Slashdot Mirror
South Park Creators Given Signed Photo of Saddam Hussein
Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of South Park, were given a very special gift by US marines: a signed photo of Saddam Hussein. During his captivity, the marines forced Saddam to repeatedly watch the movie South Park: Bigger, Longer And Uncut, which shows him as the boyfriend of Satan. Stone said, "We're very proud of our signed Saddam picture and what it means. It's one of our biggest highlights."
Had no respect for Saddam, but any lingering respect I has for the US Military just died. What a grotesque and reprehensible institution, if this is what they do behind closed doors - the fact that they do worse (torture legally defined in the US as 'anything less than organ failure') doesn't mean that something like this isn't just plain and simply slimy.
I recall watching this movie in the theatre, in some strange life imitating art moment a grandmother brought her grandsons and apparently their friends in for the wonderful cartoon..... Making it through the bribe a drunk for movie tickets and the earthen root heart transplant she decided it was just too much when Saddam and the Devil had their musical bit with a floppy dildo...
Up until now I felt that nothing would top that in regards to this movie.....
Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
Real torture would be making him watch the last few seasons of The Simpsons.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Kim is known to be a voracious consumer of American pop culture.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
well done america, another reason to gain respect from the world
Whether he deserved it or not according to you or me or whoever, it's not for the US military to decide what he does and does not deserve, much less force a prisoner to do something they would obviously find very offensive, and to a muslim that would probably amount to psychological abuse, much less again and again.
He was a captured prisoner, the head of state of a sovereign nation (not that the Bushites believe that exists), tyrant or not, it's up to the Iraqis or the world court to decide his punishment and fate, not the guy holding the key to the cell that personally enjoys every second of it.
It is reprehensible and slimy, and I'm totally not surprised by it in the least!
Just look at the average type of egotistical macho jackoff that end up the in army or marines and it explains itself.
No offense to anybody that is or was in the military (some of my best friends have been), but I'm sure you can think of quite a few people that fit the bill, and if you can, you don't qualify as one of them.
The runcible rhythm of ravenous raisins rolled through the rookery rambling and raving.
...we were supposed to be the good guys?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Stone, 37, said both he and Parker, 39, were most proud of the signed Saddam photo, given to them by the US Army's 4th Infantry Division.
But then again it states in the summary of the article that they recieved the photo from the Marines. So which is it?
He could have been satan himself, but it still doesn't change the fact that you should treat others as yourself. A civilisation will be judged according to how it treats its enemies and the powerless. It's easy to treat powerful friends well. At the time of his incarceration, Hussein was both powerless and an enemy. Epic fail by the US marines.
"Nya nya nya nya nya, you are a fag and the devil's butt monkey" - It's not really adult behaviour is it, and certainly not the behavior of a country that likes to think they are a world leader.
Take the high moral ground guys, don't play childish games like this and maybe the rest of the world might respect you.
Let's hope that the soldiers who did this are brought up on disciplinary charges.
Orationem pulchram non habens, scribo ista linea in lingua Latina
I hardly ever post comments like this, but the parent of this post does not deserve negative moderation. The recent worship of the military by one segment of the population is a harbinger of fascism. Soldiers are still human beings, and by criticizing them when they err, we keep them honest and preserve both their honor and the honor of our country.
Saddam Hussein was a bad guy for sure, but that whole shredder thing was a classic example of an inflammatory story that is later proved false in the run up to a war.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/feb/25/iraq.iraqandthemedia
Take the high moral ground guys, don't play childish games like this and maybe the rest of the world might respect you.
The ones who give a crap about decorum, dignity, world respect, and well, not being jackasses on the international stage are not the ones who did this. America is just like any other large group of people: there are some idiots, there are a lot of people who know better. It's a mistake to blame the whole group for something a few individuals did. So... quit judging us for the actions of a few immature soldiers and we won't judge you for (insert country-specific national disgrace here).
The slightly conservative leaning duo, if they had any moral integrity...
I'm very liberal, and find southpark annoying the same way I'd imagine conservatives find Jon Stewart annoying, but saying they have no moral integrity is off. They don't share your morals. That should not be taken as a sign that they have NO morals.
I think most people don't know just how bad Saddam was...
