What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

Euler · 2004-05-13 12:03:07

Some "abuse" is needed in order to get information from prisoners, terrorists who have killed Americans and would again without hesitation.

Wouldn't that still be illegal? I mean, we can't do that to domestic criminals or enemy combatants, so how are terrorists different?

Palomar · 2004-05-13 12:28:42

Now I'm seeing reports of "systemic abuse" by U.S. soldiers coming out of Afghanistan. Will keep an eye on that.
In some (not saying all) of the Afghanistan cases the "abuses" are interrogation techniques applied to confirmed al Quaeda terrorists. We must not allow ourselves to blur the line between genuine abuse and necessary intimidation during interrogation, "systemic" by its nature. A concerted effort is being made to blur those lines.
(A) I agree with Cobra on the above. A concerted effort to blur is underway

*Yeah, I agree with that point of Cobra's as well. He was right to point that particular out (I admit my befuzzed brain missed it...).

Cobra: Just playing Devil's advocate here, but one could argue that we have, and that the lesson is that those in the way should be brutally subjugated or destroyed. This has far more historical precedent than a more... 'enlightened' approach.

*Well...brute force or reason seem to be the only two ways to settle conflict. Just because it has a historical precedent doesn't mean force is -always- the right approach (and I'm not insinuating you believe that either, because I'm under the impression you do not). Sometimes force is necessary, when attempts at reasoning fail. But then this all depends on what's being fought over/for. Most wars aren't necessary, IMO.

--Cindy

P.S.: Hey? Anyone else here over 35, I have a question: Did you also get to the point eventually where you're wondering if it's a) you're beginning to see things, via experience and time, as they really are or b) you're giving up/giving in somehow? Nice dilemma. :angry:

Oh well...I still want to go to Mars with "Imagine" as the official song (John Lennon version only).

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-13 12:29:20

Wouldn't that still be illegal? I mean, we can't do that to domestic criminals or enemy combatants, so how are terrorists different?

No, the Geneva Convention defines torture as:

"torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. "

So some basic, non-torturing methods of interrogation are allowed. This leaves a wide body of intimidation/persuasion techniques open.

Domestic criminals are subject to much more stringent rules, various Federal, State and local laws. They are not considered combatants.

It's worth mentioning that terrorists, because they don't have uniforms and don't serve in a regular army are therefore "unlawful combatants," forces not following the accepted rules of war and therefore not subject to their protections. So actually, in a strictly legal sense, a case could be made for torturing terrorists.

DonPanic · 2004-05-14 07:25:44

LO

Precisely. We absolutely must not only protect those who cooperate with us but it make it known across the land that such people have that protection.
If we can protect the citizens and brutally crush uprisings they will come to believe that not only will we win, but that it's a preferable outcome.

Each brutal crush leads to more uprising.
You will never have enough troops to protect those who cooperate with you, there can't be a US marine protecting each of Iraqis cooperating with you when troops hardly can secure themselves.
Us Army is fit for bighammering a large army, not to take control of an hostile ant nest.

Major General Charles Swannack, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division which was in western Iraq for much of the past year, said that tactically the US was winning but when asked if overall it was losing, replied: "I think strategically we are."
Colonel Paul Hughes, the first director of strategic planning in Iraq after the war, whose brother died in Vietnam said: "Here I am, 30 years later, thinking we will win every fight and lose the war, because we don't understand the war we are in."

Bill White · 2004-05-14 07:31:32

. . . we will win every fight and lose the war, because we don't understand the war we are in. . .

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-14 09:03:05

Each brutal crush leads to more uprising.

Historically this just isn't true. An occupied people can only take so much before they buckle under. temporarily, perhaps, but it works.

You will never have enough troops to protect those who cooperate with you, there can't be a US marine protecting each of Iraqis cooperating with you when troops hardly can secure themselves.

We need to secure areas, not individuals. If we can weed out the insurgents from the cities we will have a completely different situation.

