|
|
OBAMA THREAD :Dquex
Did you watch the inauguration? Did you like it? Did you cry? Did you log on as soon as it was over so you could check the boards? I sure did.
That's the best g*ddamn speech I have ever, EVER heard out of a politician. deanhills
I missed it! You would not believe it, the one evening that I was actually looking forward to looking at it, my Satellite Dish went down. Do you have an online link for his speech?
jmi256
I watched it on the New York Times' website, and the funny thing is that the online feed was about five seconds faster than the "live" feed pumped on TV. (One of my coworkers had it on her TV--I think it was MSNBC.)
I've seen/heard better speeches from Obama, though. I'm not a fan of his, but I was expecting a good speech. A lot of it seemed like rehashed content from old stump speeches. I didn’t expect him to throw out a state-of-the-union-type speech, but I did think he’d offer a patriotic/rousing speech that would sway his critics and galvanize his supporters. I’m not sure it did either. It was funny that he flubbed the oath though. I knew the guy was bad without a teleprompter, but all he had to do was repeat a string of five to six words. And, while we’re on the subject: I feel bad for criticizing a prayer, but I have to admit that Rick Warren's address wasn't really all that moving either. Just an opinion though. Either way, Obama is now our president, and I pray his service to the country is successful. quex
For posterity's sake, Obama didn't flub the oath on his own; Justice Roberts fed it to him the wrong way.
Obama paused to trigger Roberts to try again, then apparently thought better of it and repeated what Roberts had said the first time. It's all about the placement of the word "faithfully," which could be some sort of history factoid to appear in trivia ten or twenty years from now. Interestingly, Obama did not become President when he was speaking the oath; he became President in the midst of the quartet's musical performance, exactly as the clock struck 12:01pm EST, in accordance with the Constitution. I almost think it was even more poignant a moment for that fact. Deanhills, sorry about the dish. :( There's the oath + inaugural speech here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27721638/?vp=28657278? ...and everywhere else on the Internet. XD jwellsy
The prayer was racist.Yellow people need to mellow?
It was introduced as the oaf of office. He flubbed up the oath. The speech was not very good at all. The stock market responded by dropping 350 pts. Of course the color blinded sycophant media slurped and gurgled it up. silverdown
I really don't care who is present they all had and will make hard choices we don't like. Bush was a great president at least to me. Now Obama has to prove what he promised... If he does that. I know know there will be Anti-Obama sites,people and groups but they just gotta either get over it or hate him. This is fresh year and president lets try and make it a good one. I never thought there be a African American as a president not that i am racist just never thought people or the government allow it. But hey
 something new for America to try out !quex
You are apparently ignorant of the talk-on-the-ground before and during the 60s. I'm white and I was born in the 80s, but I understood the joke...
...now, I thought that joke was born in the Bush administration. Perhaps it's older?
See meh post above.
I am very surprised to hear this from people. What manner of speeches are you usually impressed by? What writers, what speakers? Thus far, the only persons I have heard who disapprove of this particular speech are Rush Limbaugh and yourself.
From this article: "On Inauguration Day, the Dow falls about three-fourths of the time." Please also note that specific information from the banking sector was directly responsible for the stock drop.
The term you were trying for was "color-blind": hyphenation is necessary, the -ed is not. Gurgling usually suggests that one is choking or producing spittle, rather than taking in (such as slurping). Valid use of the word "sycophant," but I disagree with the statement. I think the media was rather overawed by the response of the general public and was responding in kind, rather than planning their responses to curry favor with the incoming US administration. At least, that's what I got watching the BBC. Maybe Fox News reacted otherwise? deanhills
Thanks quex. I watched it on ABC on the Internet, and that was pretty awesome. I did not cry, but you are totally right, it was a pretty awesome speech by Obama, no doubt about it. From the Internet I could see him and his wife dancing, and wow, they really dance nice together! I like his steps and ability to have fun along the serious stuff. jwellsy
Color blinded is the correct term. People are blinded by his color.
Was that a toilet paper wedding dress she was wearing?  jmi256
I don't want to get caught up in the grammar nazi thing, but I did want to make a few points.
I agree that parts of that were racist. My problem is with the part "...and when white will embrace what is right.” It implies that white people have not embraced "what is right" and that they need to start. Granted there are whites (as well as other races, i.e. Bin Laden, Farrakhan, Mao, etc.) who have committed and advocated wrongs, but to single out "white people" as the ones who need to embrace “what is right” is racist.
