Uncle Sam has his own gulag
- Thread starter assoholic
- Start date
If torture wouldn't work why is it being used? Even if it just works on a phsycological level it does has it's impact.
If anyone believes that the actions at Abu Gharib were the actions of a few, also believes in Santa Claus.
This was a systematic attempt to get information from prisoners. The "contractors" are a front set up by the agency in charge to extract information.
Like it or not, almost every nation has this kind of "outsourced operation".
A few month ago there was a guy ( can't remember his name) from the middle eas,t that claimed Canada has sold him out to Syria, so they can torture him, to get needed information.
If anyone believes that the actions at Abu Gharib were the actions of a few, also believes in Santa Claus.
This was a systematic attempt to get information from prisoners. The "contractors" are a front set up by the agency in charge to extract information.
Like it or not, almost every nation has this kind of "outsourced operation".
A few month ago there was a guy ( can't remember his name) from the middle eas,t that claimed Canada has sold him out to Syria, so they can torture him, to get needed information.
...we also had to use Internment Camps during WW II, and we dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan. Fighting for ones survival is a dirty job. If we take the "high road" too often, we'll end up......dead...
The US certainly didn't have to use Internment Camps during WWII. This is NO way contributed to victory. It's just another sad tale of inhumanity.
As for dropping two atomic bombs, I don't think this act was any worse than the deliberate targeting of civilians for mass murder during the "strategic bombing" campaign, and as this act ended the war prematurely, one might argue that this act was defensible on moral and humanitarian grounds.
As for dropping two atomic bombs, I don't think this act was any worse than the deliberate targeting of civilians for mass murder during the "strategic bombing" campaign, and as this act ended the war prematurely, one might argue that this act was defensible on moral and humanitarian grounds.
That Stalin targeted a great many political dissidents for the gulags, expecially in the early 1930's is obvious, but these camps housed many others as well. In addition to a great number of common criminals, thieves, and murderers, the camps also had a number of people whose only crime was that Stalin thought they were "ethnically undesirable". After WWII Stalin also sent many thousands of returning Red Army pow's to the gulags because he considered them traitors for having surrendered in the first place. The camps were mainly and essentially slave labor camps, in a tradition that ran back to the Czars of earlier centuries. The link is to the introduction of Anne Applebaum's book "The Gulag: A History", in which she documents how interwoven the camps were into the Soviet economy, and the importance Stalin attached to them. By the way, the book also won her the Pulitzer Prize.Ranger68 said:I think even that statement is debatable. Stalin *said* a lot of things.
I think the interpretation that the gulags were primarily about herding dissidents away from the rest of society is perfectly valid. Surely you believe that Stalin was interested in getting rid of "political undesirables", no?
http://www.anneapplebaum.com/gulag/intro.html
Last edited:
I haven't read Applebaum's work, though I've seen it.
I think this quote of her's summarizes what I was trying to say best:
"Although he had believed all of his life that the Gulag was critical to Soviet economic growth, his political heirs knew well that the camps were, in fact, a source of backwardness and distorted investment. ... Nevertheless, the camps did not disappear altogether. Instead, they evolved. Throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, a few of them were redesigned and put to use as prisons for a new generation of democratic activists, anti-Soviet nationalists—and criminals."
Excellent reading is also provided by Kolyma: The Arctic Death Camps, by Conquest, and of course, the Gulag Archipeligo, which won Solzhenitsyn the Nobel Prize. Solzhenitsyn's focus is on the political usage of the camps.
I think this quote of her's summarizes what I was trying to say best:
"Although he had believed all of his life that the Gulag was critical to Soviet economic growth, his political heirs knew well that the camps were, in fact, a source of backwardness and distorted investment. ... Nevertheless, the camps did not disappear altogether. Instead, they evolved. Throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, a few of them were redesigned and put to use as prisons for a new generation of democratic activists, anti-Soviet nationalists—and criminals."
Excellent reading is also provided by Kolyma: The Arctic Death Camps, by Conquest, and of course, the Gulag Archipeligo, which won Solzhenitsyn the Nobel Prize. Solzhenitsyn's focus is on the political usage of the camps.
Well, at least you now seem to recognize that Stalin saw the camps as an integral part of the economy and specifically tried to exploit them as such. That he was horribly misguided, I don't dispute, but can you acknowledge that your original comment that the gulags were not about slave labor was more than a little inaccurate?