To this we need better intel, much of it local, and we may need... more troops. But only if we accept and are prepared for a long occupation and doing it right. More troops for the same old approach would be counter-productive.

. . . we will win every fight and lose the war, because we don't understand the war we are in. . .

There is wisdom there...

Josh Cryer · 2004-05-14 09:03:46

Another lesson we could learn from the Germans.

I don't quite get what you're suggesting here. There would've been evidence. It just wouldn't have affected the American public and made them feel bad about themselves. "Aw, we did bad, I'm so embarrassed." Many Germans didn't believe the masacres until they saw physical, visual, evidence of what had gone on. They were clueless.

Stalin didn't take photos, and many many more people wound up being dead. He was good at faking pictures, too (taking his image out of pictures, putting it in, etc).

The truth should be set free.

Bill White · 2004-05-14 10:29:08

Each brutal crush leads to more uprising.
Historically this just isn't true. An occupied people can only take so much before they buckle under. temporarily, perhaps, but it works.
You will never have enough troops to protect those who cooperate with you, there can't be a US marine protecting each of Iraqis cooperating with you when troops hardly can secure themselves.
We need to secure areas, not individuals. If we can weed out the insurgents from the cities we will have a completely different situation.
To this we need better intel, much of it local, and we may need... more troops. But only if we accept and are prepared for a long occupation and doing it right. More troops for the same old approach would be counter-productive.
. . . we will win every fight and lose the war, because we don't understand the war we are in. . .
There is wisdom there...

How can we ever know who the "pro-American" Iraqis are?

Last summer I saw a brief report suggesting that two Iraqis wanted to marry the same woman. One was bi-lingual and spoke English and the other did not.

Guess who got turned in as an insurgent sympathizer? US Marines invaded his house and hauled him away much to the delight of his rival.

= = =

If I were running the insurgency, I would infiltrate Iraqis into the Coalition as informers. If a local Iraqi expressed support for the US occupation, I would plant RPGs and Islamic reading material in his house and then call in the US Marines.

Since we cannot speak the langauge, we cannot protect ourselves against this.

To think al Qaeda won't do stuff like this is naive.

= = =

I wonder how many innocent or neutral Iraqis were abused in our prisons? After all many in the US are quite willing to say "Kill 'em all and let God sort it out. . ."

Palomar · 2004-05-14 10:43:23

*Kerry no longer strikes me as a suitable Presidential candidate. The issue of "I don't drive an SUV" and later admitting his family does (including his wife). Maybe -he- personally doesn't drive one, but his family's values aren't in line with environmentalists (as he was attempting to play). There's the issues of his wanting to deny what he really did with his medals (or "ribbons")...

Dick Morris was on Bill O'Reilly a few weeks ago. IIRC, Morris predicted Kerry would keep a low profile and seek to simply "ride it out" for as long as he can, i.e. coast along while keeping as low a profile as possible and keeping a close watch on Bush's poll ratings. I really don't see Kerry out making STATEMENTS...and I think Morris was right. It's mid-May and I really don't know where Kerry stands on tough issues.

What a pickle. Who to vote for?

***

Does anyone think Nick Berg knew he was going to be murdered right then and there? I get the impression he really didn't know what was coming, i.e. he's sitting in front of a bunch of masked kooks while one's blathering on in Arabic. Do you think he knew that knife was coming? It seems he was more poised than one would expect, if he sensed he would be decapitated in a few minutes.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: I just now read a Yahoo! article about Berg's private funeral ceremony. I didn't know he was Jewish, until I saw a funeral bouquet arranged in a 6-pointed star and they mentioned the "synagogue."

