Jon Stewart lays the smack down on Obama and exposes all the promises he hasn't kept

[sgreger1]

He is a loon. He keeps getting more sanctions because of his stubborness and instead of doing the right thing for his people he is taking the high-pride route and just making waves. Everyone is trying to come to peacefull agreements in the middle east and prevent war, but jesus christ, the guy shows up to the ****ing UN security council talking about how if we piss him off he will start a war without borders, and statements like "The US has never been involved in a real war, not even WWII was a real war". Then he spend the other half of his time either claiming the jews blew up the world trade center or calling Americans terrorists or denying the holocaust.


I mean he can't be taken seriousely. Even if what he is saying where true, he is just going about it all wrong. He speaks in insults, and has no concept of diplomacy, which is why people always walk out every time he talks.

Every few months when his radical base starts losing steam, he comes out saying something to give them morale. This is getting so cliche it's not even funny. We shouldn't even allow him to show up if he's not even going to address the subject that is supposed to be addressed at the council, which is of course the fact that he is building nuclear weapons while giving the world the finger and threatening to destroy israel and America.




Right or wrong, he is just ****ing up his whole country by the reckless way he acts.

[raptor]

I think what he says is true.

Even if it were true his backdrop of hosting Holocaust denier conventions and brutal condemnation of Israel (even if justified) doesn't bode well for him nor his country.

Then again, if coming from another source the US would still ignore whatever was said.

[truthwolf1]

Crazy like a FOX!

[tom502]

I think what he says is true.

[raptor]

Yes, Ahmadinejad is a loon. He's only exacerbating the situation of his people.

It's unfortunate that he makes anti-semitic statements which only empowers the whole anti-Israel = anti-semitic argument.

[tom502]

UNITED NATIONS – The U.S. delegation walked out of the U.N. speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday after he said some in the world have speculated that Americans were behind the Sept. 11 terror attacks, staged in an attempt to assure Israel's survival.

He did not explain the logic of that statement that was made as he attacked the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of Israel and is deeply at odds with the United States and European allies over its nuclear program and suspicions that it is designed to produce an atomic bomb. Iran says it is only working on technology for electricity generation.

The U.S. delegation left the hall after Ahmadinejad said there were three theories about the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks:

_That "powerful and complex terrorist group" penetrated U.S. intelligence and defenses.

_"That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view."

The Americans stood and walked out without listening to the third theory, that the attack was the work of "a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation."

Mark Kornblau, spokesman of the U.S. Mission to the world body, issued a statement within moments of Ahmadinejad's attack.

"Rather than representing the aspirations and goodwill of the Iranian people," he said, "Mr. Ahmadinejad has yet again chosen to spout vile conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic slurs that are as abhorrent and delusional as they are predictable."

Ahmadinejad, who has in the past cast doubt over the U.S. version of the Sept. 11 attacks, called for establishment of an independent fact-finding U.N. body to probe the attacks and stop it from turning into another sacred issue where "expressing opinion about it won't be banned".

He said the U.S. used the attacks as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq that led to the killing of hundreds of thousands of people, saying the U.S. should have "designed a logical plan" to punish the perpetrators while not sheding so much blood.

Ahmadinejad boasted of the capture in February of Abdulmalik Rigi, the leader of an armed Sunni group whose insurgency in the southeast of Iran has destabilized the border region with Pakistan. He said authorities did not resort to violence, but captured the suspect after trailing his movements in an operation by Iranian secret agents. Rigi was later hanged.

The Iranian leader spoke of threats to burn the Quran by a small American church in Florida to mark the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. Although that church backed down, several copycat burnings were posted on the Internet and broadcast in the Muslim world.

"Very recently the world witnessed the ugly and inhumane act of burning the holy Quran," Ahmadinejad said.

He briefly touch on the four sets of sanctions imposed on his country by the United Nations over Tehran's refusal stop enriching uranium and to prove Iran is not trying to build an atomic bomb.

Some members of the Security Council have "equated nuclear energy with nuclear bombs," Ahmadinejad said.

He accused the United States of building up its nuclear arsenal instead of dismantling it and reiterated his call for a nuclear-free world.

"The nuclear bomb is the worst inhumane weapon which must totally be eliminated. The NPT (Nonproliferation Treaty) prohibits its development and stockpiling and calls for nuclear disarmament," the Iranian president said.

Ahmadinejad hinted that Iran is ready for talks on its nuclear program provided they are based on "justice and respect", suggesting that the U.S. and its allies must stop pressuring Iran through sanctions before Tehran will sit at the negotiating table.

He again rejected the U.N. Security Council sanctions as "illegal," blaming the U.S. as the power behind the measures.

"Those who have used intimidation and sanctions in response to the clear logic of the Iranian nation are in real terms destroying the remaining credibility of the Security Council," Ahmadinejad said.

Ahmadinejad has in the past called the Security Council a "satanic tool" and has called its anti-Iran resolutions "not worth a cent."

[sgreger1]

The fact that we have strayed from being a humane society is worrisome. Will we ever go back to what we were? or is it all downhill from here on?
It is however expected if we allow rape and violence in our own prisons and how that mentality transferred to treatment of prisoners of war.

