What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

DonPanic · 2004-05-22 17:29:26

LO
The whole waste of the Iraq affair, because of the stupid blindness of Bush's administration, its feeling of absolute military power and its greed for oil, is that they didn't understood that the pro Western party in Iraq was the Baath. The Baathists wanted to build a modern country against

the fundies and terrorists

Saddam was a monster indeed, but the regime was an ennemy of Bin Laden, there were free haired young women studying in Iraqi universities, they sure were not madrassases.
Thank to US military pressure, the regime had softened, it had comply with WMD disarmament, that's nobody can still deny.
It was possible to lead to more soft a regime by threat without loosing one american and that many thousands Iraqi lifes. That way was supported by rest of the world outside coalition.

And the alternative is... what? Have an election, go home and call it a win?

Done, you're a bit late, Bush has already called it a win...

You can't go into a country, topple a totalitarian regime and expect that overnight a republic can be dropped in with a pre-fab constitution and a few ballot boxes.

The ballot boxes should have been brought one year ago, but numerically would lead to an "islamic republic".
"We go to Iraq, topple Saddam, install a democratic regime, cheered by so grateful Iraqis"
That's exactly what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld sold out to US opinion !

For the record, the Iraqi Governing Council changed the flag,

Aren't they US valets ? Who named them ? Who gives them the money ?

But is it really outside the realm of possibility that a wedding party fired on US troops?

Iraqi wedding parties are not worth without shooting at US troops, it's their sense of entertainment :;):
this is well known the world over

Mundaka · 2004-05-22 20:39:14

Trebuchet · 2004-05-23 01:51:20

1) Actually, poll results - nonUS polling, for the suspicious - reveals that a majority of the Iraqis want the US to stay. At least until the situation dies down.

2) One of the soldiers involved has already been court-martialed and sentenced. The others will follow quickly. US military tribunals don't screw around like the civilian courts sometimes do.

3) There are other points - like the fact that the US military was the one to notice, crack down on, and replace the staff at that prison, months before the story broke to the media - which seem to never get noticed.

4) The US did not ratify the ICC because it was a spectacularly bad idea on its own merits, much like the Kyoto Accords, and moreover would directly conflict with parts of our own Constitution. Making requests that it knows other countries (read: Europe) won't accept is a way of saying 'No' without simply tearing up and spitting on it (what we did with Kyoto)

5) The average American is growing as annoyed and irritated with Europe as the Europeans are with America. That situation is a hell of a lot more dangerous to a stagnant EU than it is to the US. Perhaps you ought to follow your won advice and "ask yourselves why they hate you."

DonPanic · 2004-05-23 02:14:01

LO

1) Actually, poll results - nonUS polling, for the suspicious - reveals that a majority of the Iraqis want the US to stay. At least until the situation dies down.

I'm suspicious, cite sources
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/ … poll/]Iraq poll BEFORE prisonners mistreatment scandal

DonPanic · 2004-05-23 05:59:39

LO
BGD, Trebuchet talked about irritation, not hate, this is understandable, if USA was to wait till Europeans stop tchating in all the languages they have, before an agreement, USA might wait for years... while USA can speed up ...taking the wrong track

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-23 08:10:29

The funny thing about 'perspective' is that the people being tortured are iraqi's and none of them have ever attacked the US, or threatened to attack the US. That was those foreign terroists, remember.

clark, are you insinuating that the insurgency is composed of foreign terrorists?

just say it's wrong, because it is. torturing and brutilizng these people is wrong. our leaders were wrong to allow it. let's show them that we understand how wrong it is by getting rid of our leaders.

I have said it's wrong on numerous occasions. But here's another thought, maybe we shouldn't be sending the message that we're more concerned about not humiliating insurgents, terrorists and criminals than we are about preserving the lives of our own people.

Not to mention that some of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib are criminals. The violent kind that victimize Iraqis. We aren't just locking people up randomly and the majority of the prisoners should not be out. Recall that Saddam opened some of the prisons when US troops entered Baghdad. Do you think he released the political dissidents, seeing in his heart that he was in fact the bad guy... or did he release murders, rapists and thieves? I've got a hunch it's the latter.

LO
The whole waste of the Iraq affair, because of the stupid blindness of Bush's administration, its feeling of absolute military power and its greed for oil, is that they didn't understood that the pro Western party in Iraq was the Baath. The Baathists wanted to build a modern country against
Quote
the fundies and terrorists

Except for that nagging tendency to give support to terrorists.