Byron · 2004-05-14 11:19:48

*Kerry no longer strikes me as a suitable Presidential candidate. The issue of "I don't drive an SUV" and later admitting his family does (including his wife). Maybe -he- personally doesn't drive one, but his family's values aren't in line with environmentalists (as he was attempting to play). There's the issues of his wanting to deny what he really did with his medals (or "ribbons")...
Dick Morris was on Bill O'Reilly a few weeks ago. IIRC, Morris predicted Kerry would keep a low profile and seek to simply "ride it out" for as long as he can, i.e. coast along while keeping as low a profile as possible and keeping a close watch on Bush's poll ratings. I really don't see Kerry out making STATEMENTS...and I think Morris was right. It's mid-May and I really don't know where Kerry stands on tough issues.
What a pickle. Who to vote for?

Yeah, you sure can say that again... I do not believe that Kerry is a suitable candidate for President, either, for the very reasons you specified above.

Why can't we have a sensible candidate for President?

B

Bill White · 2004-05-14 11:53:20

*Kerry no longer strikes me as a suitable Presidential candidate. The issue of "I don't drive an SUV" and later admitting his family does (including his wife). Maybe -he- personally doesn't drive one, but his family's values aren't in line with environmentalists (as he was attempting to play). There's the issues of his wanting to deny what he really did with his medals (or "ribbons")...
Dick Morris was on Bill O'Reilly a few weeks ago. IIRC, Morris predicted Kerry would keep a low profile and seek to simply "ride it out" for as long as he can, i.e. coast along while keeping as low a profile as possible and keeping a close watch on Bush's poll ratings. I really don't see Kerry out making STATEMENTS...and I think Morris was right. It's mid-May and I really don't know where Kerry stands on tough issues.
What a pickle. Who to vote for?
Yeah, you sure can say that again... I do not believe that Kerry is a suitable candidate for President, either, for the very reasons you specified above.
Why can't we have a sensible candidate for President?
<lets out a big sigh>
B

In times like these, having the various banches of government in different hands (GOP Congress, Democrat President etc. . .)
is our best protection.

Make 'em compromise.

= = =

From the NY Times. An Iraqi man sees a car he thinks is wired to blow up. He goes to tell the police and is thrown in prison.

After 18 days of torture he confesses:

He said the interrogators did not have to work hard: For the next few days, he said, he confessed to anything they asked. He admitted to belonging to the insurgency, of knowing top terrorists, of being Mr. bin Laden, of being a member of a militant Shiite Muslim group, even though he is a Sunni. He said he made up stories about where the resistance was hiding in the western desert.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/inter … ...anted=2

But so what? I mean this guy killed Nick Berg, right?

And have just have faith, someday we will build a free decent Iraq and our soldiers can come home.

Palomar · 2004-05-14 14:20:20

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … drawal]HUH??

*Okay, this threw me into a bit of a mind-scramble.

What the heck?

Damage control (prison scandal fallout)?

We were planning on turning over control (what percentage) to new Iraqi gov't on/by June 30 anyway?

Misleading headline?

So...if we're asked to leave we simply -will- leave (sans a few thousand troops remaining).

Or maybe it's a sly way of wanting to stay IN Iraq with as much control as possible? "Well, they didn't ASK us to leave; in fact, we offered and they said no, which is the same as saying STAY"?

I don't know what to make of this.

I wonder if I'd feel "clearer" after a couple of good, strong tequila sunrises...

--Cindy

::EDIT:: This just seems so UNcharacteristic of the Bush administration (it -must- be that hidden motive in all political "deals"...)

::EDIT 2:: Oh, this is just BUNK. It's not an offer to do anything. Just trying to make us look a bit humble, contrite, etc. June 30 is less than 1-1/2 months away, and the plan in this article remains the same after June 30. Just working my way through all these thoughts, sorry.

DonPanic · 2004-05-14 15:37:29

LO

Each brutal crush leads to more uprising.
Historically this just isn't true. An occupied people can only take so much before they buckle under. temporarily, perhaps, but it works.

Doesn't work for Palestine,

We need to secure areas, not individuals. If we can weed out the insurgents from the cities we will have a completely different situation.
To this we need better intel, much of it local, and we may need... more troops. But only if we accept and are prepared for a long occupation and doing it right. More troops for the same old approach would be counter-productive.

