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

Bill White · 2004-05-25 06:56:56

Assuming higher level officers were involved. Don't get me wrong, I believe this goes up the chain. How far I can't say, and those involved should be punished. But so far I have seen photographs of a few "low ranking servicemen and women" laughing and abusing prisoners... and no concrete evidence to implicate anyone higher up. Doesn't mean it isn't out there and I'll gladly look it over, but we can't go casting blame up the line based solely on our belief that these 'grunts' couldn't come up with this on their own. Prove specific CIA personell ordered it, prove the division commander knew and condoned it, prove Rumsfeld approved it. Otherwise, there's no basis for further action.

The Arabs are the JURY on this that matters.

American public opinion is irrelevant. Frankly, the objective truth is "somewhat" irrelevant.

The VAST majority of moderate Arabs must feel justice was done concerning Abu Ghraib. If moderate Arabs cannot discuss how we handled Abu Ghraib with respect for how we handled it, we have lost.

And if we cannot offer security so the moderate Arabs can voice their opinion without getting a terrorist bullet, we lose anyways.

More soldiers. Just like some generals said before the war and got villified or fired for saying it.

= = =

On the security side - - we must protect our collaborators - -which we have not done sufficiently well.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-25 07:14:33

The Arabs are the JURY on this that matters.
American public opinion is irrelevant. Frankly, the objective truth is "somewhat" irrelevant.

And therein lies the problem. If we treat this as a legitimate investigation we risk alienating large segments of the Islamic world. If we take the other route, that of 'propaganda war,' we may 'win the hearts and minds' in time. But we'll have to, in essence, lie to them. In order to be viewed as 'honorable' in their eyes we have to act dishonorably, which may come back to bite us.

Roll some heads, but make sure they're the right heads.

And if we cannot offer security so the moderate Arabs can voice their opinion without getting a terrorist bullet, we lose anyways.

Yes, this is of paramount importance. And it will likely entail, at least in the short term, a ramping-up of the occupation. Increased presence of American and Coalition troops, preferably in a more humanizing, 'cop on the beat' manner than is presently the case.

A few days back I was flipping through a book on the Iraq war, filled with photographs. One page showed a group of US soldiers with Kevlar helmets and flak jackets standing on a street. The next page I flipped to had a photo of British soldiers in camo pants and t-shirts playing soccer with a group of Iraqis. We may need more troops, but more importantly we need a fundamental change in our presence.

Bill White · 2004-05-25 07:24:49

The Arabs are the JURY on this that matters.
American public opinion is irrelevant. Frankly, the objective truth is "somewhat" irrelevant.
And therein lies the problem. If we treat this as a legitimate investigation we risk alienating large segments of the Islamic world. If we take the other route, that of 'propaganda war,' we may 'win the hearts and minds' in time. But we'll have to, in essence, lie to them. In order to be viewed as 'honorable' in their eyes we have to act dishonorably, which may come back to bite us.

This is why Abu Ghraib is such a disaster.

Roll some heads, but make sure they're the right heads.

If President Bush sticks with the "Brahimi names the leaders" I predict the neo-cons will suggest GWB's head roll so they can re-load for 2008.

If I were a neo-con (hey, can someone write song lyrics to the tune of If I were a rich man?)

If I were a neo-con, Kerry in 2004 is probably a good thing looking forward to 2008. And a Machiavellian might suggest Hillary wants GWB to win, no matter what she says in public.

B:And if we cannot offer security so the moderate Arabs can voice their opinion without getting a terrorist bullet, we lose anyways.
C:Yes, this is of paramount importance. And it will likely entail, at least in the short term, a ramping-up of the occupation. Increased presence of American and Coalition troops, preferably in a more humanizing, 'cop on the beat' manner than is presently the case.
A few days back I was flipping through a book on the Iraq war, filled with photographs. One page showed a group of US soldiers with Kevlar helmets and flak jackets standing on a street. The next page I flipped to had a photo of British soldiers in camo pants and t-shirts playing soccer with a group of Iraqis. We may need more troops, but more importantly we need a fundamental change in our presence.

Exactly!

But will we do that?

Had we been doing this from the beginning, my support of the war would be much higher. Its classic liberal policy to use military force to bring freedom and justice to the world.

= = =

But like John McCain said in another context:

"Vision without strategy is illusion."