He also tried to invade Canada. And not only was he in a relationship with the DEVIL, but he was abusive to the devil as well.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This has been pretty thoroughly debunked, actually:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein's_alleged_shredder
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/feb/25/iraq.iraqandthemedia
And nobody is fooled except the people who modded up your post.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
And the United States were the ones who propped him up in there, gave him weapons, and ignored him until he was of use.
*DrugCheese rants*
I am very surprised to see people getting up in arms about this. Is showing a prisoner a satirical movie which mocks him really torture? Not in my book. Hell, going to a regular American prison, and potentially getting raped, for committing a non-violent crime (drug possession for instance) seems much worse than being shown potentially insulting films. Give me a fucking break.
Abu Gharab, Guantanamo, Secret CIA Prisons: all very bad, very wrong, and very embarrassing for the US. Actual torture (waterboarding, sleep deprivation etc.): also very bad, wrong, and embarrassing. It is not a human right not to be mocked. Especially if the person you are mocking is the kind of person who would have had you killed had you done so in his old dictatorship. "How dare they hurt Saddam's feelings like that! What a deplorable, inhumane atrocity!" Oh the shame...
If this article is what made you embarrassed to be an American, then you obviously haven't been paying attention. Yeesh.
Oh for mod points. That's the most insightful AC post I have read in a long long time.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Political activists say one thing, eye witnesses say another. http://www.indict.org.uk/witnessdetails.php?target=Qusay
- High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
Oh, stop it already. The "they're all the same" meme is both pernicious and false. I don't know how any thinking person could claim after these eight disastrous years, there's no substantive difference between the parties. However flawed Gore and Kerry may have been, they at least wouldn't have ignored the rule of law and run the country like a kleptocracy. We should count ourselves lucky if we get excellence, but we should at least demand competence.
If you don't care about politics, the only people elected will be the ones who don't care about you. Indifference toward elections by the general public just enables (and encouraged) politicians to cater to special interest groups at the expense of the general welfare. That's not good for anyone.
Thank you. How we treat bad people is not about them, it is about us. Saddam deserves to suffer for his crimes. But when we surrender to the bloodthirsty urge for vengeance (which can be satisfying, even - as in this case - fun), it is ourselves we corrupt. Saddam does not matter: he is beyond redemption. It is we who matter. If we treat the foulest human beings with a level of decency (decorum, seriousness), then we make it easy to respect each other. If, on the other hand, we give in to our baser instincts, we lay the groundwork for lashing out selfishly whenever it feels good.
Want to respect Saddam's victims? Then prosecute and punish him with all the seriousness, formality, and consideration you can muster. The kind of immature self-gratification described here ultimately dismisses those he tortured and killed. Their persecutor was an evil man, not a clown.
(P.S.: Just in case someone misreads me, I loved the movie. There's a big difference between that and the legitimate serious acts of the American people's political representatives and government.)
No-one deserves abuse while in custody. Especially abuse so petty, childish, and vindictive as that described.
If you have principles, you should stick to them--especially with someone like SH. Show him that your values actually have some substance. Pathetic.
I suppose if the shredder was really really slow, and you put a guy in feet first, it could be kind of bad. A decently fast shredder is no big deal.
Compare with burning at the stake. Compare with crucifixion. Compare with stoning. Compare with dunking. Compare with the necklace, which FYI was a burning gasoline-filled tire around the neck (hands tied or hacked off) that Nelson Mandela liked to use. Compare with what Vlad the Impaler used to do, driving greased poles into the torso via the anus. Compare with pressing.
Heck, compare with how most of us die in modern hospitals. We end up with chemotherapy, choking on fluid, with tubes rammed into every natural oriface and a few unnatural orifaces. We often suffer in agony for months.
Getting dropped into a shredder looks downright peaceful and kind by comparison, no?
I think you'll find that 'necklacing' was basically the result of 'kangaroo courts'/'mob justice' and mainly occured during the late 80s. These would be the same 80s where Nelson Mandela was in a prison cell, so I'm suspecting he has a pretty sound alibi.
His wife at the time Winnie, however is an evil ****. I seem to remember she had her 'football team' of goons, who were alleged to have been involved with all manner of enforcement/infighting within the ANC at the time. I believe she also condoned the use of necklacing for collaborators.