Brilliant strategies, Sir !
Your problem is :we, we, we, you think US, you don't think iraqi, as far as I can see, and you need to think iraqi to deal with Iraqis.
Killing hostile Iraqis will not bring you any support from average Iraqis because you kill Iraqis, they may be cousins, after all.
You're thinking war machine, and I tell you, my friend, that you lack thinking about men, your approach, I mean your lack of approach of Iraqi psychology is ground zero.
As long as you won't be abble to realise what does feel an occupied people.
Sorry to tell you this, Cobra Commander, no citizen fellow carnage can win hearts and minds

Josh Cryer · 2004-05-14 22:19:04

Does anyone think Nick Berg knew he was going to be murdered right then and there?

He didn't. Just take my word for it.

Trebuchet · 2004-05-14 22:26:45

Ecrasez_lenfame, the June 30th handover of power has been something Bush has been sticking to for a fairly long time, since last year, and has doggedly ignored calls to change the date one way or the other. It has nothing to do with the prison mess. That we'd leave if requested after the June 30th changeover is nothing new either. It's just a case of some reporter trying to make some smoke so he can say there's a fire - no story here.

Palomar · 2004-05-15 05:52:23

Trebuchet: Ecrasez_lenfame,

*Aw, feel free to call me Cindy. It's just that much easier to type out anyway, no?

Trebuchet: the June 30th handover of power has been something Bush has been sticking to for a fairly long time, since last year, and has doggedly ignored calls to change the date one way or the other. It has nothing to do with the prison mess. That we'd leave if requested after the June 30th changeover is nothing new either. It's just a case of some reporter trying to make some smoke so he can say there's a fire - no story here.

*Yep. I think I said just as much in my 2nd edit note.

Bill: I wonder how many innocent or neutral Iraqis were abused in our prisons? After all many in the US are quite willing to say "Kill 'em all and let God sort it out. . ."

*Yeah, I've wondered that too. And yes, that quote. :angry: Anyone who could say something like that, and so glibly, is an IDIOT. Put the shoe on the other foot.

--Cindy

dickbill · 2004-05-15 06:45:51

I'm wondering of any of our non-U.S. New Mars participants would be so kind as to tell me why, if you were a U.S. citizen, you WOULD vote for John Kerry instead of Bush. Why do you think Kerry would make a better U.S. President?

Dickbill, out of lurking mode: Come on Cindy, you are not going to make a big story because of a SUV. I didn't hear this story, that Kerry has/has not a SUV.
OK he is supposed to be pro-environemental but who is not these days ?

By the way, in the lastest Scientific American, beside an editorial that strongly critizises the Bush administration for the way it deals with scientific hearings or reports, there is an article about Hydrogen cars. In short, H2-cars might not be a practical solution, in the near future at least, hybrids or electric cars might be better.
So, why president Bush in the discour to the Union 2002 emphasized so much the "hydrogen cars", even explaining in details how the exothermic reaction of hydrogen with oxygen could be used as a replacement for gas produced from oil?
Because he has been briefed to do so. Well, H2cars might be a nightmare if you read Scientific American. So, imagine Bush is reelected, and because He said that H2 cars is the solution, to stay consistent with his statement, he decides to go H2cars at all cost because "he said so", like "we stay in Irak because we said so". H2cars might just be another mistake. But, would it rather say that "yes, I wanted H2cars, that was a mistake, we'd rather go electric now" NO, republicans don't make mistakes, as you know.
And rather to admit it, you would have H2cars exploding in the streets, with an energy consumption to make that H2 far superior than what it would take with just using gas.
Well, polititicians are just briefed by their advisors. These advisors are most likely politically oriented too with ideological obsessions. Probably Bush has one advisor who Believes that H2car is THE technological miracle that will save America of the Evil non-anglosaxon-compliant world.
There is no miracle, and I prefer a guy who knows he is just that, a guy, with no ideological obsession, and who can change his minds and change his decisions when new fact appears or when things are reconsidered by INDEPENDANT panel of investigators (a concept unknown of the Bush administration). And Kerry would not be afraid to say : "well I said we have to develop H2cars, but that happens to be a mistake and we give up on that".
If Kerry is elected, all He needs to have to compensate for his (many) carrencies are INDEPENDANT panels of advisors in all possible domains.