The ballot boxes should have been brought one year ago, but numerically would lead to an "islamic republic".
"We go to Iraq, topple Saddam, install a democratic regime, cheered by so grateful Iraqis"
That's exactly what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld sold out to US opinion !

No, that's how the media sold this before it started. I can't count how many times Bush said that it's going to take time, democracy is hard work, stay the course and on and on. No one but media pundits thought this was going to be quick and simple.

Granted, some of the Administration's occupation plans have turned out to be a bit screwy, but it's an error in details, not a "we'll stomp in and fix it by next month, they'll be so happy" fantasy as it's too often portrayed.

But is it really outside the realm of possibility that a wedding party fired on US troops?
Iraqi wedding parties are not worth without shooting at US troops, it's their sense of entertainment
this is well known the world over

Oh, shooting at someone for entertainment is okay?

Mundaka and Trebuchet, good posts. Right on.

Moving on, America has a decision to make before too long on how to proceed, because our current approach is flawed. We can either commit ourselves to winning this, "get Roman" as I suggested earlier, or focus on our own borders.

Empire or Isolationism. That's the bones of it. Either is acceptable to me if done right, either is better than the current half-assed approach. We can tighten our borders to keep the enemy out and sit within fortress America while the world burns, which it will, even those soft-socialist EUnik's are in for some pounding. They hate you too...

Or we can impose modernity and freedom on them. Either way lots of people die, either way lots of people hate us. What we do won't change their view of us, we should act for our own good. What is best fo us. Call the joint chiefs, put it to Congress, flip a coin; I don't particularly care. But we, collectively as a nation, need to make a decision one way or the other because the middle road approach is ill-advised. The Libs and the Neo-Cons are both screwing the pooch on this one.

Bill White · 2004-05-23 08:12:35

DomPanic is correct, the Baath (and Saddam) were our ally against the Islamicists. An evil ally to be sure, but then didn't Churchhill and Roosevelt ally with Stalin?

That is why Ronald Reagan supported Saddam versus Iran. Today, Iran uses Chalabi to lie to the US about WMD and the US removes Iran's old enemy, Saddam.

We Americans have short memories. We need to learn history.

= = =

If one is an inept Machiavellian, it would be better to just be nice.

clark · 2004-05-23 10:26:00

Rape of a 15 year old boy preserves lives how?
Forcing detainee's to wear maxi-pads protects US lives how?
Having prisoners masturbate on command is really about keeping us safe, isn't it?

Hold on to the rifle Cobra, but put down the fervent nationality for a moment and call a spade a spade.

Not to mention that some of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib are criminals. The violent kind that victimize Iraqis.

Well, that may be, but it may not as well. If they're criminals, and pose a threat to ordinary Iraqi's, then what can we hope to gain by toturing them? I thought it was about protecting US lives. Ass backwards way to approach the problem, no? You should also note that the US military agree's that a majority of the detainee's have nothing to do with the insurgency- they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So we brutilize them to make sure they had nothing to do with what they say they had nothing to do with.

2) One of the soldiers involved has already been court-martialed and sentenced. The others will follow quickly. US military tribunals don't screw around like the civilian courts sometimes do.

Well, that might mean something if the people who authorized these actions were brought to justice. But it's doubtful that they will. Some poor enlisted shmoes are going to take the fall.

) There are other points - like the fact that the US military was the one to notice, crack down on, and replace the staff at that prison, months before the story broke to the media - which seem to never get noticed.

Um, no. Red Cross did, and reported to the military. Then a GI blew the whistle to some newspapers. He had a disk. The US military brass was actively trying to delay and supress this story. Rumsfeld knew in January, but did nothing.

The media opened our eyes because one GI in the US military had had enough.

4) The US did not ratify the ICC because it was a spectacularly bad idea on its own merits, much like the Kyoto Accords, and moreover would directly conflict with parts of our own Constitution. Making requests that it knows other countries (read: Europe) won't accept is a way of saying 'No' without simply tearing up and spitting on it (what we did with Kyoto)

I think the current situation is an example of why the US knows the ICC to be a bad idea. Why submit to international review when you're a crook?

