From: ron.sam{please-remove}@cox.net
Not executing him on the spot and affording him health care almost
immediately constitutes poor treatment?
Handing him over to be tried in accordance with international law is
mistreating him?
Why do I have this nagging feeling that if Billy Bob were at the helm, we
could have done the *exact* same thing with this criminal and everything
would have been just peachy? Of course, we all know that would be virtually
impossible, since:
A) We never would have caught the man since he never would have been held
accountable for his actions.
and
B) We would still be sitting around wringing our hands, biting our lips,
and "feeling everyone's pain" in an attempt to "understand" why we were
attacked on 9/11.
HELLO!
Isn't anyone in this group old enough to remember Iran? Ever since the
whole Vietnam debacle, the Democrats haven't been able to locate a single
hair on their balls. JFK was the last Democratic President who understood
the judicious use of power, and the responsibility America has in the
prudent exercise of our might.
"Dissident" wrote in message
news:3FE5F021.6020509@7600.net...
> Nadacomin wrote:
> > In between WORKING FOR A LIVING, I have caught parts of news broadcasts
in
> > which the whining about how poor ol Saddam is being humiliated by the
US.
> > They are referring to his "homeless man" photos, and, film footage of
his
> > medical examination that was broadcast.
> > I guess some bigshot priest has been whining loudly about this.
> > As I post, there is some asshole on Fox news ( Am I a Nazi because I
watch fox
> > news?) whining about it.
> > I could understand if they broadcast photos of the doctor ramming a
thermometer
> > or other instrument up his nasty ass, or, having him lift his nuts.
> > Saddam is a nasty motherfucker, and, I think the videos of his sorry ass
make a
> > good propaganda coup for our side.
> > And, I think that anyone who whines about his treatment needs a good
swift kick
> > in the ass, with a steel toed work boot.
>
>
> All true, as judged from a neutral point of view. Saddam did
> some horrible things. Any unbiased value judgement would put
> him in one of the lowest ranks of the evil.
>
> Trouble is, when you base international standards of treatment
> on value judgements, it all quickly breaks down into a squabbling
> match over whose judgement counts. That's why we have things like
> the Geneva convention, which specify conditions for treatment of
> ALL prisoners of war, by ALL sides. Otherwise, what would have
> kept the Germans from expecting the best treatment by us for
> their fine, purebred Aryan defenders of the Fatherland, while
> according our mongrel swine GI's treatment you wouldn't give
> a dog. Well, that would have been their value judgement at
> least, and they'd surely have stuck by it. We'd have had a
> hard time arguing them out of it on a value judgement basis alone.
>
> That's why there have to be no exceptions. I predict we will
> learn a very hard lesson in the future when we appeal to an
> enemy to abide by international law in treating our prisoners,
> and find it thrown back in our faces that we didn't do the same
> in the past. Our protests of "but those were special cases,
> THEY didn't deserve good treatment" will fall on very deaf ears.
>
> And they will give OUR whiners, who complain about them torturing
> OUR GI's, a good swift kick in their collective ass with a steel-
> toed work boot. It will feel a lot different then, when the
> steel-toed work boot is, so to speak, on the other foot. But
> it will be too late, and we will have to live with the consequences
> of our own actions, something Americans are historically not
> very good at.
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
