I’ve got people on other threads claiming that Iraq could turn out just like Japan…without giving nod to what it took to make Japan turn out like Japan.
Meanwhile, Iraq has apparently been screening “The Untouchables.” “They pull a knife, you pull a gun. They send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue. That’s the Chicago Way, and that’s how you get Capone.”
We tortured and tormented their soldiers in a prison camp.
Their response is to cut off the head of a civilian and crow about it on videotape.
So they want to go the Chicago Way? Americans want Iraq to turn out like Japan?
Okay. So we come back with not just the Chicago Way, but the “Aliens” way. We stop screwing around. We pull out all our troops and nuke them from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure, right? As soon as the last of our people are out of range, we give Iraq dawn at night. If people on both sides are going to toss aside rules, regulations and humanity in favor of one culture dominating another, it’s time to stop pussyfooting around, right? Truman dropped Fatman and Little Boy in order to save the lives of thousands of American soldiers from an extended land war. So why are American lives now any less valuable?
Right? Am I right?
Someone tell me, because I really don’t know.
PAD
• 
Nuke ’em ’til they glow sounds good in the abstract, but why replace one atrocity with another? I’ve thought from the beginning that we had no exit strategy in this enterprise, and it pains me every day we are still there that I am right.
The best thing we can do is put on our best game face, put the soldiers on trial, and recognize that hostilities don’t end with a declaration on an aircraft carrier. But since we all live in the real world, just getting the hëll outta there would be nice.
For all the hand-wringing we’ve done since, I defy anyone to argue that dropping those bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn’t exactly what needed to be done at that point in time to save lives and end the war. If we hadn’t done it, combat would have lasted at least another two years and 1946-Japan would have looked a whole heckuva lot like 2004-Iraq, at least as far as American soliders were concerned. Whether that means we should nuke Iraq from the sky right now…I dunno. The world’s a vastly more complicated place than it was 60 years ago. But I do know that your comments PAD, perhaps meant to be faciteous, should not be summarily dismissed without some careful consideration. Anyone know where Jack Bauer stands on the issue?
*************************
“Nobody holds a grudge like the Japs.” –Kill Bill Vol. 2
It’s pretty much turned into ” An eye for an eye until we are all blind ” type of situation. It’s sad really.
Personally, not sure that Iraq could be like Japan, the mindset of the Muslim extremists just seems to rule that possibility out. (I’m NOT saying all Muslims, only the extremists, radicals that DON’T represent the majority of the folks that practice the Muslim faith.)
I do notice that the terrorists that carried out the beheading are hiding their faces. To me that means that either they are afraid of what others that they are close to would think of their actions, or that they are only brave when their identities are hidden from view. Horrible act, and the acts of cowards by killing a civilian and not an armed member of the military. Terrorists, same as the ones that carry out the acts in Gaza and the West Bank.
I’m just so mad right now that I’m not sure I’m making sense, but I have to get it off my chest somewhere.
jeff
Joking, right?
First off, who are the “they”? You seem to think that only Iraqi exiles are with us. The rest are against us. Such thinking makes it more acceptable to contemplate actions as unconscionable as nuking an entire population for the actions of a group of people who are highly unlikely to have the support of even a fraction of the population.
The killing of Mr. Berg was claimed by al-Zarqawi, a lieutenant of bin Laden. I see no reason to kill civilian Iraqis just to show Zarqawi we mean business.
At any rate, why assume that “They” killed Berg because “We” abused prisoners. Putting aside the fact that “we” did no such thing–a few sadist soldiers did, as their ilk have done in every war, it’s not like this isn’t pretty much the Daniel Pearl video all over again. Were they psychic when they did an OJ on Mr. Pearl? This is what they DO.
Since it was correctly deemed important to show Americans and the world the photos of US soldiers abusing prisoners I’m sure that the Republican Attack Machine friendly media will be in a rush to show us the full horror of the Berg video, right?
I really don’t believe your last statement. This was written in a moment of despair or something, right? I have a suspicion that there is no serious talk going on in the administration about going into Iraq with nuclear weapons. Guess it’s just that old lack of imagination thing, right?
Since the topic’s come up, can anyone justify teh *second* use of the Atomic Bomb, Nagasaki, without including Hiroshima?
Anyone at all?
Brian
Bill,
The terrorists that murdered Berg admitted to doing it in revenge for the abuse. They said they tried to negotiate an exchange for the prisoners in Abu Ghraib and this was the result of the US rejecting the exchange. So, yes, PAD is correct in saying they did this because we abused their people. We as in Americans, who should have known better. And AOL will show a portion of the video is you have broadband. I don’t have broadband, but doubt I could bring myself to watch something so horrific anyway. I think we need to cut our losses. The US is no longer effective over there, if we ever were. I cannot advocate using the bomb, but we need to get out sooner rather than later.
Japan’s the only example I can think of where an occupied country came out the better for the occupation.
Were MacArthur or Hirohito unusually smart about handling Japan after the war? Did the Japanese character allow them to adapt where other nations would have gone into a tailspin?
And do the answers to any of these questions contain useful nuggets for making Iraq healthy?
Karen,
The US’ policy has been not to negotiate w/ terrorists. I don’t know how long that policy has been into effect though. That’s why the negotiations failed.
Joe
Karen says
“Bill,
The terrorists that murdered Berg admitted to doing it in revenge for the abuse. They said they tried to negotiate an exchange for the prisoners in Abu Ghraib and this was the result of the US rejecting the exchange.”
Karen, I know what they say. but since they have already killed Americans the same way for the crime of being nothing more than Americans and Jews…why believe them?