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-25 07:55:36

I agree that Abu Ghraib is 'disastrous,' but I've maintained that we simply have to deal with it now. Who's heads roll and how many? What's the ideal balance between truly punishing the offenders and sending the right message to the Muslim world. I don't claim to know the answer to that, largely because I don't have all the facts. For example, if Rumsfeld truly is responsible, we need to punish him. If not, I don't think we can in good conscience force him out solely for symbolism. If he can be persuaded to go along with it, fine but I've never been one to advocate punishing convenient scapegoats.

I'm not saying that's what you're suggesting, merely that it's a possible outcome we need to watch out for.

If I were a neo-con (hey, can someone write song lyrics to the tune of If I were a rich man?)

:laugh: Yeah, that shouldn't be so hard. Of course maybe clark should do it, too many people think I am a neo-con.

If I were a neo-con, Kerry in 2004 is probably a good thing looking forward to 2008. And a Machiavellian might suggest Hillary wants GWB to win, no matter what she says in public.

Both of these assertions are, in my mind unquestionably true.

Exactly!
But will we do that?

Unfortunately, probably not. It's not a function so much of who is in the White House or the number of troops on the ground, but of the attitudes of American soldiers and our general unfamiliarity with this sort of thing.

I'd argue that we not only need to protect the Iraqis from terrorists and criminals, but that we need to allow them to be free. I don't mean we rush into national elections, but that we appoint some Prefect (who actually has lived there and is respected by the people), let local areas elect their leaders (as many do already) and basically leave the average citizen alone. Introduce them to the benefits of modern, western life without trying to ram the alien idea of 'Democracy' down their throats too quickly. We'll need more troops, they'll have to interact with the locals while not encased in Kevlar, and we'll have to take more control in certain sectors of government.

We may have to, as odd as it sounds, impose freedom. Not the perfect solution, but a workable one given the current situation.

Bill White · 2004-05-25 08:09:56

Whoa!

The Swiss win the America's Cup, the best rapper is white, the best golfer is black and Bill White agrees with a Cobra post.

Time to fly to Vegas and put some money on the Cubbies winning the World Series!

But during that flight, Rapture!

Palomar · 2004-05-25 08:26:28

*Any ideas/speculation who Kerry will pick as his running-mate? And isn't that decision due soon?

--Cindy

clark · 2004-05-25 08:40:42

Per your off-handed request...

Dear God, you made many, many liberal dems.
I realize, of course, that it's no shame to be liberal
But it's no great honor either!
So, what would have been so terrible if I had great power?"

If I were a neo-con,
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba leedle leedle lon.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bon.
If I were a powerful neo con.
I wouldn't have to listen.
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle don.
If I were a biddy biddy neo,
Yidle-diddle-didle-didle con.

I'd invade backward nations by the dozen,
and flatten every little town.
A fine jack-boot to crush them all below.
While shouting for them to, "just give up,"
I'd smile as they were beat down,
And give them democracy, just for show.

I'd fill my Administration with Chicken-Hawks and a token dove
For the world to see and fear.
And each loud "Crusade" and "Terrorism" and "9/11" and "WMD"
Would land like a trumpet on the ear,
As if to say "Here comes a neo con!"

If I were a neo-con,
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba leedle leedle lon.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bon.
If I were a powerful neo con.
I wouldn't have to listen.
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle don.
If I were a biddy biddy neo,
Yidle-diddle-didle-didle con.

I see my land, my US, looking like a neo cons land
With a proper military win.
Ordering the world around to our heart's delight.
I see the US taking its share and strutting like a peacock.
Oy, so many happy days then!
Making the world fear us, day and night.

The most important freedoms would be taken away!
Liberal Democrats, I wouldn't have to listen to them,
Or keep up this Democratic "guise".
"Do as I say, lazy american..."
"Worship my god, heathen unbeliever..."
That would be a wonderful sight for God's eyes!
And it won't make one bit of difference if i answer right or wrong.
When you're neo con, they will have no rights!

If I were neo con, I'd have the time that I lack
To sit in the Oval Office and pray.
And maybe demolish the Eastern wall.
And I'd make the holy book taught to all children, several hours every day.
That would be the sweetest thing of all.

If I were a neo-con,
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba leedle leedle lon.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bon.
If I were a powerful neo con.
I wouldn't have to listen.
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle don.
If I were a biddy biddy neo,
Yidle-diddle-didle-didle con.

careful what you ask for.

