Death squads, coming to an Iraq near you.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 9:16 am

Iran.
Honduras.
Guatemala.
Cuba.
El Salvador.
Nicaragua.
Vietnam.
Afghanistan. (Twice.)
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
And now possibly Iraq.

Again - pick a timeframe, Rsak. Do we want to talk about SINCE WWII? All the above were instances where we either specifically trained soldiers (either our own or foreign ones) to be butchers/terrorists since WWII. If you want to make it since 1980, drop Iran, Cuba, Vietnam and Guatemala.

It is too integral to our foreign policy - particularly to our cold war strategy - to be called an "extreme." We trained terrorists to fight the Commies. A lot. And true to form, you're weaseling rather than simply admitting you're wrong.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 9:19 am

Britian
Germany
Italy

and every single state and major city in the United States

You fail to understand that I am not trying to dispute whether the actions took place in El Salvador (whether i believe it or not). I am simply saying that those instances do not consist of the majority of training the United States has done.

You have yet to provide any basis for the claim that that type of result is the norm rather then the extreme. You continue to simply repeat your objection rather then attempting to show your evidence even relates to the statement I made.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 9:33 am

You're right, I'm not bothering to dig up the research, for reasons otherwise stated.

If you include domestic military and police training you're definitely right that these actions do not constitute the majority. However, it's still a sizeable enough minority to not be minimalized as "the extreme."

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:16 am

If you include domestic military and police training you're definitely right that these actions do not constitute the majority. However, it's still a sizeable enough minority to not be minimalized as "the extreme."

How does accurately labeling it as an extreme minimalize it?

Is there any more extreme result out there for such training?

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:07 am

Yes. Very yes.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:14 pm

In sufficient answers.

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 3:35 pm

Hell England is still reeling from training all those insurgents back in the 1700's

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:30 pm

Damn Beek... you might as well debate a corpse. You'd get a more logical response if you did.

And my apologies to all feces eating monkeys out there.. I now know I have tainted you all by association with Rsak.

Eidolon Faer · Post by **Eidolon Faer** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:49 pm

Relbeek,

I'm suspecting this is nothing but water-cooler talk.

If it ever gets implemented, I'll be both surprised and pissed.

The fact that Newsweek is using phrases like "the Pentagon is intensively debating" and "one Pentagon proposal would send..." leads me to suspect that this is a bizarre piece of unsourced gossip that Newsweek cannot verify, and is simply repeating because, like the forged CBS memos, it is simply too juicy to pass up.

The Pentagon analysts are routinely paid to think up appalling and ruthless possible contingincies that would make even MY head spin. It's what happens when you get the most twisted, brilliant, paranoid people in the nation and tell them to brainstorm. I'm not surprised that such a proposal might be considered. I'd be VERY surprised if it didn't get squelched fairly early on however.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:12 pm

I'm hoping so. Still, we've done it before less than 25 years ago.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:14 pm

Er, sorry. Less than 15.