Cartoons have been a tool of propaganda for about as long as they exist. Take all the WW2 comics, from Bugs Bunny fighting and making fun of Japanese soldiers instead of Elmer Fudd or Donald Duck in the infamous Der Fuehrer's Face. Sure, that was as much propaganda as that Southpark Episodes (and the movie). It makes waging war easier when you see, in a comical setting, that your enemy is something despicable, horrible, and generally wrong.
I just couldn't imagine these movies being shown after the war to the prisoners in Nuernberg. Or even the Tenno. It was propaganda, it was supposed to boost moral at home, and when the war was over it was over.
What happened to decency? Isn't it enough to hang people in a mock trial after you beat them? And don't come with the question whether he "deserves" it. I don't frankly care. It's not about Saddam. It's about your own set of morals and decency. I know it's something I wouldn't do because I would feel like I did something wrong.
A war isn't over until it's over in the head. I'm quite glad, as an European, that the US didn't have the same revenge and hate mindset back after WW2. I like the US, and I enjoy the idea that I can go there and consider the country a 'friendly' nation towards mine. I guess I wouldn't be so lucky if the war didn't end in their, and our, heads in 45.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Watch your back mate:
, but it still doesn't change the fact that you should treat others as yourself.
"... one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change,..." Douglas Adams
He employed an industrial plastic shredder to shred alive anyone who spoke out after having the wife raped... Hated people were fed in head first, really hated people were fed in feet first.
Wow, are you really so gullible to believe the propganda the American media spout as truth? This story is so very false. As false in fact as the WMDs America used as justification to start a war.
and nobody is fooled except the usual fools
I have rarely seen a more apt signature.
Orationem pulchram non habens, scribo ista linea in lingua Latina
We (the US) pretty much pissed on international law the way we treated another head of state (regardless of what you think of Saddam). Throw in the kangaroo court we used to get him executed without the troublesome details of how we helped him establish a chemical weapons program coming out. Yes, the same one we chastised him for and used as a rationale for our bogus invasion.
I would expect the two self-important dolts who created Southpark to relish in the acknowledgment without using their own eye for satire to see what's so very wrong with the whole situation.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Alright - I know anybody familiar with UK politics is sniggering at that.
There was no shredder, there were no WMDs, Saddam was still a bad man - people just seize upon whatever anecdotal evidence they hear that happens to fit with their pre-existing views.
Whilt you might feel The Guardian has a bias, they do raise some rather good points - basically there is no evidence at all, and what there is seems quite fantastically suspect.
Stereotyping an entire organization as "egotistical macho jackoff[s]" is not the rational path away from worship. It is one thing to criticize an act, but to attack a person (ad hominem fallacy) or worse a group of people (negative stereotyping) turns this into exactly what it was moderated: hypocritical flamebaiting.
I really like how he says roughly that if somebody in the military knows of people that could have that sign hung on them then they themselves are safe. It's like saying most Jews are miserly fascists, but if you happen to be a self-hating Jew and agree, you're safe. People are right to mod that down.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
It's not really adult behaviour is it, and certainly not the behavior of a country that likes to think they are a world leader.
;-)
Too right.
There are an increasing number of cultural messages, and messengers, in US media the subtext of which is "it is OK and even desirable to act like you are ten years old all of the time", the framing of Howard Stern as a folk hero being the canonical example.
I don't think anyone faults the fans of South Park, Howard Stern, etc. for finding them amusing. The problem is that immaturity is increasingly finding a place in public life. Apparently these soldiers think it's OK to act like ten year olds while acting in an official capacity, such that they don't see anything wrong with bragging about it to the media. It will be interesting to see whether their superiors think so too.
And, while this particular incident hardly qualifies as "torture", there does seem to be an immaturity continuum on the part of US actors and decision makers in the Iraq war that starts here, runs through Abu Ghraib, and all the way up to the White House, where apparently torture was not only planned and condoned, but micromanaged, with high level participants apparently doing so at least in part to gain personal satisfaction from the act. There's no credible evidence that any of it was effective, and plenty of evidence that it was counterproductive, but apparently, in times of crisis, the appropriate response is not to act like adults and address the problem effectively, but to act like ten year olds and pull the wings off of flies because we can.