Bill White · 2004-05-23 10:26:56

Cobra:

A few words from Thucydides:

And we acted thus at crises when, if ever, men are wont in their effortsagainst their enemies to forget everything for the sake of victory, regarding him who assists them then as a friend, even if thus far he has been a foe, and him who opposes them then as a foe, even if he has thus far been a friend;indeed they allow their real interests to suffer from their absorbing preoccupation in the struggle.

Bottom line? The example of ancient Athens is more appropriate to our current situation than the example of Rome.

DonPanic · 2004-05-23 10:40:59

LO

The whole waste of the Iraq affair, because of the stupid blindness of Bush's administration, its feeling of absolute military power and its greed for oil, is that they didn't understood that the pro Western party in Iraq was the Baath. The Baathists wanted to build a modern country against the fundies and terrorists.
Except for that nagging tendency to give support to terrorists.

Saddam supported terrorism at Israel, true, but never commited or supported any terrorist attack at any other Western country, and mainly not USA, remember, USAF patroled every day over Iraq, retaliation would have been so easy.

But is it really outside the realm of possibility that a wedding party fired on US troops?
Iraqi wedding parties are not worth without shooting at US troops, it's their sense of entertainment
this is well known the world over
Oh, shooting at someone for entertainment is okay?

Sorry you didn't see that was humour

Or we can impose modernity and freedom on them.

Imposed freedom ? By force ? How can you call that freedom ?
May be your sense of humour ?

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-23 20:37:44

Okay, point by point.

Rape of a 15 year old boy preserves lives how?

Doesn't. Find them, try them, shoot them.

Forcing detainee's to wear maxi-pads protects US lives how?

Doesn't. Find them, try them, flog them. If it actually made some insurgent give up useful info, file that for later reference.

Having prisoners masturbate on command is really about keeping us safe, isn't it?

You know, there are prisoners at Gitmo that do that on their own, trying to irritate the guards. Maybe it wasn't the women guards trying to humiliate the prisoners, but the other way around. You see, the problem with the prisoner abuse story at the moment is that it's half anti-war spin. We don't know all the facts.

Hold on to the rifle Cobra, but put down the fervent nationality for a moment and call a spade a spade.

:laugh: I was called un-American today for the same piece of fervent nationalism. That damn perspective thing again. To some, not calling America 'all good' is un-American. To others, not calling it 'all bad' is fervent nationalism. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Quote
Not to mention that some of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib are criminals. The violent kind that victimize Iraqis.

Well, that may be, but it may not as well.

I know of at least three individual cases, two passed on to me first hand by people over there involved in the capture of these two goons (a thief/assault with intent, and a rapist) and a third passed on to me second hand. Somehow, I doubt those are flukes.

Again, I'm not defending the abuse!!! But when bad things happen to scumbags I don't get nearly as worked up about it. This is not the same as the US military wantonly toturing innocent Iraqi civilians. Torture some bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time, I'll call for heads to roll. Make a rapist stand naked with gator clips on his testicles and a bra on his head... I'm sorry if I'm not filled with overwhelming outrage and moral indignation at what horrible vicious bastards our soldiers are and what a terrible Nazi-like monster of a country we live in.

Should this crap be allowed, of course not. Should it be investigated as far as it goes, absolutely. But a few abuses at a prison outside Baghdad does not mean the entire war effort is a corrupt, torturing scam bent on conquest.

By the way, are you aware of some of the stuff that goes on in US prisons? Hmm, no one really gives a rats ass when it's American criminals being sodomized by inmates, forced to fight for the amusement of guards (it happens) or other such things, but when it happens under miltary watch as the direct result of a war which is unpopular with certain quarters all of a sudden there's outrage? Smell what you're standing in before you start slingin' it.

Well, that might mean something if the people who authorized these actions were brought to justice. But it's doubtful that they will. Some poor enlisted shmoes are going to take the fall.

We don't know that facts. Maybe it goes all the way to the Joint Chiefs, to Rumsfeld, to the CIA etc. Or maybe it really was a few enlisted shmoes, to use your words. I know that many people won't be satisfied unless an investigation reveals that when George Bush visited the troops in Iraq for Thanksgiving he personally went to Abu Ghraib prison and ordered the inmates to be humiliated in explicitly detailed instructions, then had pictures sent directly to him every day so he could laugh at the poor brown man with the bag on his head, but let's be realistic for a moment. We don't know how high it goes.

And another thing, we acted too fast going in after WMD's, yet now we should can the SecDef? What about more time, what about "inspections?" We just don't know the situation, as much as some like to pretend otherwise.