It seemed to me that Obama flubbed it by jumping the gun and starting to recite the oath before Justice Roberts finished the first line. However, as quex pointed out above it was just a ceremony and we’re constitutionally stuck with Obama for the next four years. I only brought up the flub because I thought it was ironic that Obama would get tripped up on something like that. It has been a prevalent criticism that Obama's most valuable strength is his rhetorical skills when he has a teleprompter, but is lost when he has to speak without it. I just thought it was funny. At this point, however, speeches aren't going to cut it. He's going to have to deliver on all the promises he made leading up to the election, which I think will be very difficult. Some have already started making excuses stating that due to the economic climate, etc. some of his promises will not be fulfilled, but I don't think people will give him a pass to be honest. He made these promises even as the very factors that are cited were apparent and this was pointed out leading up to the election. Therefore, he made these promises with his eyes wide open.
I didn't like the speech either, so I guess that makes three =) But seriously, I think it's a matter of personal choice/preference. I've spoken to others who also thought his speech lacked something and the general consensus I get is that something was substance (another common criticism of Obama). But if you liked it, good for you.
Commentators will always give their opinion on why the market tanked or rallied on a certain day. However, I find it interesting that the market tanked when the biggest news of the day was the inauguration of a president whom many feel his stated policies (higher taxes, more government intervention, devaluing the American dollar, more debt, etc.) are detrimental to business. I would argue that the market was responding to that, just as it tanked on the news that Obama won the election back in November. Here are some articles that seem to make the point, but like I said, everyone has an opinion. From yesterday: U.S. Stocks Slide in Dow Average’s Worst Inauguration Day Drop http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOYw.awwsNSg&refer=worldwide From the day after the election: Post-election glow dies fast as Dow drops 486 points http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/2008-11-05-stocks-wednesday_N.htm jmi256
I just found this. I guess there are more than three of us who didn't really like his speech =)
Source = http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/alex_spillius/blog/2009/01/20/barack_obama_inauguration_his_worst_speech desonium
I couldnt watch it very long because i had soccer training, but wat is saw about was normal, If i may say i had expected more of it. Maybe it was better later, but wat is saw was not very exciting.
deanhills
Ah well, probably always good to have a different opinion too. I wonder what these guys expected? For what it's worth from outside the US in the Middle East where I am, people were glued to their televisions during the swearing ceremonies of BOTH President and Vice-President as well as the Inaugural Address, the dancing, the whole shabang. Feedback I received from a good Sudanese friend is that everyone is happy Bush is gone. So perhaps Obama will get brownie points for not being Bush to start off with. My friend had a number of friends and family over at his place, and they were all bowled over and impressed. My friend thought however that at the beginning of his address Obama had faltered a little. I did not pick up on it, possibly because I was more focussed on the words of Obama's speech and wondering who his speech writer was. Well done I thought! ocalhoun
'Cause that one's too easy to answer: too big.
Could this sentiment possibly be more opposite to the way I think about it? Call me a libertarian, but these things don't seem like things that the government should even be involved in to me. I want a limited government that is kept within clear boundaries of what its job is, and we seem to be in an ever more irrevocably unlimited government. quex
Oh, I see what you did there. Still need the hyphen, anyway.
o.< Okay, now you're getting into the realm of fashion, which I do not even pretend to understand AT ALL. However, the above statement lets me know you're just trolling now. :( I guess I'm going to have to look to jmi for discussion. quex
Good argument. I suppose my own sense of "justice delayed" makes me particularly tolerant of anti-white sentiment. Not that "white people are all evil," but rather that not enough white people have really come to embrace equality and everything that it requires of us. I still get irritated at ethnic clothing, for example, and I know that it's my own failure for letting it bother me. I fully accept that I am still struggling to "embrace what is right."
Actually, the point at which Obama began to repeat the speech is understood as the standard cut-off for a line-by-line recitation with repeater. Pause post-subject, pause post-verb. Roberts was apparently unaccustomed to this pattern. I, <insert name here>, [pause] do solemnly swear (or affirm), [pause] that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, [pause] and will, to the best of my Ability, [pause] preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. [final repeat, followed by optional: "so help me God."]
I have confidence that he will succeed on at least three major promises: health care, tax cuts, and international diplomacy. The first two because they are necessary, and the third because he is naturally skilled at it.