And, while there has certainly been a fair bit of outrage over all of this (underreported) in the US, there are plenty of people who thinks that it is all right and good. It would be interesting to know the correlation between South Park/shock jock/reality show fandom and the condoning of torture among the American public.
But don't get too cocky in your own country. One of America's biggest exports is its media. It's like I tell my kids: what we are, you will be.
#!
They are actually Libertarians, not Republicans. Or did you miss the all the Pro-Stem Cell Research, Pro-Drug Legalization undertones?
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
If evolution fashioned us in such a way as to still feel the drive to be swinging from the trees, hurling our [feaces] at each other, does it follow that it's what we should be doing?
That's what we do here on /. but it is way better than throwing high explosives and depleted uranium at each other.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Damn right, just ask the Kuwaitis.
A British politician, despite the UK having no death penalty, actually did some research into execution methods which was televised as a documentary.
He concluded that the most humane method available was hypoxia, after undergoing a hypoxic experience in a barometric chamber used for Air Force training. The experience was not unpleasant, but euphoric.
In terms of equipment, you just need a mask and a cylinder of nitrogen. It's virtually impossible mis-administer. It's cheap. It's fast - it takes around 15 seconds.
Various figures in the US prison system just weren't interested, on the grounds that the prisoner wouldn't suffer enough. Despite the US constitutional prohibition on "cruel" punishment, it wasn't considered fair to the families of victims to end lives using this humane method.
I'm not in favour of the death penalty, but as Mr Portillo said : -
"As long as the state is going to kill people I think it has the obligation to do it in the way that least resembles murder."
"On Parker's office wall is a signed photo of Saddam Hussein, gifted to him by the US Army's 4th Infantry Division. During his time in captivity, Hussein was apparently shown the 1999 movie South Park: Bigger, Longer And Uncut, in which he's depicted as gay, and enjoying intercourse with the devil, repeatedly. "I have it on pretty good information from the marines on detail in Iraq that they showed him the movie," says Stone. "That's really adding insult to injury."
Could be a ruse by Matt Stone, I wouldn't put it past them.
You're just playing word games here, most of the nazis in Europe were/are for the invasion of Iraq, just like most of them hate all Arabs.
Forget the Iraqis, the entire World (except the United States) was against Iraq when they gassed the Kurds (in 1988). The gassing of the Kurds was reported on the front page of every major newspaper in Europe (and probably the world). In the US, that particular piece of news got buried. The UN was even going to impose sanctions, but the US vetoed it -- protecting their ally. And finally, the US even loaned Iraq one billion dollars shortly thereafter (if not three billion dollars, I forget the exact number) that Iraq never paid back.
Now I realize that you consider the United States the benevolent father/policeman of the World, but for a benevolent father it's sure sending out mixed messages. When you punish someone, you're supposed to do it right after the act -- not wait fifteen years (and never mind the active protection and lobbying the United States did for Iraq during that time period when the entire World was against them).
Hangings still happen in a few states. Agreed with your comment, however, it was distasteful and unnecessary what we did to Saddam.
It was necessary to silence him as fast as possible: He knew too much.
The US, especially with the likes of Rumsfeld in power, could not allow him to go into a tribunal and answer questions such as "where did you get the chemical weapons that killed as those people? The telemetry to aim those weapons?" because the answers would have undone the careful story that the administration had been constructing about him, and especially the story they have built about themselves.
You can't take the sky from me...
Who gave them the photo? Soldiers from the US Army's 4th Infantry Division or US Marines? The article states both.
There's a Democrat in the White House who's in the process of making his own blocks on this chart look like the freakin' Sears Tower in comparison to what's there now. While he searches for even more ways to increase the National debt by trillions of dollars (that's right -- his bars won't even *fit* on this chart), his Treasury Secretary can't even pay his fucking taxes. Paradise under the Democrats indeed.
What IS the exact count for each? In terms of sheer body count, there's a pretty fair chance that the US/UK coalition killed more Iraquis than Saddam did during his entire reign. Of course, the coalition killed them in order to liberate them, so that's OK.
I piss off bigots.
Sticking to the topic at hand....
There are ten trillion things worse one can do to someone than forcing them to watch a movie insulting to them multiple times. Really, there are.