Palomar · 2004-05-15 07:19:09

I'm wondering of any of our non-U.S. New Mars participants would be so kind as to tell me why, if you were a U.S. citizen, you WOULD vote for John Kerry instead of Bush. Why do you think Kerry would make a better U.S. President?
Dickbill, out of lurking mode: Come on Cindy, you are not going to make a big story because of a SUV. I didn't hear this story, that Kerry has/has not a SUV.
OK he is supposed to be pro-environemental but who is not these days ?

*Um...it's -more- than just the SUV's...even Byron agreed with what I said in my post (statements, issues, keeping a low profile, Dick Morris' comments about Kerry, etc.).

Kerry's got a credibility problem *already* -- on many issues and seemingly for a lot of other people as well (whom I've spoken with personally) who otherwise may have voted for him.

Ah well, forget I asked. I don't want anyone thinking I'm trying to drum up pointless conversation.

--Cindy

dickbill · 2004-05-15 07:35:58

Kerry's got a credibility problem *already* -- on many issues and seemingly for a lot of other people as well (whom I've spoken with personally) who otherwise may have voted for him.

that's just politic. He has to go, or to speak, more rightist or at least less liberal, to get some votes from the republicans.
After that, what he will do once elected might not be very different from the Bush administration, but the way he will do it matters. You know, the big ideologies diluted in the ocean of realities...

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-15 07:46:45

Quote
Each brutal crush leads to more uprising.
Quote (Cobra Commander @ May 13 2004, 09:30)
Historically this just isn't true. An occupied people can only take so much before they buckle under. temporarily, perhaps, but it works.

Doesn't work for Palestine,

This is another case where the effort is restrained. Not to the degree of the US forces in Iraq, it but the Israelis are being held back. They are taking half measures. If the leash was ever dropped and they were free to do what many in the Israeli government think needs to be done... If you think there's anti-semitism in the world (and the UN) now, just wait.

Your problem is :we, we, we, you think US, you don't think iraqi, as far as I can see, and you need to think iraqi to deal with Iraqis.

I think in terms of what we need to do in order to win the support of some Iraqis, while killing the insurgents. The ball is in our court, it's our move.

Quote (ecrasez_l_infame @ May 15 2004, 07:52)
I'm wondering of any of our non-U.S. New Mars participants would be so kind as to tell me why, if you were a U.S. citizen, you WOULD vote for John Kerry instead of Bush. Why do you think Kerry would make a better U.S. President?

I'll refine the question a bit more. Can any Kerry supporter explain why they support him, without referring to George Bush? We know the reasons to vote against Bush, but for Kerry?

Bill White · 2004-05-15 08:40:08

We know the reasons to vote against Bush, but for Kerry?

Few will vote FOR Kerry, except to say that 4 years of going in circles is very, very much better than rushing off a cliff.

Kerry will be constrained by others in what he does. Bush does whatever God or Dick Cheney whispers in his ear.

> Each brutal crush leads to more uprising.
> (Only when) the effort is restrained.

Who is our audience? The USA vs Islam is merely the warm-up for the REAL 21st century battle.

USA v UN

Who will write the rules for international conduct in the 21st century? The US, or the UN, or others?

Heavy-handedness versus Iraq may temporarily suppress the Iraqi insurgents yet wins us enemies in places like Brazil.

Brazil, you ask? Brazil. Who desires a seat on the Security Council and has only temporarily disbanded its nuclear weapons programs and as has recently joined forces with CHINA to encourage the strengthening of international institutions like the United Nations.

