Originally Posted By: whomod



 Originally Posted By: Whomod
"The Red Cross disclosed that it had been warning American officials of WIDES[P]READ (not isolated incidents) of prisoner abuse for much of 2003 to no avail"


What part of that didn't YOU understand? You seem to like misrepresenting things. The Red Cross report for your information was ABOUT detainees in particular and specifically ABOUT Abu Ghraib not about the U.S. forces in general as YOU are implying. No one ever said that, numbnuts. You are implying it to suit your own agenda.


There's no misrepresentation on my part. You clearly imply that U.S. military abuses go far beyond 7 U.S. military guards at Abu Ghraib. You don't even say: There may possibly be some other possible abuses.
No.
You say "WIDESPREAD", indicating it is a problem throughout the U.S. forces in Iraq. You smear the entire military.
"WIDESPREAD."

Further, in other posts --not two years or more ago, but in the last few days-- you smear our military as alienating Iraqis with unprovoked violence, and now do the same toward the private security employed in Iraq.
But like I said, you report their security is suspended, but selectively don't mention that after a few days of negotiation they're back on duty in Iraq. And if the Iraqi government believed they were trigger-happy thugs, they wouldn't have reinstated them.

And even when the Iraq surge is now going well, you knee-jerk reflexively deny that.

You're like an enemy talking-points machine, that instantly spits out anti-American propaganda in response to whatever happens, whether things are going well or not.
Well, since January, the surge has been working. Visible progress is being made. But you just can't bring yourself to acknowledge anything that goes well under Bush.

I don't support Bush on a number of issues. But on the economy and on the tenacity to not cave under political pressure before the job is done in Iraq, I do. I supported firing Rumsfeld for a long time before he was relieved, to replace him with someone who restores bipartisan confidence. And when he was replaced, the change in Iraq was significant.


 Originally Posted By: whomod

And the entire point of even discussing that was in the fact that, despite the Red Cross report nothing was ever done about it until those infamous pictures were leaked to the media.


The truth is, the U.S. military was investigating it before the story broke, and breaking the story just created a lot of anger and false allegations that just made it harder to see what the real facts were, with a lot of hostile Iraqis making false allegations after-the-fact, just to make the Americans look bad.


 Originally Posted By: whomod

I dunoo. what kind of hate filled lunatic are you anyways? How do you interpret being for the Geneva Conventions and against the kind of torture we saw in the photos as being against all the troops in Iraq? Must one approve of such acts to be "for the troops" in your book?


I never said I supported Abu Graib torture. That's another of your deliberate misrepresentations of me.

I condemned the 7 guards and am glad them and their superior officers officers who permitted it were removed. But I don't like the smear of your "WIDESPREAD" insinuations about the U.S. military. Alllegations are not facts.


 Originally Posted By: whomod

Jackass.

 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Sometimes I wish had enough meanness in me to give you a full taste of the mocking antagonism you live your miserable life to dish out every day. But I stood at the edge of the abyss, and I stepped back. Better to let you roast in your own bile, than to leap off there with you.

___________________________________________

Battle not with whomods, lest ye become a whomod.
And if you gaze into the whomod, the whomod gazes also into you.
--Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzche (abridged)