And if the situation had been reversed and George Bush had been captured by Saddam, you can sure as hell bet George would have been treated ten trillion times worse than Saddam was by the US. I believe that without a doubt in my mind. So paint it as you will, the treatment of Saddam wasn't handled by prim and proper Catholic schoolboys....but I'm sure it was several orders of magnitude better than what the Republican Guard would have done to Bush (now there's a somewhat ironic statement).
I expect much protestation and 'but we have to be nice to everyone' type of responses. You know what? No, we don't, and no, we weren't. It's called war for a reason, ladies and gentlemen....just or unjust, it was war. Last I checked, nice things don't happen in a war.
Flamebait seems more accurate.
how this makes news for nerds?
torture? imprisonment? not unless its related to virtualized AIX and cobol middleware management...
matt and trey?
they need to be developers, researchers, or technical experts...otherwise this is more of the same worthless bullshit i can hear whenever i like on FOX news.
Good people go to bed earlier.
The UN was even going to impose sanctions, but the US vetoed it -- protecting their ally.
Do you have a source for that? The first list I found of USA Vetoes in the UN doesn't list anything relating to condemning Iraqi gas attacks.
And neither do political activists. I'll have to give the benefit of the doubt to the people that were actually there instead of those looking to discredit a government for the selfish purposes.
I was in Kuwait in 1990 and 1991 during the Gulf War and saw firsthand the atrocities that Hussein caused. He deserved far worse than a movie and a hanging.
Bush: "I find it very interesting that when the heat got on, you dug yourself a hole, and you crawled in it."
A couple years earlier, a small group of murderers with a handful of commercial jets had managed to immediately drive Cheney into a hole^H^H^H^H^H undisclosed location and Bush into underground shelter. A couple years later, it just took a single report of an off-course plane to send Bush underground again. Was it so tactically unreasonable to expect Saddam to hide from a hundred thousand men armed with the best military technology in the world?
Even if this was propaganda for the Iraqis' benefit, it seems like condescending propaganda. Go for the root of the problem, and persuade people that a strongman ruler is illegitimate if he isn't democratically supported and/or if he violates human rights. Don't just cop out and try to paint yourself as the stronger man.
You're just playing word games here, most of the nazis in Europe were/are for the invasion of Iraq, just like most of them hate all Arabs.
Forget the Iraqis, the entire World (except the United States) was against Iraq when they gassed the Kurds (in 1988). The gassing of the Kurds was reported on the front page of every major newspaper in Europe (and probably the world). In the US, that particular piece of news got buried. The UN was even going to impose sanctions, but the US vetoed it -- protecting their ally. And finally, the US even loaned Iraq one billion dollars shortly thereafter (if not three billion dollars, I forget the exact number) that Iraq never paid back.
Now I realize that you consider the United States the benevolent father/policeman of the World, but for a benevolent father it's sure sending out mixed messages. When you punish someone, you're supposed to do it right after the act -- not wait fifteen years (and never mind the active protection and lobbying the United States did for Iraq during that time period when the entire World was against them).
The news wasn't at all buried in the United States. It was all over the newspapers. We even talked about it in elementary school that year. the United States isn't a homogenized nation that uniformly supports the current regime, whoever it may be.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Gee, I don't remember Americans having a problem with Saddam when WE WERE PAYING HIM with our Tax Dollars to fight Iran for us.
How about embracing the teachings of Jesus? He who is without sin, cast the first stone. Didn't the United States kill 1000's of it's own people indescriminately? Oh, you must have forgotten. They were called "Native Americans", or at the time... "Indians". And we're a country that for generations endorsed SLAVERY.
Imagine, if you will.. how this country would be seen if in some kind of Star Trek "Mirror Mirror" universe, we were still doing that to this day, or that American from the 1800's was suddenly catapulted into the year 2000...
Is it really our place to stick our more developed moralities onto the rest of the undeveloped world? Is Saddam any better than Thomas Jefferson, a man who owned slaves and often raped the women (how many Black Americans are part of the Jefferson lineage?)?
So, while you sit on your high horse dispatching justice as you see fit, tell me how you think this country is so much better than Iraq that we had the right to go in there and destroy everything so that we could make life even more miserable for the average Iraqi, but now they are "free"...