Bill White · 2004-05-15 09:06:12

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/]Girl Blog from Iraq... let's talk:

The assumption that Al Zarqawi himself was doing the beheading (of Nick Berg) seems a little far-fetched. So now the heads of terrorism in the world seem to be Ossama Bin Ladin, Aimen Al Dhawahiri and Abu Mussa'ab Al Zarqawi. Here's some food for thought- Ossama is from Saudi Arabia, Al Dhawahiri is Egyptian and Al Zarqawi is Jordanian. Which countries in the region are America's best allies? Let's see now… did you guess Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt?! Fantastic! You win a trip to… Falloojeh!! (And no- it doesn't count if you give Saudi Arabia a little slap on the wrists and poke Egypt in the ribs- you're still buddies).

Gennaro · 2004-05-15 09:06:48

Who is our audience? The USA vs Islam is merely the warm-up for the REAL 21st century battle.
USA v UN

Always find these debates fascinating, but sometimes I have hard time understanding the reasoning or norms or whatever behind them. Probably related somewhat to cultural alienation.

Why must the US go against the UN? Wasn't the purpose of the UN, created by the Allies 60 years ago, to limit sovereignity of nations in order for the victorious powers to rule and impose their own world order without further disruptions?

So hasn't the UN been serving its purpose for the US all this time? Or has a problem arisen because the UN might get out of control and believe it can impose the same sanctions on Israel and the United States as well? Is this the problem?

Should the US abide by the rules it sets for others?

The US is just another country isn't it?

Palomar · 2004-05-15 09:24:17

We know the reasons to vote against Bush, but for Kerry?
Few will vote FOR Kerry, except to say that 4 years of going in circles is very, very much better than rushing off a cliff.

*Lol...good one, Bill. I needed a chuckle this a.m.

Cobra asks a legit question. Frankly, I'm beginning to feel I'll have to (based on my own personal ethics) sit this election out. As things stand right now, I can't conscientiously vote for either Kerry nor Bush.

And no, I don't expect anyone here to give a damn about "my vote"...just responding to Cobra's question.

--Cindy

::edit:: (Sorry...crazy morning, need to address this as well):

Should the US abide by the rules it sets for others?
The US is just another country isn't it?

*Yes, the U.S. should abide by rules it sets for others. Yes, that's simply ethical.

Yes, the U.S. is just another country (though of course most wealthy and powerful). I can see the assertions often made by non-U.S. citizens that we Americans are so self-obsessed. Reminds me of a European political cartoon I saw, wherein America -is- Earth, and the remainder of the world's nations are drawn on the Moon.

Bill White · 2004-05-15 10:17:18

Should the US abide by the rules it sets for others?
The US is just another country isn't it?

Well, I believe so but many of my countrymen do not.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2004-05-13 12:03:07

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#102 2004-05-13 12:28:42

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#103 2004-05-13 12:29:20

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#104 2004-05-14 07:25:44

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#105 2004-05-14 07:31:32

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#106 2004-05-14 09:03:05

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#107 2004-05-14 09:03:46

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#108 2004-05-14 10:29:08

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#109 2004-05-14 10:43:23

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#110 2004-05-14 11:19:48

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#111 2004-05-14 11:53:20

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#112 2004-05-14 14:20:20

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#113 2004-05-14 15:37:29

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#114 2004-05-14 22:19:04

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#115 2004-05-14 22:26:45

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#116 2004-05-15 05:52:23

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#117 2004-05-15 06:45:51

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#118 2004-05-15 07:19:09

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#119 2004-05-15 07:35:58

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#120 2004-05-15 07:46:45

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#121 2004-05-15 08:40:08

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#122 2004-05-15 09:06:12

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#123 2004-05-15 09:06:48

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#124 2004-05-15 09:24:17

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#125 2004-05-15 10:17:18

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

Board footer