DonPanic · 2004-05-25 09:27:18

LO

Do you deny to one people the right to rule his homeland his own and to revolt against foreign military pressure ?
With regards to Israel/Palestine, who's 'homeland' it is is largely a question of how far back one chooses to look.

A Bible, hold by Varsaw, Brooklyn or Paris Jews cannot stand for a property bill on Palestine. If you look too far back, you should give back all America to native Americans

clark · 2004-05-25 09:31:47

How long will you punish me for my fathers crime?

clark · 2004-05-25 09:50:21

Palomar · 2004-05-25 09:55:01

My problem with Abu Ghraib and our reaction is well expressed with this:
(On Abu Ghraib) the law will read "harsh to the small, soft for the great".
That is Bush's own maxim - as he tonight said that he would permit the entire blame for Abu Ghraib to fall on a few low ranking servicemen and women, while the officers that ordered and planned the torture and war crimes there will be let off without penalty.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … _5]Sanchez & Karpinski punished

*How severe a punishment is this for them?

DonPanic: My great-great grandmother was Native American...otherwise, total white girl here. So, in the event all whites return to Europe, I'm going either to Denmark or England (where most of my mother's family came from), or the Czech Republic/Slovakia (father's side of the family).

Do you suppose Europe has enough room for all us white folks to "return home"? From population density maps I've seen, you have enough congestion over there! Not to mention white Canadians having to "return home" to Europe as well. Good luck to all of us!

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-05-25 09:57:32

LO
Do you deny to one people the right to rule his homeland his own and to revolt against foreign military pressure ?
With regards to Israel/Palestine, who's 'homeland' it is is largely a question of how far back one chooses to look.
A Bible, hold by Varsaw, Brooklyn or Paris Jews cannot stand for a property bill on Palestine. If you look too far back, you should give back all America to native Americans

From Wikipedia:

The view taken by the rulers of these nations is epitomised by the quotation attributed to Francis I of France demanding to be shown the clause in Adam's will excluding his authority from the New World.

The Treaty of Tordesillas (signed at Tordesillas (Castile), June 7, 1494) divided the world outside of Europe in an exclusive duopoly between the Spanish and the Portuguese along a north-south meridian 370 leagues (1770 km) west of the Cape Verde Islands (off the coast of Senegal in West Africa), roughly 46° 37' W. The lands to the east would belong to Portugal and the lands to the west to Spain. The treaty was ratified by Spain, July 2, and by Portugal, September 5, 1494.
It was intended to resolve the dispute that had been created following the return of Christopher Columbus. In 1481 the papal Bull Aeterni regis had granted all land south of the Canary Islands to Portugal. In May 1493 The Spanish born Pope Alexander VI decreed in the Bull Inter caetera that all lands west of a meridian only 100 leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands should belong to Spain while new lands discovered east of that line would belong to Portugal, although territory already under Christian rule would remain untouched. Naturally the Portuguese King John II was not happy, so he opened negotiations with King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain to move the line to the west, arguing that the meridian would extend all around the globe - limiting Spanish control in Asia. The treaty effectively countered the bull of Alexander VI but it was sanctioned by Pope Julius II in a new bull of 1506.
Very little of the newly divided area had actually been seen, as it was divided according to the treaty. Spain gained lands including all the Americas. The Easternmost part of current Brazil, when it was discovered in 1500 by Pedro Alvarez Cabral, was granted to Portugal. Although the line extended into Asia, at the time accurate measurements of longitude was impossible so uncertainties arose. The line was not strictly enforced - the Spanish did not resist the Portuguese expansion of Brazil across the meridian.
The remaining exploring nations of Europe such as France, England, and the Netherlands were explicitly refused access to the new lands, leaving them only options like piracy, unless they (as they did later) rejected the papal authority to divide undiscovered countries. The view taken by the rulers of these nations is epitomised by the quotation attributed to Francis I of France demanding to be shown the clause in Adam's will excluding his authority from the New World.
With the voyage around the globe of Magellan, a new dispute was born. Although both countries agreed that the line should be considered to be running around the globe, dividing the world in two equal halves, it was not clear where the line should be drawn on the other side of the world. In particular, both countries claimed that the Moluccas (important as a source of spices) lay in their half of the world. After new negotiations, the Treaty of Saragossa of April 22, 1529 decided that the line should lay 297.5 leagues west of the Moluccas. Spain got a monetary compensation in return.

Property rights for Israel, property rights on Mars. . .

A tangled web to be sure.