At what point in your delusion do you realise that all developing nations go through a period, often lasting 100 years or more, where things are shitty? And just because we got past that period, somehow we assume that everyone else has gotten past that period as well?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Since when has /. tried to descend to the level of gutter journalism? And WTF is this to do with "news for nerds, stuff that matters."?????
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
I'm not sure that explanation helps, because the same party was in power in both cases. In fact, I think some of the same people were major players in the government during both events.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
Palin and her pals like to ignore the Katie Couric interview, where the world quickly learned what real intelligence is. Anyone who can't answer a simple question like "What do you read on a daily basis?" is either phenomonally incurious or just as stupid, and to lash out with nonsense like "Alaska gets the same papers as the rest of the country" after three tries to get a simple answer to a simple question -- well, they are a whackjob. Those who support said whackjob with ever more ridiculous excuses are worse.
Infuriate left and right
I can't honestly believe how anti-American Slashdot has become. I've been revolted by some of the comments I've seen here lately. Calling our soldiers murderers? The Mods don't seam to be helping any, they've modded up just about every post calling the USA evil. Maybe we should have a nice long chat about what is an acceptable responce for a nation to give after a terrorist attack. And even that comment right there will start an entire new thread about how we had no right to invade Iraq...and blah blah blah. It's getting old. I'd rather just admit I'm an evil murderer to get them to shut up already. Who cares in the bigger picture anyway...I don't think a single nation on the planet doesn't have blood on its hands.
Saddam kills a kid with gas; US/UK kill a kid with a bomb. The kid is just as innocent and just as dead.
Saddam considered himself to be legitimately putting down a Kurdish rebellion. It was bullshit, but that was his claim.
The US/UK did not "slide on ice" into the war in Iraq by accident; they attacked Iraq when Iraq was no threat to them. It was aggressive war, pure and simple. They said it had something to do with WMD. That, too, was bullshit.
In other words, both sides claim legitimacy, and both sides are full of it. But who killed more people?
I piss off bigots.
Go for the root of the problem, and persuade people that a strongman ruler is illegitimate if he isn't democratically supported and/or if he violates human rights. Don't just cop out and try to paint yourself as the stronger man.
You mean, use arguments that work in the west, based on western culture, to convince Iraqis it is a bad idea to back Saddam and his Baath party?
In Arab culture a ruler is not rendered legitimate by being elected, but by being so strong nobody could topple him. To tell Iraqis that Saddam is an unelected strongman would be as effective as telling people in the US that they should no longer listen to President Obama because he lost the Mandate of Heaven.
Showing that the US is stronger than Saddam was a necessary first step in giving the democratically elected government the legitimacy it needs to rule. The second was handing Saddam over to an Iraqi court to be tried under Iraqi law and be executed by an Iraqi executioner.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
It's not the music that is torture, it's the fact that loud music prevents a prisoner from SLEEPING.
It's sleep deprivation, a form of torture.
GPG 0x1B479C78
If true, as a vet, I find the Marines' behavior unprofessional and embarrassing to the uniform. I can only hope an investigation occurs, and if guilty, that the Marines responsible are made an example of.
Saddam was a shitbag, but that doesn't mean we need to lower our moral standards and professionalism.
This is true. In fact, Matt and Trey are on the record as saying (I'm just paraphrasing here from memory) - "we don't like extreme right-wingers, but we really fucking hate extreme left-wingers."
sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
If you really think the Iraq War is the most despicable moment in American history you must have never taken a High School history class. I mean we have the Japanese American internment during WWII, The Trail of Tears, and certain actions during the Civil Rights movement just to name a few. And its not just America that's committed atrocities, The Holocaust, The genocide in Rwanda, recent actions by Israel, Palestine and Lebanon, and the fact that British citizens barely even have basic human rights left anymore. Its just human nature to kill and oppress each other, and we never seem to learn from our mistakes there either.
Forget the Iraqis, the entire World (except the United States) was against Iraq when they gassed the Kurds (in 1988). The gassing of the Kurds was reported on the front page of every major newspaper in Europe
The former French Presidential Administration held very strong financial ties with Saddam's regime. They defended Iraq in the UN and prevented UN action because of this. Thus the US and UK acted without UN support.
