Lynndie England

[Macy]

See the yanks are all over the place giving out by the Uzbekistan and threatening to invade the country to give the people freedom.... Either that or they're staying silent on the issue....

[hamish]

Yeh, Macy, isn't that the country where the security services "bathe" anti government people in acid along with other delightful torture methods. But, of course, they're on the right side in the so called war on terror.

[mypost]

Hey, guess what - he wasn't lying! Unlike Bush and Blair, who lied about having proof of WMD. Lied to start a war!

Lied? Excuse me, but there was not one, not two, not three, but 4 separate Independent Inquiries about the Iraq war in Britain last year, which, ALL, acquitted Tony Blair of lieing to the British public, regarding Britain's role in the Iraq conflict. Over-exaggerate perhaps, but he did not lie.


Really? North Korea keeps actively threatening the US and is quite open about its nuclear capabilities. Don't see them getting dealt with, do you?

The North Korea situation hasn't reached the point where military action is required, - yet!


I said the US was posing a threat to these countries - nothing to do with the countries being a threat themselves. Bulgaria was bombed by "smart" American bombs in the Yugoslavia affair. Which is why the US bombing it - accidentally or not - certainly means they're (the US, just to be ultra-clear here) is a threat to the international community. US interference in the other countries I mentioned backs this up as well. With all due respect, mypost, your knowledge of American activities in the world today and in the past 50 years appears to contain gaps far too large for this thread. May I suggest you do some background reading in the meantime? I'd point you towards Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky, Why Do People Hate America by Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies or the Michael Moore books among others. Among other things, you'll learn just what the US has done to destabilise world peace since the last World War and also why it is absolutely wrong that the US should be allowed to wield its power as it chooses. I think this knowledge is vital to have before discussing the US's role in the world.

With respect, what America has/hasn't done since WWII is not relevant here. That's a debate for another time. The American military's actions are not always perfect, and they have accidently bombed other countries on the odd occasion, but that doesn't automatically implicate that it is a threat to the world at large. Their military is the best that there is around at the moment, and will only engage in military conflict as a last resort measure, when all other alternative options have been exhausted. This thread is about the actions of a convicted US soldier, and by extension, the Iraq conflict. So, I will only talk about that here.

[mypost]

Why would the US not give him a few more months? Easy. They'd have no excuses to wage war.

The International Community gave Saddam 12 years, almost 20 UN Resolutions, and 4 more months, to comply with the world's demands. How much more time did he need? He had enough time. As he failed to comply, he faced the consequences.

Freedom has many difficulties, and democracy is not perfect, but the Iraqi people will discover soon, that after 24 years of hell, it is the only way forward for the country.

[Macy]

Freedom has many difficulties, and democracy is not perfect, but the Iraqi people will discover soon
What about the Uzbeks? Will they discover freedom and democracy soon? Or will the yanks stay silent, or continue to tell both sides to dispurse? Mind you, we wouldn't want to deny the CIA access to all the info they get from the torture methods, or the Bush supporting American Companies from their oil contracts....

[GavinZac]

The International Community gave Saddam 12 years, almost 20 UN Resolutions, and 4 more months, to comply with the world's demands. How much more time did he need? He had enough time. As he failed to comply, he faced the consequences.

failed to comply with what exactly? to step down? he must have been pretty miffed as to why the US was picking on him again and not on another of the 'regimes' they've set up.

[GavinZac]

acquitted Tony Blair of lieing to the British public, regarding Britain's role in the Iraq conflict. Over-exaggerate perhaps, but he did not lie.

over exaggerating isnt lying? great. well then, im off to far away climes to sample some fine native cusine*

*downstairs for coco-pops

[pineapple stu]

Lied? Excuse me, but there was not one, not two, not three, but 4 separate Independent Inquiries about the Iraq war in Britain last year, which, ALL, acquitted Tony Blair of lieing to the British public, regarding Britain's role in the Iraq conflict. Over-exaggerate perhaps, but he did not lie.
So where are the WMD? Maybe Saddam magicked them away, eh? If he could use then in 45 minutes, why didn't he? Even you admitted in this very thread that he didn't have any.

He lied, end of story. The inquiries were a joke which caused people in the BBC to fall on their sword by virtue of their responsibilities arising from their position at the top, but which allowed Blair to get away with it because he wasn't expected to have time to read everything. Utter joke.


The North Korea situation hasn't reached the point where military action is required, - yet!
Eh? They're actively threatening the US. They're waving their nuclear weapons programme in the US's face! Iraq never did anything like that. How can the Iraq situation be seen as more dangerous than North Korea?!



With respect, what America has/hasn't done since WWII is not relevant here.
Rubbish. It most certainly is relevant. You have to have background on the US's previous actions in order to understand what they're likely to do this time around. If you ignore their past, they can hoodwink you every time with rhetoric about freedom, etc. Anybody who was aware of their past knew from the off exactly what was going to happen here. And has been able to predict it fairly well.



[The US military] will only engage in military conflict as a last resort measure, when all other alternative options have been exhausted.
If you honestly believe that, you're beyond all hope. The weapons inspectors weren't finished in Iraq by the time Bush ordered the invasion. There's your point in shreds already.


This thread is about the actions of a convicted US soldier, and by extension, the Iraq conflict. So, I will only talk about that here.
Oh how convenient. All this is about Lynndie England, and nothing else matters. Rubbish. Your first post in this thread argued that the entire war was legal. You can't go backing out of the argument now to narrow it down to one person.