You're very right; I have since come across others. o.o It seems that those who were most enthralled by the President's earlier speeches were the most disappointed by this most recent address. I wonder if it's a case of too much hype? I will admit, I have not actually listened, without considerable distraction, to any complete speeches given by Barack Obama during the entire campaign. With some background for comparison, I may also have been disappointed. In any case, the man is much easier to listen to than our former President, a fact for which I am infinitely grateful. :D
Hmm, quite. I would still qualify this as a bowl of bad financial news + some obama on top, rather than the other way around, but I understand your argument. "Let the new captain sail a week, then shall we spy for any land come closer." I expect the Dow to make small gains by Friday, as investors nit-pick the good deals from the bad left on the floor by the most recent drop. I will not otherwise "spy for land" until next Wednesday. jwellsy
First day in office and his international diplomacy is to commence a troop surge into Afghanistan.
Yeah, that's some change. I wonder why he thinks a new surge will work? He has been promising to bring troops home for the past 18 months. I'm shocked that the anointed one may have lied. The Chicago cesspool political floater is already starting to show his true self. quex
Yes, where he who masterminded multiple attacks on the free world, Osama Bin Laden is still at large; where Taliban commanders are regaining control of cities in the midlands and claiming tithes from opium farmers to finance their support of persons like the aforementioned; where NATO's best troops, including US Marines of distinction, are being ambushed and overtaken by Taliban fighters. And, actually, his first act of international diplomacy was to order the closure of Guantanamo Bay within the next 12 months, finer details pending. The human rights sphere (and Europe) is much happier with us this evening than they were in the morning.
O.o Okay, wait. Did you miss the campaign? Obama has been calling for a troop surge in Afghanistan since forever. McCain jumped on the wagon in July. This was a major element of the debates. General McKiernan, the top US commander over NATO forces in Afghanistan, has been hammering for a surge since October. Defense Secretary Gates has been finagling with higher-ups and pushing for an Afghanistan surge all throughout the month of December. For god's sake, the Bush administration even unveiled plans for a massive surge on the first of this month.
FTFY. And this also is for you, to help keep track of Obama's campaign promises. It's fun! :D
Either the man once pissed in your coffee, or you're just plain angry. :( If you were president, how would you fix the economy? What would you do about the two wars? If you have a legitimate argument against Obama's policy, please, by all means, lay it out. Otherwise, what are you so bitter about? o.o LumberJack
I liked his speech. He has already said everything he wants to do, everyone is aware of the state of the economy. Sounded like he wanted to get down to business.
As for the Benediction, I personally loved it. I thought the US taught the civil rights movement in high school as part of the curriculum. They are strong words calling for equality. Take a moment and reflect on the words and for the love of God, watch the Benediction in its entirety again. You can really tell those who watched clips out of context and those who actually listened to the actual speech. My favorite "Tanks beaten into Tractors". Very powerful. http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=7pEH37JIgBU "When Black, would not be asked to give back" "When Brown, could stick around" 'When Yellow, will be mellow" (mellow = free from worry) "When the Red Man, can get ahead, man" (ie. Aboriginal Discrimination) "When white, will embrace what is right" handfleisch
Obama's taking action immediately and it is awesome. He has already signed orders to:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ieG7u2PNYg98q9HmLI8SgRSYOKWAD95SI3R80  deanhills
Thanks for the photo Handfleisch. Did not realize that Obama is left-handed? Interesting to see that. Nice watch. jmi256
So what's going to happen to all the prisoners/terrorists? Is he going to cut them loose? Xanatos
I have no idea, he set up a commission to deal with it. Honestly though I think that Obama is going to seriously F*** up this country. We need to be able to detain these people. In essence they are prisoners of war. Also I think waterboarding and other forms of mental degradation should be allowed. How else are we supposed to get information? Gah... NO I am not a republican. Just wanted to make that clear before anyone assumes as such. quex
Hey jmi:
No, he's not going to cut them loose. There are agreements in the works to hand them over for interrogation/incarceration in other countries, but specifically NOT their home countries (where they would be tortured or executed) and not to countries sympathetic to their cause. For example, the UK, Germany, etc. Mostly E.U. nations, although I did read somewhere about negotiations with Australia to handle some of them... oh yeah, here it is. Word on the BBC is that attitudes have changed a little more in favor of accepting the detainees (in the UK, anyway... still no new word on Australia) since the inauguration. Hey Zanatos: The more extreme the psychological disturbance brought on in interrogation, the less accurate the information gleaned. They also give the recruiters for terrorist organizations something to point to and say "Hey, look what those US bastards are doing to your countrymen! They're evil, see?" This tiny element, far from the battle lines, can nevertheless be a powerful catalyst. See the British use of extreme techniques on captured IRA fighters for an example. Wow, he's left-handed? o.o I guess there are a few partisan jokes I could make about that. XD (Bush Sr. was left-handed too, actually.) Xanatos