Bill White · 2004-05-25 10:00:44

My problem with Abu Ghraib and our reaction is well expressed with this:
(On Abu Ghraib) the law will read "harsh to the small, soft for the great".
That is Bush's own maxim - as he tonight said that he would permit the entire blame for Abu Ghraib to fall on a few low ranking servicemen and women, while the officers that ordered and planned the torture and war crimes there will be let off without penalty.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … _5]Sanchez & Karpinski punished
*How severe a punishment is this for them?

Last night, on the cable talk shows, I heard several Republicans stress that Sanchez was being moved for normal rotational reasons and might be given a 4th star to become a 4 star general.

Karpinski? The female Army Reserve officer who was denied access to parts of the Abu Ghraib prison by civilian military intelligence (so she says - its disputed) will be hung out to dry.

Okay, you make the call. . .

= = =

Edit: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic … ]Karpinski v Sanchez

A he said / she said?

= = =

Edit #2: Yup. http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld … ines]Abuse is isolated.

clark · 2004-05-25 10:19:32

A he said / she said?

Ain't it always?

Wait for the feminist to rally around Karpinski and against the old boys club, embodied by the treatment and promotion of Sanchez.

Perhaps Martha Stweart and Karpinski can write a book or start a magazine together about their experiences of fighting the machinations of men. :laugh:

I doubt Karpinski was looking the other way on purpose, unless she was ordered to, or had no choice. I think the same with Sanchez. I bet they were aware on some level, but someone higher up gave them their marching orders.

Now who can give these generals orders? :hm:

Palomar · 2004-05-25 11:07:20

Edit #2: Yup. http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld … ines]Abuse is isolated.

*This is extremely disturbing, all the way around.

"In the interview, Baker said that as part of the training drill, he was given an orange detainee jumpsuit to wear and turned over to four soldiers."

*WHY? I don't see an adequate explanation in the article -- if there can be an "explanation." If this story is true, was it some sort of psychological experiment similar to situations where 1/2 a group of people are given power over the remainder of the group ("pretend")?

"Baker said the soldiers beat and choked him, stopping when they saw he was wearing parts of an Army uniform."

*Why would his superiors make Baker do this? Set up to be beaten perhaps because he didn't fit in somehow? This is beyond sadistic.

I don't get it. Stuff like this is so hard to comprehend.

--Cindy

Mundaka · 2004-05-25 23:40:22

Bill White · 2004-05-26 08:23:55

Think about it this way -- do we scream bloody murder if a European country elects somebody we don't like?

Frankly? Yes we do.

Zapatero comes to mind. The morning of the Spanish election Condi Rice told Meet the Press quite bluntly that the US favors the incumbent party; and

How many Americans have been screaming that Zapatero's victory was a win for terrorism?

clark · 2004-05-26 08:33:36

Frankly, most Americans can't even point out where Europe is on a map. :laugh:

"The problem with travelling overseas is that there are just too many damn foreigners!"

My impression, but we Americans tend to come off as believing we are "the center of the universe," to other nationalities.

Which just pisses the frogs off to no end, because they know they are.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-26 08:43:47

Frankly? Yes we do.
Zapatero comes to mind. The morning of the Spanish election Condi Rice told Meet the Press quite bluntly that the US favors the incumbent party; and
How many Americans have been screaming that Zapatero's victory was a win for terrorism?

Well, it sorta was. And Zapatero was supported, in large part, in response to US policy.

under normal circumstances Americans in general neither know nor care who the Prime Minister of Great Britain, President of France or Chancellor of Germany are. Hell, I'm hard pressed to find someone who can name the Prime Minister of Canada and I live on the border! Europeans, in general do know and have strong opinions regarding the sitting US President. It comes with being the world's only superpower.

Quote
Non-intevention in everyone's business compared to US ?
Well, do they have a choice? Think about it this way: They don't hesitate to use legal means to try and interfere in our internal politics, and when Europe had military power they used it liberally. I don't think this is a valid point.

Excellent point, Mundaka. I've repeatedly stated this same thing. If either France or Germany (to use two examples) were the greatest power on Earth and they lectured us while restraining themselves I'd give it serious weight. As it stands, they aren't strong enough now, and when they were they didn't exactly distinguish themselves in the annals of civility and diplomatic resolution of conflict. What's that hollow ringing sound I hear...

For a dominant power, the United States of America has been incredibly benign and reserved in historical context.