Bottom line? The example of ancient Athens is more appropriate to our current situation than the example of Rome.

Ah, Thucydides. Words of wisdom.

Well Bill, that's largely up to us as a nation. Always in motion is the future. There's a fine line between forgetting what we're fighting for and being so preoccupied with other matters that we lose.

Saddam supported terrorism at Israel, true, but never commited or supported any terrorist attack at any other Western country, and mainly not USA, remember, USAF patroled every day over Iraq, retaliation would have been so easy.

So terrorism is okay if it's against Israel?

See, the problem is that the anti-Israel groups are also anti-American. Sometimes when suicide bombers blow up busloads of Israelis, they kill an American or two as well. Rarely, but it happens. Even more to the point, there's a web of affiliations within the radical Islamic terrorist "community." Sometimes they help each other. Saddam, by supporting the enemies of our ally, an enemy who would just as soon attack us as Israel, is an enemy. With us or against us and all that.

But more importantly, our war isn't just against al Quaeda, but "terrorism" in general. It's one of those never-ending, open ended things like the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty." Talk about a waste of resources... I may not like the approach, but it's what we've committed to. Anything less would be morally shaky. For example, what if a terrorist group blew up a few buildings in Paris and the US took the position that "they did not attack us, so we don't care. Yes, we know they hate us too. But it's your problem now."

We could certainly scale it down and only fight those that attack us. But just wait until some new splinter group sets off a few bombs in Europe and the US declines to assist, then we'll see how supportive one is of the "they only attack X so it isn't your problem" position.

Quote
But is it really outside the realm of possibility that a wedding party fired on US troops?
Quote
Iraqi wedding parties are not worth without shooting at US troops, it's their sense of entertainment
this is well known the world over
Oh, shooting at someone for entertainment is okay?
Sorry you didn't see that was humour

Oh, I'm aware it was humor. But it actually isn't that far from reality, which makes it much less funny. A few drunken wedding guests with Kalashnikovs opening up on US troops, then getting killed in response is unfortunate, but what are the troops supposed to do? Bullets are hard to ignore when they're flying toward you.

Quote
Or we can impose modernity and freedom on them.
Imposed freedom ? By force ? How can you call that freedom ?
May be your sense of humour ?

Partly, but again it's not too far from reality. If we just leave, Iraq will not be free. They aren't ready for instant-democracy. These things take time. If we pull out now, they'll get some Mullah and everyone loses.

Bill White · 2004-05-23 21:59:48

So Cobra, what did the Athenians do wrong? They lost that war despite being the most powerful city-state in all Greece.

IMHO - - they failed to treat their allies with respect. They thought they were the most powerful of the alliance and therefore could treat other members of their coalition as subordinates, not partners.

Sound familiar? ???

Today's solution? Hug a European. Except for maybe Australia and Canada nobody on the planet shares our interests and values as closely as the Europeans.

= = =

Rumsfeld is said to be on the verge of banning digital cameras in the military.

BAD MOVE! - - IMHO - - if we seek to win hearts and minds.

I say issue a camera to every soldier and tell them to take pictures and throw it all on the internet, except stuff about locations and secret weapons.

And then enforce the guidelines for behavior Mundaka talked about earlier.

It worked for the police. Put a video camera in every squad car and allegations of police abuse go down not up.

Palomar · 2004-05-23 22:33:57

Cobra: In some mainstream media outlets an Iraqi prisoner with women's underwear on his head was treated as a bigger story, a bigger "war crime" than the beheading of Nick Berg. I'm just saying we need perspective, is all.
What was done at Abu Ghraib was a series of war crimes. Punishments should be swift and severe. But let's be clear, we are fighting an enemy with no respect for our lives. For our own sake and for the war effort, this stuff cannot be allowed. But were the roles reversed they would have no qualms about murdering, raping, or torturing every last American man, woman and child. Perspective.

*Agreed on all points. And not to forget that Nick Berg was an innocent civilian. There was more outrage in this nation about Janet's boob at SuperBowl Halftime than about Nick Berg, it seems. :-\ Perspective indeed (not to mention *priorities*).

Again, I'm not defending the abuse!!! ...
Should this crap be allowed, of course not. Should it be investigated as far as it goes, absolutely.

*I think you make this point very clearly, Cobra, throughout your posts. You're more fair and even-handed, IMO, than some folks seem to wish to credit you with.