If we don't use any methods of torture at all, then why should they give up any information. It ends up being a "tell us where your camps are pretty please" scenario. Interrogation is all about breaking down a persons will. Even if we never use techniques like waterboarding anymore, we should at the very least make them think we still do. Obama is going to make the United States seem like a giant pussy country. ocalhoun
<.< That's what we have Geneva conventions for... Torturing POW's is a no-no. There are ways of interrogation that don't rely on torture though. Psychological methods. (Things like making them believe they are worthless, then offering them giving information as a way to gain value. Or perhaps making them think you already know. Or perhaps meddling with them to turn them against each other. Or making them think they are in private, and listening to what they say to each other...) Chemical methods. (The right drugs, expertise, and properly phrased questions can do wonders for gaining information. If that fails, add in a memory-wiping drug and tell them that they already told you while drugged, in hopes that they'll say it 'again'.) Inducements. (The Geneva conventions would require that you give POW's food, water, and even cigarettes, but it doesn't require leisure time. Make them work, and make them work hard... Then offer time off from their labor if they'd just give a little information... There are other things that can be offered too: better food, promises of early release or lenient punishment, entertainment, softer beds... This one could also have a nice chain reaction effect as others see the benefits of the snitch, and think "why should I be suffering while the rat has luxury?") These methods, used alone or in combination, should be much more effective than simple torture. Xanatos
Psychological methods was exactly what I meant by mental degradation. My words just sound harsher. Their are quite a few people who would consider those torture however inconspicuous they often are. As to the others I completely agree that they should be used in place of torture whenever possible. The problem is that often these methods take time. If we need an answer immediately, then I think we should be able to use other, more forceful, methods of extracting information. jwellsy
Saint Obama issued an order to close Guantanamo without having a plan, what a hypocrit, no plan indeed.
Initiating a 30,000 troop surge into Afghanistan, without an exit stratigy. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090123/dekruif_interview_090123/20090123?hub=TopStories Appointing a tax cheat to run the IRS. A Sec of State who's husband is on the payrole of many foreign governments. Embracing lobbiests into his inner circle. I thought he was going to end cronyism. It's funny to hear all the rhetoric trying to lower the bar of expectations. He always has been and will continue to be a bold faced liar. deanhills
All very good points jwellsy, maybe he is too eager to please too quickly. In order of priorities I am worried first for the security of US citizens from threats of terrorism on US soil as obviously less intelligence will be available unless US military finds a way around this, I have a feeling there will just be more strict regulations to trip up the good people and protect the bad people like the big banks and programme managers who have to show greater accountability. ocalhoun
Torture isn't really that useful of a method. Any expert interrogator would be able to get information out without it faster than with it. And getting information out of a captive quickly is the supreme challenge of any interrogator. The first thing they'll teach you in resisting interrogation of any kind is: delay, stall, make it take longer. Odds are, that if you just hold them off long enough, your information will be useless soon. And some of these more humane methods can work very quickly anyway if done right. deanhills
Can you expand on this Ocalhoun or is this classified information? ocalhoun
With most captives, torture, if it didn't work immediately, would only steel their resolve against you. Just verbally abuse them during the interrogation, maybe show them exaggerated views of what happens to the others, then send them to the 'doctor' for their initial checkup. The doctor is very friendly, and after he gets them talking about mundane medical issues, he whispers to them "Shh, I'm actually on your side... I was recruited two years ago... but don't tell them! ... So, how long have you been in the Jihad? ..." The conversation goes on, and the captive doesn't realize that he's been taken in by a modified version of the old good cop/ bad cop routine because he's so happy to have found a friendly person to talk to after all this fear and hate. That works on many of them, giving useful information within one day. If the captive realizes that the doctor is an interrogator in disguise, there's always the drugs, which can also give very fast results. Anybody who still withholds information after that could be deemed a hard case, and the more long-term psychological methods would have to be used. liljp617
-.- If they are PoWs and you still support waterboarding (or any form of torture), then the people carrying out and ordering these actions are to be put to death. We had no problem doing it with Japanese war generals after WWII for waterboarding our PoWs. Torture does not produce valuable or truthful information. I find it extremely saddening people will support torture of people who have no charges or evidence officially held against them without doing even the slightest bit of research into the effects/products of torture. Hopefully you're just trolling, but I don't think you are...unfortunately.