Last edited:
..I am not suggesting the Texas penal system is the same as the Gulag system, yet. However in Texas, as in alot of the States ,it has become a big business as some of them are now Private facilities that operate on a profit basis. Paying Prisoners pennies a day to manufacture License plates and all other kinds of goods.
More importantly, the main thrust of the article was this.
If we are going to let our soldiers over there turn into torturers, dont forget, sooner or later they are coming home.
Not just the guys who do it but the ones who thought it was o'k to do in the first place and authorized it.
Maybe we have no choice, maybe the world is just too dam evil.
Up to this point we have been the light that said that there was a different way.
Thats kind of what I thought we were all about.
I am not Anti-Amnerican, but very wary of some " Big American
Interest's.
Industrial Military Complex, Oil Industry , Banks, only because they are the most powerful, add of course the European ones and Japanese and soon the Chinese exct, exct.
Corporations have no soul. It is I think a very very dangerous new trend in World History.
War by the bottom line.
More importantly, the main thrust of the article was this.
If we are going to let our soldiers over there turn into torturers, dont forget, sooner or later they are coming home.
Not just the guys who do it but the ones who thought it was o'k to do in the first place and authorized it.
Maybe we have no choice, maybe the world is just too dam evil.
Up to this point we have been the light that said that there was a different way.
Thats kind of what I thought we were all about.
I am not Anti-Amnerican, but very wary of some " Big American
Interest's.
Industrial Military Complex, Oil Industry , Banks, only because they are the most powerful, add of course the European ones and Japanese and soon the Chinese exct, exct.
Corporations have no soul. It is I think a very very dangerous new trend in World History.
War by the bottom line.
With all due repect Winston I don't give a shit about what people think about me, nor due I care if anybody respects me or not.Winston said:While fighting monsters, great care must be taken, as to not become a monster yourself.
I'm sorry, but I really don't see the "moral" difference between torture and terrorism. What's the point of standing for something if you are willing to play the game of "justification".
A hypocrite seems to be your ideological role model.
No wonder you have the respect of very few people on this board.
I am not participating here to earn respect. I don't know anybody on this board personally, and it is highly unlikely that I ever will.
My reasons for being here are very selfish.
a) for entertainment and
b) to hear other peoples opinions.
c) in hopes to learn something new.
Most of what I heard was very valuable some of it was just straight BS.
Thanks to everybody that puts up with me especially BBK, Ranger and DQ.
I am not sure what's wrong with making prisoners work? IMHO they are not working enough and should not be payed at all.assoholic said:..I am not suggesting the Texas penal system is the same as the Gulag system, yet. However in Texas, as in alot of the States ,it has become a big business as some of them are now Private facilities that operate on a profit basis. Paying Prisoners pennies a day to manufacture License plates and all other kinds of goods.
More importantly, the main thrust of the article was this.
If we are going to let our soldiers over there turn into torturers, dont forget, sooner or later they are coming home.
Not just the guys who do it but the ones who thought it was o'k to do in the first place and authorized it.
Maybe we have no choice, maybe the world is just too dam evil.
Up to this point we have been the light that said that there was a different way.
Thats kind of what I thought we were all about.
I am not Anti-Amnerican, but very wary of some " Big American
Interest's.
Industrial Military Complex, Oil Industry , Banks, only because they are the most powerful, add of course the European ones and Japanese and soon the Chinese exct, exct.
Corporations have no soul. It is I think a very very dangerous new trend in World History.
War by the bottom line.
If you chooses to turn your back on society by commiting crimes against it. Why should we care?
Maybe I should direcct your attention towards Singapore. While some of it might be over the top. A lot of it did a who;e ;ot of good.
A custiomer of mine, that happens to work there told me, that some of the laws are tough, but "I can send my 12 year ols daughter across town by herself and don't have to worry about it". There is something to be said about that.
If you replace the word "Big American interest" with "Big worldwide companies interest" I could somewhat agree with you. Large powerful corporations are not unique to the USA.
..it is the combination that is dangerous. You see we Canadians grew up in an Empire. At least the end of one, maybe thats why our perspective is a little different. During the British Empire ascendancy it was often Business leading the way. Once they got in trouble, i.e once the natives got pissed off at being ripped off, usually of their liberty. Who had to come in and protect them ?, the Government.