You evidently seem not to have taken on board my comments with regards reading up on this topic. Until you have, I'm not going to contribute any further in this thread. If you still believe the US is the world's guardian angel who wants the best for everyone, you're in for a hell of an eye-opener when you do start reading around the topic.

[mypost]

He lied, end of story. The inquiries were a joke which caused people in the BBC to fall on their sword by virtue of their responsibilities arising from their position at the top, but which allowed Blair to get away with it because he wasn't expected to have time to read everything. Utter joke.

To accuse the British PM, of lieing to the British parliament and public, is a very serious accusation, without proof. Where is the proof that he lied? I remind you, that 4 lengthy, public, Independent Inquiries in Britain all cleared him of lieing to his government and people, regarding Britain's involvement in the Iraq conflict. No, the Inquiries were not a joke. You think they were a joke, because the findings of the Inquiries were not to your satisfaction. Blair stated publicly, that he would resign as British PM, IF the findings of the Inquiries implicated that he lied to his parliament, and public about the issue. Instead, heads rolled at the BBC after the Hutton Inquiry's findings, which also stated that WMD may be found in Iraq in the future. A few months later, the chemical weapon Sarin, was discovered by British troops in Iraq.


The weapons inspectors weren't finished in Iraq by the time Bush ordered the invasion.

They weren't finished, eh? They were originally given 2 months to conduct their inspections, and were then given two more. So they had 4 months to conduct their inspections, and if they couldn't finish them in that time, when were they going to finish them?


All this is about Lynndie England, and nothing else matters. Your first post in this thread argued that the entire war was legal. You can't go backing out of the argument now to narrow it down to one person.

You either didn't read, didn't understand, or both, about what I posted. I am not narrowing the argument down to one person. In fact, I have never commented on the conviction of that US soldier at all. It doesn't concern me what the US military's record in previous conflicts is. What matters here is what they have done about Iraq, and that's what I'm posting about. If you want to talk about what the US and/or other countries' military record was in the past, that's another debate entirely.

[hamish]

Good arguements mypost but to be fair, the Hutton Enquiry had such narrow terms of reference that there could only be one outcome, Blair not lying. I mean, he didn't even know the difference between battlefield weapons and WMDs regarding his 45 minute attack warning. Come on, man. The other enquiries were also a joke.

[pineapple stu]

the Hutton Enquiry had such narrow terms of reference that there could only be one outcome, Blair not lying...The other enquiries were also a joke.
Don't forget the high quality George Bush inquiry where he had to go nito a private room, not take an oath, have no transcript taken and have everyone sworn to secrecy. Surely the actions of a man telling the truth, of course... :rolleyes:

[hamish]

Yeah, Pineapple Stu, I'll say one thing for the Bush/neocons - the fact that they can keep straight faces everytime they make statements is an astonishing achievement. :eek:

[hamish]

Anyone see the Dutch made programme on her on RTE Sunday night??

[pete]

Anyone see the Dutch made programme on her on RTE Sunday night??

Seen a few minutes. She came across better than normal but seemed to very focused on her side of the story. Real rednecks though. However think they made valid point about small group of reservists been blamed for everything & silence from everyone else.

[hamish]

Put a human face on her to some extent.
I've no doubt, Pete, that the likes of Rumsfeldt and, today, Gonzalez have set the tone as it were, for rules of war etc etc etc to be er.....adapted, for the US's convenience.
Remember Gonzalez and his comment that the Geneva Convention was "quaint"??
That neocon shower - y'know, just when you think how low they are, they somehow manage to sink even lower.
Pond life, the lot of them.

[pineapple stu]

I've no doubt, Pete, that the likes of Rumsfeldt and, today, Gonzalez have set the tone as it were, for rules of war etc etc etc to be er.....adapted, for the US's convenience.
Remember Gonzalez and his comment that the Geneva Convention was "quaint"??
Well, I suppose we could always try England and her superiors all the way up the chain of command in an international court or law.

Oh, wait... Wonder who's holding that up? :rolleyes:

[hamish]

Well, I suppose we could always try England and her superiors all the way up the chain of command in an international court or law.

Oh, wait... Wonder who's holding that up? :rolleyes:

Hey Pineapple Stu - just got my regular Amnesty pack today and right on Q - a devastating report on the good ol' USA.

That moron Bill O'Reilly on his Factor (out the truth) show on Faux "News" promptly took umbrage.

All us Amnesty members are now radical, far left, Trotskyites who hate the US and will get Yanks killed all over the world.

I tried to remember more, when I wasn't p!ss!ng myself laughing (will have to get rid of that habit :D ) but the above is about the most coherent part I could understand that eejit mouthing.

Maybe some day when he gets stuck in some hellhole prison in some crazy part of the world, he might be grateful to some far-leftiess fighting to get him out (like.....er...Amnesty) before some big guy called Pedro or Michael or Whang decided to make him his "friend".

The again, a chickenhawk like him and all his friends in power (White House etc) would not find themselves in dangerous places, would they?

I love it when he (repeatedly) says "I've been in combat" - even to army guys - he spent time in Central America spewing pro-US propaganda which I'm sure was spent in a safe place like the nearest US embassy when all he needed was PR handouts.

The Lyndie Englands of this world are, in part, moulded by clowns like O'Liley and his ilk.

And we wonder why 50% of the US is fcuked up and right wing??