If we do use any methods of torture at all, why should they give you truthful information? On a side note, what you call a "giant pussy country" is actually a country that doesn't wave its guns and tanks around constantly threatening people. There's a reason modern Islamic extremists/terrorists exist and these organizations continue to get recruits in huge numbers....it has nothing to do with them being mad that we have XBoxs, SUVs, and let our women drive. Ponder on it for a minute, surely you can catch on. Parkour_Jarrod
i missed it is there a online link or stream to it, i wish to watch it i think its about time that Someone like Obama won and decided to change the world, this bloke has everything going for him
 deanhills
Time will tell ......  liljp617
Youtube handfleisch
Clues for the clueless:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/122341?page=entire deanhills
This is not an attack on your above statement, just to even things out a little here, as we seem to be continuously harping on how bad the US Army has conducted itself, however nothing mentioned about the terrorists. Particularly Al Quaeda. I realize that the US as a bastion of freedom and moral behaviour has a responsibility to its constitution, its people, and the world to set an example of ethically and moral behaviour internationally, but we are dealing with really bad guys here and when you make war with someone as evil as that, some of the bad behaviour of your enemy will test the absolute worst in you as well as require certain actions that you don't even like. For example when GTIMO is closed, what are you going to do with the captives, how could anybody release terrorists with the knowledge that they will be killing again? If Americans are upset if a known pedophile is released in a community, should they be less upset when those terrorists are released into society again? And since their torturers have been the American military, guess where they will be heading first for their terrorist activities? So having said all of the above. Do you feel as sad for those people who are being captured and tortured by terrorists as you do for those who have been tortured by the US Government (the two would obviously be miles apart). Which group do you feel more sad about, victims of terrorists, or "victims" of GTIMO? Victims of GTIMO of course are generally of the world's most dangerous terrorists responsible for killing thousands of people in the worst of ways. Those kinds of terrorists are experts at what they are doing to the extent that it would be difficult to prove anything in a court of law. At the same time equally difficult to set those terrorists free, knowing full well they will be killing again. Do you have any comment about the terrorists' tactics of interrogation, particularly if their victims are found to be American soldiers? If torture as a method of obtaining information is really that ineffective, why are terrorists capturing and torturing their victims for information? Or are they on the wrong track as well? Moonspider
Just as a point of clarification, to my knowledge the U.S. military conducted no torture, only U.S. intelligence members. The military must still abide by it's code of conduct regarding torture. (In fact, I believe President Obama is considering making the U.S. Army regulations on this the standard for all military and intelligence.) So, as far I know, the only waterboarding that takes place in the U.S. military is against U.S. military members as part of advanced SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) training. Ironically. Respectfully, M ocalhoun
^The officially sanctioned 'torture' that happened was all in a period of 3 months and only affected two inmates.
@handfleisch I read the article you linked to... So separation from the other captives is torture now? When a pre-school teacher puts a child in time-out that is torture? deanhills
Thanks for that Moonspider. I did not realize that.