My impression, but we Americans tend to come off as believing we are "the center of the universe," to other nationalities.
Which just pisses the frogs off to no end, because they know they are.

:laugh:

clark · 2004-05-26 08:48:13

Benign if you don't count the genocide, the use of nuclear weapons, and the support of oppressive regimes to better facilitate the exploitation of the natural wealth of other countries.

We consider ourselves "benign" because we have usually won. Afterall, history is written by the victor. Usually because the losers are all dead.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-26 08:59:11

We consider ourselves "benign" because we have usually won. Afterall, history is written by the victor. Usually because the losers are all dead.

If given the choice between being invaded by the United States or Russia, France, Germany, China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc. on and on, I'll choose the US. Yes, we killed a buttload of people and took their land, before we were a major power. We nuked Japan twice, which I might add probably saved countless lives on both sides. We had all of Europe at our feet... and we rebuilt it all and gave it back, even hung around to protect 'em from the Russkis. Yep, we're monsters all right.

Considering what we could have done... What others have done... Not too bad.

Palomar · 2004-05-26 09:08:36

*Good show! Let's wallow around in a bit of self-loathing today!

I am ~~Eeeeeeevilllll~~ because I am an American.

There, does everyone feel better?

And hey, I can point out MANY cities (even smaller ones) on the global map.

--Cindy <-- Evil Yankee

::EDIT:: Let's all get a big pinata made in the shape of the U.S.A., get together and beat the living daylights out of it! Let's demonstrate our self-loathing!

clark · 2004-05-26 09:13:08

Such a small imagination Cobra.

I choose Jamaica. "Pass the duche on the left hand side." :laugh:

Yes, we killed a buttload of people and took their land, before we were a major power.

Just a side note, I was watching that PBS Colonial House (I just feel soooo smart and better than everyone else when watching PBS) and they had some militant indians on to give the alternative perspective on the what the colonization of America meant.

Really, we can't blame ourselves now for what happened, but we should be asking what we can learn from those events, and whether or not it's something we are proud of. Too often, people just give it a mental shrug.

We nuked Japan twice, which I might add probably saved countless lives on both sides.

Once again, perhaps it was the best thing to do at the time. Perhaps condeming generations of innocent japanese with the lingering effects of those weapons was worth it. But then, I hear the same Americans casually call for the obliteration of the middle east with "tiny suns." It just seems we have not learned to temper our expanding ability with our hard won experience.

We had all of Europe at our feet... and we rebuilt it all and gave it back, even hung around to protect 'em from the Russkis.

Self interest of course. Hang together, or hang seperately. We seem to know that lesson. :;):

clark · 2004-05-26 09:14:08

I would settle for a Cindy shaped pinata. :laugh:

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-26 09:23:04

Thank you Cindy, we needed that.

I'll go one further. Let's look at what happened before and learn from it. Let's be even better people for it. But we've had difficult choices... and I'm not sorry!

Yes! I'm not sorry my ancestors stole a whole continent. I'm not sorry they dropped two nukes. With power comes responsibility and it isn't easy. But I'm not sorry we have achieved it.

EDIT:

I would settle for a Cindy shaped pinata.

Uhm... What? Such an un-PC thing to say, implying the beating of an opposition voice,. We'll make a neo-con out of you yet, clark.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-05-25 06:56:56

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

#77 2004-05-25 07:14:33

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

#78 2004-05-25 07:24:49

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

#79 2004-05-25 07:55:36

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

#80 2004-05-25 08:09:56

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

#81 2004-05-25 08:26:28

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

#82 2004-05-25 08:40:42

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

#83 2004-05-25 09:27:18

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

#84 2004-05-25 09:31:47

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

#85 2004-05-25 09:50:21

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

#86 2004-05-25 09:55:01

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

#87 2004-05-25 09:57:32

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

#88 2004-05-25 10:00:44

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

#89 2004-05-25 10:19:32

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

#90 2004-05-25 11:07:20

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

#91 2004-05-25 23:40:22

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

#92 2004-05-26 08:23:55

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

#93 2004-05-26 08:33:36

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

#94 2004-05-26 08:43:47

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

#95 2004-05-26 08:48:13

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

#96 2004-05-26 08:59:11

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

#97 2004-05-26 09:08:36

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

#98 2004-05-26 09:13:08

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

#99 2004-05-26 09:14:08

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

#100 2004-05-26 09:23:04

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

Board footer