnt have the balls to sign up when called, but now are all trash talking tough guys,who put MY kids in danger.
bunch of panty-waist,pussy fags.
im done...there is no argument.
against the law..period.
either change the law,or shut the fuck up.
better yet,put your money where your mouth is,and go sign up for the army.
lets see you trash talk then.
fucking pussies.
/rant OFF
thanks for tuning in to:enoch's cathartic rant.

>> ^dalesstory

GTFO

huzzah! danke, danke deputy doggenheimer

In reply to this comment by deputydog:
genius

*promote

In reply to this comment by westy:
AMAZING I SEE THIS AS THE START OF SOMETHING BIG !

what ever do you mean, wise westy? and i might suggest voting for the video if you find it as amazing as you've claimed ;}

>> ^Farhad2000:
Am amazed by the comments here.
What if there was government suppressed the original Abu Ghraib photos?


They tried to, and failed.
---


What if what Bush doing this and not Obama?

Bush is a war-mongering torture fetishest. Obama is not. There's definitely an infinite difference. Bush tried to keep everything secret, and failed. Obama is acknowledging what's in these photos, and taking a different approach than you or I or Glenn Greenwald would take.

But the fact of the matter is, this is FOIA stuff, and at a certain point, Obama doesn't control their release. It's entirely possible that Obama is specifically taking this stance now, all the while knowing they will be released, but he comes out in the end as not the America-hater that would so easily be slapped on him.
---


Do you condone then the CIA destrcution of the torture videotapes as well?

Of course not and I have no idea why you'd equate the two. Obama isn't destroying these photographs, Bush destroyed the tapes.
---


What kind of precedent does this set? Any time Americans do something wrong and its damaging to a certain set of people they should be allowed to suppress it?


I think you're blowing out of proportion what I and others here have stated. I'm not personally seeking the concealment of them. I'm trying to take Obama at face value, and figure out the issue, on both sides.
---


I wanted these photos to be released so the evidence on prosecuting the people responsible for these policies would increase.

You don't need to release photographic evidence to the public and media at large in order to prosecute. Even Glen Greenwald understands that.
---

It sounds like you are all buying the Fox spin about this being leveled at those carrying out the orders and not those who put these orders in place.


OK so, saying "I'm on the fence about this issue" and then trying to have a conversation about it is equal to "buying the Fox spin"??? WTF?

That's pretty out there dude.

Am amazed by the comments here.

What if there was government suppressed the original Abu Ghraib photos?

What if what Bush doing this and not Obama?

Do you condone then the CIA destrcution of the torture videotapes as well? I mean that could inflame anti-Amereican sentiment.

What kind of precedent does this set? Any time Americans do something wrong and its damaging to a certain set of people they should be allowed to suppress it?

I wanted these photos to be released so the evidence on prosecuting the people responsible for these policies would increase. It sounds like you are all buying the Fox spin about this being leveled at those carrying out the orders and not those who put these orders in place.

You should all read this as Greenwald outlines it very well http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/13/photos/index.html

If Seymour Hersch is quoted correctly I can imagine quite some backlash from releasing the footage he refers to:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/07/15/hersh/
"This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out.""