Thanks for this information as well as the quotes in the GITMO Thread. I have always been mystified by all of this as by the intensity of the media reports there is this presumption of everyone being tortured at GITMO. Way out or proportion of existing rules and regulations. Bikerman
Moonspider,
I think you are wrong in general, though you could be right specifically regarding GITMO (let's face it none of us know for sure). As regards US military conducting torture in general - Human Rights Watch has documented many accounts, from US troops, of this happening... http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/10/04/united-states-soldiers-provide-accounts-torture deanhills
Are cases that are documented by this source bona fide ones that have been subjected to a trial of a kind? I.e. have they been investigated? I am not saying they are fiction, but anyone can document anything. We see it in the press all the time. I am certain that there would be cases of soldiers acting wrong as they are human after all, and humans react differently when they are under supreme stress and in combat zones, however I am equally certain that the American Military has strict rules and regulations in place about this and that soldiers like these would face disciplinary action as a result, unless something has gone radically wrong with the US military. Bikerman
http://www.democracynow.org/2005/4/25/getting_away_with_torture_human_rights ocalhoun
Yes, people do break rules all the time, even in the military... especially in the military... Preventing that is a constant challenge, and the military has whole career fields dedicated to it. quex
<offtopic>
Ocalhoun, is that a hickory horned devil caterpillar in the splash image for your photo gallery? I freaking love those things. </offtopic> Even without the inherent psychological circumstances of war, the line of ethics to be walked in the confinement of persons is particularly thin... a classic example of what can easily happen. Moonspider
All I can speak to is policy. I have no doubt that individual personnel and groups may have tortured enemy personnel (such as at Abu Ghraib). And I have no doubt that leadership further up the chain of command turned a blind eye to such acts. But that does not make it U.S. military policy, although it does point to failures in the system. However, such failures of both individuals and leadership have always and will always occur. No system is perfect, especially in the stressful environments of warfare. I know accounts of murder during World War II: U.S. soldiers killing other friendly soldiers in combat over gambling debts, U.S. soldiers bayoneting civilians for perceived, minor grievances, U.S. soldiers murdering enemy troops as they attempted to surrender... And this was all in a "good war." And in none of the incidents I mentioned was anyone prosecuted. My point is that it is not legal for the U.S. military to use any sort of torture techniques. But like any other law, just because it is illegal does not mean that people don't break it, and that sometimes authorities look the other way. Respectfully, M deanhills
Thanks Chris, I'm not much of a fan of this. I don't think they do anything for me along insights lines.
You put this so well Moonspider, much better than what I have been trying to do. I particularly like your first paragraph about it not being US military policy, but that it does point to failures in the system. Well said handfleisch
Well said but wrong. You are laboring under six-year-old lies. Torture policy was approved at the highest levels of the US government. Read http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/story?id=4583256&page=1 Top Officials Knew in 2002 of Harsh Interrogations http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/24/AR2008092403355.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/washington/25detain.html Moonspider
The article you pointed to supports my argument.
(Emphasis added) I said earlier that policy regarding intense interrogation techniques applied only to U.S. intelligence agencies and that military policy had not changed and remains very stringent. Intense interrogation that occurred at Guantanamo Bay was conducted by intelligence agents. Respectfully, M handfleisch
So I see that this makes a difference to you, that it was not the military so to speak but the US intelligence agencies torturing people as part of official policy approved by the highest levels, including the Bush White House. That's fine. What makes a big difference to me is that Obama banned it on this first day in office. deanhills
What did Obama ban exactly? ocalhoun
A very good question. Torture was banned only 3 months after it was sanctioned, long before the latest elections were even eminent. Is he to be congratulated for banning something that was already banned? What is Obama's plan for the 100% prevention of rule-breaking in the area of prisoner treatment? Moonspider
Yes it makes a difference to me because that was my only argument. I did not nor do I intend to argue anything else. Respectfully, M Bikerman
Moonspider
Absolutely. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Respectfully, M deanhills
I doubt that anyone has been looking the other way. It would not be common sense for the US Military to be like that. If they had, we would not have seen so much flak coming from it. As far as I can read, things had been covered up. And then got uncovered. When it got uncovered it got 100% hands-on scrutiny AND the attention of the whole world. Perhaps British journalists are a little more reserved and careful with "confidentiality" issues? The US counterparts sometimes tend to "gush" bearing everything on their sleeves for the world to see, as soon as possible and not always checking their facts. Bikerman
Well, I think a great deal has been 'covered up' by people looking the other way. There is little doubt in my mind that many attrocities have been committed in Iraq by US and UK troops and that only the tip of the iceberg (mainly Abu Ghraib) has actually come to light. Commanders on the ground are usually aware of these incidents and it is their responsibility to act on them by reporting up the chain of command. We know that this often does not happen and the testimony of soldiers (both US and UK) shows this to be the case. There is no reason why these troops would lie about their experiences - in fact many of them are in councelling as a result. deanhills
Well I guess their presence in Iraq, without even starting to fight, was already an atrocity in its own right. There must have been an overwhelming number who did not agree with going in, it may even have precipitated all kinds of strange events. Too furious, too fast. A disaster in making. It's a pity they could not do the councelling-related stuff before they were rounded up. Must have been one of the most horrible things to ever have been part off. A nightmare for life. Related topics
|
There's the oath + inaugural speech 