As for the Iraqi wedding party debacle (or alleged); I heard from a news source yesterday that the incident may not have happened at all. We're so at the mercy of who reports back what, and why. :-\

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-05-24 07:47:30

Cindy, who killed Nick Berg?

Some radical wackos who desire for us to hate all Arabs. Whenever we use Nick Berg's death to downplay Abu Ghraib we give the terrorists exactly what they want.

Remember, the whole point of terrorism is to change the hearts and minds of the population being terrorized.

If we shrug off Abu Ghraib or convict a few lowly peons and sweep the rest under the rug WE will have changed as a people, for the worse.

Palomar · 2004-05-24 08:13:37

Bill: Cindy, who killed Nick Berg?
Some radical wackos who desire for us to hate all Arabs.

*How do you know that is their motive? Do serial rapists and killers victimize women in order to make women hate men? Or is it just because they're hateful scum who simply act out their hatred?

Bill: Whenever we use Nick Berg's death to downplay Abu Ghraib we give the terrorists exactly what they want.

*I don't believe I'm downplaying Abu Ghraib. I've repeatedly stated my loathing and anger at what's occurred there -- by certain U.S. soldiers, who are supposed to be setting a higher example (standard/ethic). But isn't it true that Janet Jackson's breast-baring incident during the Superbowl Halftime show provoked more outrage than Berg's decapitation? I think so, and it sure strikes me as beyond odd.

Bill:
If we shrug off Abu Ghraib or convict a few lowly peons and sweep the rest under the rug WE will have changed as a people, for the worse.

*Well, again, I don't believe I'm wishing for AG to be shrugged off (as per my posts over the past 1-1/2 weeks). I agree that if we do seek to do so, we will have worsened as a people, yes. And yes, we need to investigate the matter all the way up to the very top of the chain of command.

But apparently we're already worse, since Janet's boob is seemingly "more important" than Nick's head.

Cobra's right about *perspective*.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-05-24 08:13:54

Again, I'm not defending the abuse!!! But when bad things happen to scumbags I don't get nearly as worked up about it.

That's fine, and to be expected. However, these actions, by our troops, at the direction of senior leadership and/or military brass have now seriously impaired our goals in the middle east, and our strategic options. I want us to "win" just like any other red-white and blue american, but we can't do it like this.

Torture some bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time, I'll call for heads to roll.

This is precisely what I am calling for too. I'm sure a certain amount of cosmic karma justice is taking place, but I am also sure that we FUBAR'D and beat on people who didn't deserve it.

. But a few abuses at a prison outside Baghdad does not mean the entire war effort is a corrupt, torturing scam bent on conquest.

But it's not just there. It's happening in other places in Iraq. It's happening in Afghanistan. In Gitmo. In a dozen other spook houses that go unseen.

As an American living under the Patriot Act, this should scare the hell out of all of us. We get labled a "terroist", and we have no rights, no redress, and we disappear into legal limbo where they can treat us like any common criminal in Abu Ghraib.

By the way, are you aware of some of the stuff that goes on in US prisons?

I'm a bit familiar with the corruption of the california penal system out here. We have problems, but the thing is, we at least have some semblance of a legal system that allows redress for those harmed by correction officers. This is not the case in any country where we have troops on the ground.

We don't know that facts. Maybe it goes all the way to the Joint Chiefs, to Rumsfeld, to the CIA etc. Or maybe it really was a few enlisted shmoes, to use your words.

I've been reading some of the prison guards statements, and some of them are quoted as knowing that their actions were wrong, that it violated their own moral codes, but preceeded anyway. Now, the US military is great, but it dosen't inspire its uniformed men to go out and do things like this, against their better judgement, without a direct order or encouragement from higher ups. The higher ups got their orders from even higher up. Something like this, as persistent, and prevalent as it is showing to be, can only have come from Rummy or Cambone.

I know that many people won't be satisfied unless an investigation reveals that when George Bush visited the troops in Iraq for Thanksgiving he personally went to Abu Ghraib prison and ordered the inmates to be humiliated in explicitly detailed instructions, then had pictures sent directly to him every day so he could laugh at the poor brown man with the bag on his head, but let's be realistic for a moment.

I don't think Bush had a hand in it. I think Bush made a poor decision by not having more oversight in place over a system of torturing high value targets that devloved into what we are now seeing.

And another thing, we acted too fast going in after WMD's, yet now we should can the SecDef?