This article deals with the "Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War", which was published in Geneva on July 27, 1929, and further amended in 1949.

Commonly referred to as the "Geneva Convention", the 1929 treaty included the following fundamental POW rights:

•Prisoners of war are in the custody of the hostile Government, not of the individuals which captured them.
•(POWs) shall at all times be humanely treated and protected, particularly against acts of violence, from insults and from public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against them are forbidden.
•Prisoners of war are entitled to respect for their persons and honour. Women shall be treated with all consideration due to their sex.
•The detaining Power is required to provide for the maintenance of prisoners of war in its charge.
•Differences of treatment between prisoners are permissible only if such differences are based on the military rank, the state of physical or mental health, the professional abilities, or the sex of those who benefit from them.
•Every prisoner of war is required to declare, if he is interrogated on the subject, his true names and rank, or his regimental number. If he infringes this rule, he exposes himself to a restriction of the privileges accorded to prisoners of his category.
•No pressure shall be exercised on prisoners to obtain information regarding the situation in their armed forces or their country. Prisoners who refuse to reply may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasantness or disadvantages of any kind whatsoever.
•Prisoners of war may be interned in a town, fortress or other place, and may be required not to go beyond certain fixed limits. They may also be interned in fenced camps; they shall not be confined or imprisoned except as a measure indispensable for safety or health, and only so long as circumstances exist which necessitate such a measure.
•Belligerents may employ as workmen prisoners of war who are physically fit, other than officers and persons of equivalent statue, according to their rink and their ability.... It is forbidden to employ prisoners in the manufacture or transport of arms or munitions of any kind, or on the transport of material destined for combatant units.

Yah, like all other strongly worded UN documents, no one pays attention to them. After years of dealing with our guys being horribly tortured and brutally treated as POW's, we decided we weren't going to be the only suckers playing by the rules. Additionally, the rules you posted do not apply to insurgents, but rathered to soldiers of another nation in a declared war.

•No pressure shall be exercised on prisoners to obtain information regarding the situation in their armed forces or their country. Prisoners who refuse to reply may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasantness or disadvantages of any kind whatsoever.

LOL @ that. no pressure shall be put on anyone to give information regarding their situation or the situation of the armed forces for which they represent? Again, this document is worthless and no one in any country follows it.







EDIT:


Why insurgents are not included in the geneva conventions:



According to Article IV of the Geneva Convention,(http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm) prisoners of war are:

Armed forces etc, including members of militias or volunteer corps. This is the important part:

"Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:"

1. That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
3. That of carrying arms openly;
4. That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

They do not follow the rules and do not meet the criteria for protection. Again, we are operating completely within the law and people need to not selectively chery pick certain portions of the rules, yet ommit the parts saying that the group in question is exempt from said rules.



I'm nto in favor of torture and always believe we should take the moral high ground so long as it does not affect our combat rediness. There is no reason for brutal torture because there are better, more humane methods. Waterboarding is certainly stretching the limit, and should only be used as a last resort, like it currently is. But taking things completely off the table is a bad idea. The fact that they believe torture may be an option if they don't comply breaks a lot of the ones that don't have an ideological reason for fighting against us, but rather were just doing it for money. They think to themselves, "shit, it's not worth it".

[sgreger1]

Cmon! You dont agree that things went very wrong at Abu Gharib?

I never said that. What they did in Abu Gharib was terrible and I think we should be above that. Furthermore it was not condoned and was just a rogue staff thinking they were God's. A huge blow to America and what we stand for. But that's not what I was addressing, I was addressing your statement that just about everyone in foreign military prisons/detention centers are "innocent". I was just pointing out that they probably got scooped up during a raid because they were in a facility that was targeted, or there was not enough evidence on them to continue holding them so they were released. Certainly doesn't mean they weren't guilty, but rather that we had no basis on which to keep them.

[truthwolf1]

The fact that we have strayed from being a humane society is worrisome. Will we ever go back to what we were? or is it all downhill from here on?
It is however expected if we allow rape and violence in our own prisons and how that mentality transferred to treatment of prisoners of war.

This article deals with the "Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War", which was published in Geneva on July 27, 1929, and further amended in 1949.

Commonly referred to as the "Geneva Convention", the 1929 treaty included the following fundamental POW rights:

•Prisoners of war are in the custody of the hostile Government, not of the individuals which captured them.
•(POWs) shall at all times be humanely treated and protected, particularly against acts of violence, from insults and from public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against them are forbidden.
•Prisoners of war are entitled to respect for their persons and honour. Women shall be treated with all consideration due to their sex.
•The detaining Power is required to provide for the maintenance of prisoners of war in its charge.
•Differences of treatment between prisoners are permissible only if such differences are based on the military rank, the state of physical or mental health, the professional abilities, or the sex of those who benefit from them.
•Every prisoner of war is required to declare, if he is interrogated on the subject, his true names and rank, or his regimental number. If he infringes this rule, he exposes himself to a restriction of the privileges accorded to prisoners of his category.
•No pressure shall be exercised on prisoners to obtain information regarding the situation in their armed forces or their country. Prisoners who refuse to reply may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasantness or disadvantages of any kind whatsoever.
•Prisoners of war may be interned in a town, fortress or other place, and may be required not to go beyond certain fixed limits. They may also be interned in fenced camps; they shall not be confined or imprisoned except as a measure indispensable for safety or health, and only so long as circumstances exist which necessitate such a measure.
•Belligerents may employ as workmen prisoners of war who are physically fit, other than officers and persons of equivalent statue, according to their rink and their ability.... It is forbidden to employ prisoners in the manufacture or transport of arms or munitions of any kind, or on the transport of material destined for combatant units.