Now Corporations are even bigger, logic would seem to dictate their influence on Government as well is greater.
Oh and it might suprise you when I say I agree about Singapore, to a certain extent. However I also worked with someone from Sigapore and she hated it. She said the Government was constatntly over your shoulder. Thats why she left. Just to use the Subway you had to use a card that had all your information on it.
However in an age where a pissed off 17 year old Chemistry wiz
can creat a batch of whatever and release it on the subway. Who knows , maybe thats where we are headed ?
Now Corporations are even bigger, logic would seem to dictate their influence on Government as well is greater.
Oh and it might suprise you when I say I agree about Singapore, to a certain extent. However I also worked with someone from Sigapore and she hated it. She said the Government was constatntly over your shoulder. Thats why she left. Just to use the Subway you had to use a card that had all your information on it.
However in an age where a pissed off 17 year old Chemistry wiz
can creat a batch of whatever and release it on the subway. Who knows , maybe thats where we are headed ?
It doesn't work and isn't being used. I must note however, if it did work its use would be essential and mandatory in the military practice of a just and moral State.
The reality at Abu Gharib:
MP:
"Just why were you running away from the scene of an explosion, and why did we find RPG's in your home, along with a dozen AK's?"
Terrorist:
"Infidel pig. Die all Americans"
MP:
"I'm going to make you wear a leash and take pictures for my retirement party, if you don't play ball ... "
Care to back this up? Just where in the UCMJ does it authorize torture? By the way, the incidents there were practical jokes. One would get far worse treatment as an American citizen at home in a local precinct, on arrest for greatly insignificant charges.langeweile said:If torture wouldn't work why is it being used? Even if it just works on a phsycological level it does has it's impact.
The reality at Abu Gharib:
MP:
"Just why were you running away from the scene of an explosion, and why did we find RPG's in your home, along with a dozen AK's?"
Terrorist:
"Infidel pig. Die all Americans"
MP:
"I'm going to make you wear a leash and take pictures for my retirement party, if you don't play ball ... "
If anyone believes that the actions at Abu Gharib were the actions of a few, also believes in Santa Claus.
Yes, but it was, and still is, my understanding that it was pretty much *Stalin*, and Stalin alone, who saw some economic usage for the camps, and that everyone else, before and after, saw them for what they really were.Asterix said:Well, at least you now seem to recognize that Stalin saw the camps as an integral part of the economy and specifically tried to exploit them as such. That he was horribly misguided, I don't dispute, but can you acknowledge that your original comment that the gulags were not about slave labor was more than a little inaccurate?
I think I stand by my original statement, with the qualification that Stalin used them for more.
One last post on this and then I'll let it go.Ranger68 said:Yes, but it was, and still is, my understanding that it was pretty much *Stalin*, and Stalin alone, who saw some economic usage for the camps, and that everyone else, before and after, saw them for what they really were.
I think I stand by my original statement, with the qualification that Stalin used them for more.
No, Stalin didn't see just 'some economic usage" for the camps, but by the quote you yourself provided, considered them critical. It doesn't matter if others disagreed, he alone set the policy. For close to thirty years he expanded and ruled over the gulag system at it's height. Several million people were sent into this, and millions of those died providing the slave labor he thought crucial for the soviet economy. Stalin took the gulag system far beyond simply imprisoning dissidents, and tried to make it into an industrial machine. If this is what you mean by a "qualification" to your original statement, it's a hell of a big one.
No, my qualification was that the gulags *under Stalin* were about economic factors - under everyone else, they were as I described. I wasn't talking about the gulags solely under one man, but their usage and importance through history. I think it's a hell of a big stretch to say that the way Stalin used them is the way they generally functioned.
Anyway, I think we've beaten this horse.
Anyway, I think we've beaten this horse.
...I read a book writrten by a guy who had been in a Gulag in Siberia. Maybe they were used in a couple of big jobs but that was about it. They were barely kept alive, Soup there only meal. They were half dead, living in a Frozen Hell, not much of a work force. I encourage all to read at least one book written by a Holacuast or Gulag survivor.
Its absoulutely amazing the evil ordinary men can do.
Its absoulutely amazing the evil ordinary men can do.