It would send a strong and clear message to the world that we don't tolerate this behavior or actions. Rummy is in charge of defense, and he is accountable. The war effort does not hinge on this one man, and his ouster will do more good for the war on terror now than his retention.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-24 08:18:37

If we shrug off Abu Ghraib or convict a few lowly peons and sweep the rest under the rug WE will have changed as a people, for the worse.

I hardly think it is Cindy's intent to "shrug off" Abu Ghraib. It certainly is not mine. But neither is Abu Ghraib the end-all of America's effort. Mistakes were made, abuses occured, we all understand that and want to get to the bottom of it. But fixating on it does us no good.

So Cobra, what did the Athenians do wrong? They lost that war despite being the most powerful city-state in all Greece.
IMHO - - they failed to treat their allies with respect. They thought they were the most powerful of the alliance and therefore could treat other members of their coalition as subordinates, not partners.

The danger in using historical analogies is that one can easily become locked into them. The United States is not Athens. Similarities exist, but history is not looped.

Is America treating its allies as subordinates? I'd say no. We aren't being subordinate to them but it's hardly the same thing. We asked them to help, some refused. No one was forced to assist us, no one is being punished for not assisting. Those that didn't join the fight are not reaping the spoils (reconstruction contracts and the like) but they've lost nothing. Well, there's that "oil for food" kickback and some now worthless Iraqi oil-futures given by the Saddam government... :;):

America acted, some allies went with us, others refused. Fine. It hardly means we're "abusing" our power or on the verge of being engulfed by a deluge of angry, oppressed neighbors. We could still end up that way if we get worse, but as it stands... no.

As for your suggestion of issuing digital cameras, I'm in agreement. If we have nothing to hide it couldn't hurt.

Bill White · 2004-05-24 08:24:38

Bill: Cindy, who killed Nick Berg?
Some radical wackos who desire for us to hate all Arabs.
*How do you know that is their motive? Do serial rapists and killers victimize women in order to make women hate men? Or is it just because they're hateful scum who simply act out their hatred?

If you are right, then we should fight terrorism with police, not soldiers.

= = =

The fact that more Arab government do not vehemently condemn the deaths of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl tells me that we are LOSING the Psychological War and losing it badly.

Maybe they shrug their shoulders at Berg and Pearl because we shrug our shoulders at the civilians we killed with bombs and gunships. Wedding parties come to mind.

= = =

bin Laden is too smart to act out of pure hatred. He is cunning and none of his terror deaths happen without a purpose.

al Qaeda is a master at theater. NOTHNG is random.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-24 08:48:15

Quote
And another thing, we acted too fast going in after WMD's, yet now we should can the SecDef?

It would send a strong and clear message to the world that we don't tolerate this behavior or actions. Rummy is in charge of defense, and he is accountable. The war effort does not hinge on this one man, and his ouster will do more good for the war on terror now than his retention.

He is accountable if he ordered it or condoned it. Otherwise, you're talking about symbolism over substance.

As an American living under the Patriot Act, this should scare the hell out of all of us. We get labled a "terroist", and we have no rights, no redress, and we disappear into legal limbo where they can treat us like any common criminal in Abu Ghraib.

Indeed it does.

I'm a bit familiar with the corruption of the california penal system out here. We have problems, but the thing is, we at least have some semblance of a legal system that allows redress for those harmed by correction officers. This is not the case in any country where we have troops on the ground.

Why clark, it almost sounds as if you're shrugging off prisoner abuse in American prisons. We allow redress, after all...

Can we agree that in both cases the conduct is unacceptable and focus on correcting it rather than stewing over how horrible we are as a people?

If you are right, then we should fight terrorism with police, not soldiers.

Uhm, no. Police respond after a crime is committed to investigate and apprehend, contrary to popular misconception. Is that really the approach we want to take to terrorism, finding the bad guys after they've killed a few hundred or thousand people? I don't think so.

al Qaeda is a master at theater. NOTHNG is random.

And they quickly adjust to setbacks and mistakes. We are proving inept in that regard.

Bill White · 2004-05-24 08:55:26

No one was forced to assist us, no one is being punished for not assisting

Heh! Ask the Europeans. Freedom fries? What the heck was that all about?

= = =

Scan the headlines. . .

US denies this and US denies that and

China and Brazil reach strategic agreement.

clark · 2004-05-24 08:58:24

Why clark, it almost sounds as if you're shrugging off prisoner abuse in American prisons. We allow redress, after all...
Can we agree that in both cases the conduct is unacceptable and focus on correcting it rather than stewing over how horrible we are as a people?