[truthwolf1]

Just like x% of people accused of murder don't get convicted due to lack of evidence. Doesn't mean they weren't guilty. These things happen in war, it's hard to tell who's the badguy when no one wears a uniform. And it is unfortunate. The problem is that we'll bust a facility that has a high value individual in it, and all of his guards, and the kid who just delivered the bread looks just like they do so he gets swept up with it. It is difficult to get around this. When I was in they were using these retina/face scanner cameras that helped a lot. After detaining everyone, you scan their retina and it will give you every bit of information about the indiviual, from past history to reports on him, to civilian infractions etc. Sometimes it was about judgement, and sometimes you are just told to go round up everyone around around a high value target, because if they are in the room with an alquaida leader, how innocent can they be?

Cmon! You dont agree that things went very wrong at Abu Gharib?

[sgreger1]

According to coalition intelligence officers cited in a Red Cross report from last May, between 70 percent to 90 percent of Iraqi detainees held in these prisons were arrested “by mistake.” That means they were innocent.

http://www.peoplesworld.org/children...at-abu-ghraib/

Just like x% of people accused of murder don't get convicted due to lack of evidence. Doesn't mean they weren't guilty. These things happen in war, it's hard to tell who's the badguy when no one wears a uniform. And it is unfortunate. The problem is that we'll bust a facility that has a high value individual in it, and all of his guards, and the kid who just delivered the bread looks just like they do so he gets swept up with it. It is difficult to get around this. When I was in they were using these retina/face scanner cameras that helped a lot. After detaining everyone, you scan their retina and it will give you every bit of information about the indiviual, from past history to reports on him, to civilian infractions etc. Sometimes it was about judgement, and sometimes you are just told to go round up everyone around around a high value target, because if they are in the room with an alquaida leader, how innocent can they be?

[sgreger1]

Torturing people for intel doesn't work. There's no way you can get reliable information out of them when saying what you want to hear will get them out of the torture.

^^^ This is the biggest myth of all time. People have been doing this for tens of thousands of years because it works. We get good intel, consistenly, and that is why we continue to do it. Not everyone cracks, but some do. Things like waterboarding are only spared for a very select few. Our intel guys that my unit dealt with are trained to extract the information in much more subtle ways, usually playing nice guy or exploiting misconceptions the Iraqi's have about America to our advantage. Only if these things do not work, and only if we think you know something of the utmost important will it be upgraded to gitmo status.

Also, gitmo and the belief that we torture serves an important role in the "nice guy" intel world. They are nice to detainees, they give them a smoke, they tell them "Hey I understand, your poor and these insurgents offered you money. I would have done the same thing to feed my family, but look man if you don't give me somethign I can relay back to top they are going to throw your ass in gitmo, and you KNOW what happens there. Think about it brother, is it worth the struggle, is it worth the price you will pay for helping them? Help us instead, we will feed your family in return for information." Etc etc.

The existence or belief in the existence of a secret facility where no rules apply and they pull out all the stops is what gets good men to talk. Just like the horrors of jail keep honest men honest.



But brother, the information they get can be very reliable. It all depends on the person. Some crack and some don't. But if it did not work, we would not be doing it, and neither would the rest of the world.

[tom502]

We can't win these wars, because we are using an army to fight an ideology, yet we refuse to acknowledge the ideology. Fail.

[truthwolf1]

Abu pretty much showed to the world that the USA tortures just like any other oppressive regime.
Women and children were also raped under our watch. I have not looked into this in awhile but do remember that they use to rape family members in front of family members. Torture boys by gripping their testicles with pliers in front of their fathers etc..

According to coalition intelligence officers cited in a Red Cross report from last May, between 70 percent to 90 percent of Iraqi detainees held in these prisons were arrested “by mistake.” That means they were innocent.

http://www.peoplesworld.org/children...at-abu-ghraib/

[raptor]

And I say "uncomfortable" because people like you have changed the definition of torture to the stupid bullshit we see today. Leaving the lights on at night time is "torture" now, being in too cold a room is "torture" now, having smoke blown in your face is "torture".

Torture in your mind is using medieval devices like the rack. Small, inconsequential things can still be tortuous.

Sit back, stfu, and let people who have some idea of how the world works handle this. Everything is not like it is in your comfortable house. Out there in the desert people will die if intel is not constantly being collected. It's not about moral high ground, being the bigger man, or any other bullshit. It's about staying alive.

Torturing people for intel doesn't work. There's no way you can get reliable information out of them when saying what you want to hear will get them out of the torture.