The Gospel according to lolcat
I am not so sure you have gotten past that period, as much as learned to hide it well in some cases.
At any rate, I think a lot of people in the world get very angry at the US for its high-handed assumption of morale superiority and its inherent right to shove that attitude down the throats of the rest of the world.
The US Political system is in no way superior to any other true democracy in the world. It is by no means the best system, and its tiring to hear of people treating the US Constitution as if it was handed down directly by God enshrined in a glowing white light. Sure, its a great document and contains noble sentiments, just as the US has the potential to be a great country. However, its not an inherent feature of the US, you have to keep striving for it, keep applying the rules in that document and living up to them. No mean feat I am sure.
There are other perfectly valid forms of democracy that have survived in other countries for longer than the US has existed. The English Parliamentary system for instance. They all have their faults but they are no worse or better than the US system.
Please, put an end to this Nationalistic Superiority complex. Be proud of what you have achieved but stop assuming it makes you inherently superior human beings. It gets tiring and it only makes the rest of the world hate you, not for being superior, but for being obnoxious and ignorant.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Never mind that a court later rejected this claim to be false...
Never mind that home coffee brewers produce coffee at comparable temperatures...
Never mind that the National Coffee Assc. recommends brew temps between 190-205 degrees and maintenance temps above 180.
But let's not let FACTS get in the way.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Everyone deserves to be treated with decency, no matter their crimes or personal failings.
You want to talk about the facts? Ok. Here's some insight for you: the temperature at which coffee is brewed is not the temperature at which it should be served or consumed. Coffee should be brewed at approximately 96 to 98 degrees Celsius. Drinking it at that temperature would, however, be incredibly stupid.
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0305417907002550
The burn model shows the standard exponential dependence of injury level on temperature. The preferred drinking temperature of coffee is specified in the literature as 140 +/- 15 deg F (60 +/- 8.3 deg C) for a population of 300 subjects. A linear (with respect to temperature) figure of merit merged the two effects to identify an optimal drinking temperature of approximately 136 deg F (57.8 deg C).
Still don't believe me? Well, find some sources, because all the ones I find indicate that water at temperatures of 150 degrees and upward can cause serious burns in a mere 2 seconds.
http://www.texaschildrenspediatrics.org/healthlibrary/pa_hotwatr_hhg.aspx
http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/HealthAZ/Burn-Safety-Hot-Water-Temperature.aspx?articleID=8652&categoryID=AZ6d
http://www.cpnonline.org/CRS/CRS/pa_hotwatr_pep.htm
http://www.ct.gov/dds/cwp/view.asp?a=12&q=379294
http://www.tap-water-burn.com/pamphlet/water_use.htm
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
You're just playing word games here, most of the nazis in Europe were/are for the invasion of Iraq, just like most of them hate all Arabs.
That's very much not true. A lot of neo-Nazis hate Jews so much that they're willing to side with anyone who shares the passion. Therefore you get Nazis support Arabs in general, and Iraq, Iran and Palestine in particular. I recall seeing that picture - can't find it now, sadly - of skinheads marching with two banners side by side; one had "White Power" written on it, another was "Jews Out Of Palestine".
It's not just that, though. Many Nazis view the liberal democratic political systems of European countries as "decadent". In comparison, dictatorships - especially "popular" ones - are very much consistent with Fuhrerprinzip. So they look at countries to emulate them, and, again, find them in the likes of Iraq.
Finally, there's Islam itself. And there is a bit of a surprise - some Nazis actually see Islam and its stringent moral codes as a good way to oppose the "moral degeneration" of the West. There are a few high-profile neo-Nazis who had converted to Islam largely because of that - one example is David Myatt.
Wait a minute, this is Saddam we're talking about. I HIGHLY doubt that "a few immature soldiers" were even allowed near him. You can bet that EVERY ACTION said or done to him or around him was carefully orchestrated, if it wasn't, that would be a HUGE failour of our military. This wasn't a "prank", this was militarilly condoned humilliation. There was no logical reason for doing this, it was simple done for pleasure and specticle, which is incredibly evil, in my mind. They were basically "fucking around" with one of the most dangerous and powerful men in the middle east for some shits and giggles. If you don't find that disturbing, I don't know what to say.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.