I'm not shrugging it off, I'm pointing out an obvious difference.

I'm not suggesting we are horrible people, just like I'm not faulting you for your point of view on this. I just happen to think the most expedient method to resolve this mess is to get rid of Bush, and continue with the same policies we have now (more or less). Yeah, a bit of it is symbolism, but in a war on terror, where there is little substance to fight, what other choice is there?

We will gain more friends and allies on the war on terror with someone other than Bush. He divides the world, and he pushes some who might help us away by dint of being just himself. Retaining Bush at this point will only make our job that much harder. So why do it? I see little relevant difference in either canadite running for President, so why not choose one that has less baggage associated with him so we can move forward, faster?

Palomar · 2004-05-24 09:07:36

Bill:
The fact that more Arab government do not vehemently condemn the deaths of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl tells me that we are LOSING the Psychological War and losing it badly.

*Since when do Arab governments care about NON-Arabs getting killed? I've yet to see Arab gov'ts (perhaps with the exception of Jordan) "vehemently condemning" the deaths of non-Arabs. And why would they? We're "satanic infidels," after all, who deserve to die -- to their minds.

And given their hatred of Israelis/Jews, it's no wonder (to me) why Arab gov'ts aren't vehemently condemning the deaths of Pearl and Berg...who were both Jewish.

Bill: Maybe they shrug their shoulders at Berg and Pearl because we shrug our shoulders at the civilians we killed with bombs and gunships. Wedding parties come to mind.

*Your stance on this stymies me a bit. No one *here* (New Mars) is shrugging off anything, so far as I can see. The Arab gov'ts can shrug away...from where I'm standing, that's exactly what they did regarding the U.S.S. Cole and all the terrorist hijackings, rapes and murders of airline pilots, stewardesses, and passengers all throughout the 1970s and 1980s. We weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan *then.* So what's their excuse/explanation for *those* incidents? I know, wave the Palestinian flag around...

Bill:
bin Laden is too smart to act out of pure hatred. He is cunning and none of his terror deaths happen without a purpose.
al Qaeda is a master at theater. NOTHNG is random.

*Well, I certainly don't doubt that bin Laden is a genius as terror tactics and etc. go. But I can't believe -- knowing humans in general -- that all terrorist cells/groups over there are composed entirely of genius-IQ masterminds. Doubtless some of them are rag-tag wannabe nose-picking goobers who simply like carnage, explosives, and destruction for the sake of carnage, explosives, and destruction. Copy-cat stuff.

There needs to be a nasty shakeup/shakedown investigation to the top of the chain of command, prison time, stripping of rank, expulsion from military service, of persons involvedetc., etc., because of the prison scandal. No doubt about it. That situation angers me greatly, has bothered me immensely. U.S. soldiers were supposed to be setting a positive example, demonstrating our claims to moral superiority. They screwed up beyond comprehension. But I'm not going to sweep under the rug all the terrorist incidents revolving around Western airliners and etc. in the 1970s and 1980s.

Although the U.S. has done wrong at times, I definitely -don't-believe everything we've faced over these past 4 decades especially can be because we "deserve it" somehow or totally "brought it upon ourselves."

By the way, going back to Berg and Pearl. Remember the cruise ship hijacking around 1984 or 1985? When those terrorists tossed a wheelchair-bound man overboard and he of course subsequently drowned? He was Jewish.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-24 09:30:36

I'm not shrugging it off, I'm pointing out an obvious difference.

So in that case, now that the Abu Ghraib abuses are public, some people are being released while some military personnel are disciplined, now that there is review and redress it's all cool now. No harm, no foul.
???

Just trying to find the thread of consistency.

We will gain more friends and allies on the war on terror with someone other than Bush. He divides the world, and he pushes some who might help us away by dint of being just himself. Retaining Bush at this point will only make our job that much harder. So why do it? I see little relevant difference in either canadite running for President, so why not choose one that has less baggage associated with him so we can move forward, faster?

Well, since you ask. A: I do not believe that Kerry will fight the war in the manner that it demands. He will do what the UN and the Europeans want him to do, not bring them around to us.

B: I'm not just voting on the war. Despite Bush's numerous grievous lapses of judgement domestically, he's still better than the arch-liberal Kerry, from my perspective. Two bad packages, so I'm looking at the individual contents.

Heh! Ask the Europeans. Freedom fries? What the heck was that all about?

That's hardly on par with the Athenians.

US denies this and US denies that and
China and Brazil reach strategic agreement.

We are not the only country "denying" and the Chinese have been angling for a bigger piece for awhile, as has Brazil in its own sphere.

*Your stance on this stymies me a bit. No one *here* (New Mars) is shrugging off anything, so far as I can see. The Arab gov'ts can shrug away...from where I'm standing, that's exactly what they did regarding the U.S.S. Cole and all the terrorist hijackings, rapes and murders of airline pilots, stewardesses, and passengers all throughout the 1970s and 1980s. We weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan *then.* So what's their excuse/explanation for *those* incidents? I know, wave the Palestinian flag around...

Exactly, Cindy. They hate us, it's not a rational thing. Anyone remember shortly after 9/11 when one of the big gripes was that we had troops in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? All that crap about infidel soldiers in the holy land. We left. Surprise, they still want to blow us to hell.

Let's acknowledge our mistakes and injustices, correct them as much as possible, and move on with what we've gotta do. Is that really so hard? Is it really so 'evil'?

Bill White · 2004-05-24 09:35:00

Bill:
The fact that more Arab government do not vehemently condemn the deaths of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl tells me that we are LOSING the Psychological War and losing it badly.
*Since when do Arab governments care about NON-Arabs getting killed? I've yet to see Arab gov'ts (perhaps with the exception of Jordan) "vehemently condemning" the deaths of non-Arabs. And why would they? We're "satanic infidels," after all, who deserve to die -- to their minds.

Then it is the West vs Islam? Or all Arabs?

And given their hatred of Israelis/Jews, it's no wonder (to me) why Arab gov'ts aren't vehemently condemning the deaths of Pearl and Berg...who were both Jewish.

Israel is a convenient scapegoat drummed up by corrupt leaders to keep the Arab people from being angry at their own leaders.

Lets not play into their hands and make it easier for them to do that.

Bill: Maybe they shrug their shoulders at Berg and Pearl because we shrug our shoulders at the civilians we killed with bombs and gunships. Wedding parties come to mind.
*Your stance on this stymies me a bit. No one *here* (New Mars) is shrugging off anything, so far as I can see. The Arab gov'ts can shrug away...from where I'm standing, that's exactly what they did regarding the U.S.S. Cole and all the terrorist hijackings, rapes and murders of airline pilots, stewardesses, and passengers all throughout the 1970s and 1980s. We weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan *then.* So what's their excuse/explanation for *those* incidents? I know, wave the Palestinian flag around...

Abu Ghraib is part of a larger picture involving similiar stuff in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo.

The soldier who gave CBS the Abu Ghraib photos tried to contact many Congressmen first and none were interested. the idea that a vigorous investigation had been ongoing is ridiculous.

A US general says General Sanchez was present during abuse. He denies it. But when I heard that I recalled President Bush saying there were no plans to invade Iraq "on his desk" - - no, those plans were on the credenza.

Sanchez didn't witness "abuse" - - maybe he was present for "stress and duress"

Denial of the seriousness of Abu Ghraib reaches high into the chain of command. Court martials of a few peons is hardly sufficient.

Now, Rumsfeld wants to ban digital cameras. Why? so we can do stuff and not have any evidence.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-05-22 17:29:26

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#27 2004-05-22 20:39:14

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#28 2004-05-23 01:51:20

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#29 2004-05-23 02:14:01

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#30 2004-05-23 05:59:39

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#31 2004-05-23 08:10:29

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#32 2004-05-23 08:12:35

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#33 2004-05-23 10:26:00

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#34 2004-05-23 10:26:56

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#35 2004-05-23 10:40:59

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#36 2004-05-23 20:37:44

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#37 2004-05-23 21:59:48

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#38 2004-05-23 22:33:57

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#39 2004-05-24 07:47:30

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#40 2004-05-24 08:13:37

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#41 2004-05-24 08:13:54

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#42 2004-05-24 08:18:37

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#43 2004-05-24 08:24:38

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#44 2004-05-24 08:48:15

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#45 2004-05-24 08:55:26

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#46 2004-05-24 08:58:24

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#47 2004-05-24 09:07:36

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#48 2004-05-24 09:30:36

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#49 2004-05-24 09:35:00

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

Board footer