The accusations are that we abused IRAQI prisoners. The murderers of Mr Berg are Al Qaida–not necessarily the same thing at all.
for those who really think that this was indeed revenge…does that mean it would have been a good idea for the military to suppress the information about the abuse? Keep in mind that it wasn’t the newspapers that uncovered this scandal.
Right? I don’t know about right. Logical, sure, you’re being pefectly logical. I mean it IS the conclusion a sensible person reached when they look at this nonsense. On the other hand none of this nonsense is really right, heck, being over there is barely right. So going with that Peter (umm… am I supposed to call you Peter?) I don’t think you’re right, I just think that you’re smart, and really the two don’t go together very well. Mind you, I’d like to do it to, do it or get out of there, I’d rather get out of there and just leave people alone, but since that doesn’t seem viable I like your idea. I might be belaboring the point but right just doesn’t have much to do with American military policy, or really, anyone’s military policy. The real world they seem to use is public opinion. So no it’s not right, and we shouldn’t do it, and we almost certainly won’t, but not for that reason. Hope, I didn’t make anyone mad, or violate any board rules
What surprises me is the amount of people that are NOW complaining about the administration’s Iraq mess. Oh, we’re ABUSING prisoners, not just dropping big bombs on their head because of weapons they got rid of years ago? It’s perfectly fine to run amok through Iraq despite the world’s wishes, but abuse the prisoners a bit? HORRIBLE!
Here’s a thought- how many of you, on 9/11, would have flown over to Iraq to grab Osama and personally rip out his heart? A lot of you? OK.
Take it down a bit. When the Hussein boys were killed, how many of you were okay? A fair amount, because they were creeps who hurt and killed a lot of people? OK.
Take it down a bit more. If, by stripping a prisoner and torturing him, you could prevent an attack that might kill 20 US soldiers, would you? Some of you? OK.
At one point, just about every American was willing to torture another human being for the genesis of all the madness, 9/11. But take away the context, and it’s a horrible act on another human being. We don’t know the what led hopefully rational people to decide to torture Iraqis. Jessica Lynch’s rape? A soldier’s death? Who knows?
If anything, I wonder how many American are upset not because of the abuse, but because of the photos of the abuse. I mean,we’re the USA! How dare we get caught torturing prisoners! This stuff’s supposed to be done in secret! We stand for freedom, apple pie, and all that jazz!
The real problem isn’t that we abused Iraqi prisoners. The real problem is that we went to war in the first place. Once you decide, as a people, to go to war, you have to accept that crap like this is going to happen. No matter how smart the bombs, no matter how many huminatarian food drops you perform, there is no humane war. None. If it’s humane, it’s not a war. You cannot have it both ways.
How do we clean this up? How do we restore our rep to the world? We let the world decide. And we accept their judgement. If that means they judge Bush, Rumsfield, ME, to be a war criminal, so be it. We screwed this one up, big time. We have to sincerely apologize to the world, regardless of the price of that apology. Any other decision will only cement our reputation as an arrogant, uncaring people.
I think we need to cut our losses.
There are a lot of stupid things that get posted at this site, but this is by far the stupidest!
What exactly will cutting our losses achieve? Will it make anyone safer in Iraq or America?
Will it bring us good standing with the global community?
Who would benefit from such a decision?
This is just ignorance on a grand scale!
What is so funny is that this is PAD’s typical way of steering away from an argument and point that he was losing and even had to cheat by editing his post. His arguments always go this way.
No, no nuking.
I can’t BELIEVE how some people are taking this, actually. It’s like what I said on my blog…
When you get down to it, it’s all an act of revenge. It’s a cycle of violence. A group of people irrationally humiliate, maim, and kill someone from ANOTHER group of people.
The SECOND group of people see footage of this and are OUTRAGED. The blood is on their hands, they say. We have to wipe them out, they shout. DEATH TO THEM ALL, they declare.
The first group of people COULD be Americans, they COULD be Islamics. Both groups feel that they have been inhumanely mistreated. Both groups want to retaliate with blood. Both fail to realize that blood is what started this, and blood will merely continue it.
Seriously guys. Kill as many of them as you want – those who remain will be infuriated, they WILL retaliate, and more and more will die. And the more who retaliate will merely infuriate US, and WE will retaliate… and it’s just a bloody, viscious circle.
This thing is never going to end until we are all destroyed in the biggest act of hatred and violence yet. And you know what? I’m starting to think we as a species do not deserve to survive.
I don’t blame them for their hatred of the United States. I do blame them for continuing the cycle – they are as responsible as we are. We’re all wrong in this one. All of us.
Joe,
I knew we do not negotiate and agree with it. You cannot negotiate with terrorists. They will just keep asking for more. I was trying to let Bill know why Pad was correct.
Bill,
This is escalating because we are where we should not be, trying to force our way of life on another culture. Al-Quaida would not have had this excuse if our military were acting under the rules of the Geneva convention.
Ray,
I agree with your post, but nothing will change until we vote more sensible people into our government.
I am so horrified by what is going on over there. I also know it will get much worse before it gets better. Just as in Vietnam, atrocity will follow atrocity until there is no way of redeeming either side. The only solution, if we are to keep our national soul intact, is to admit we were wrong, get out of Iraq, and go look for the true terorists, Al-Quaida.
But some of you will never admit that going to Iraq was a mistake. You will keep finding reasons to justify our being over there. I can’t do that. And I don’t want any more deaths on either side. The only way for that to happen is if we leave.
No idea, really. Because this pìššìņg/staring contest is a whole new war that both sides seem to think can be won by pretending it’s an old one and firing more bullets, bombs and shrapnel.
9/11 DID change the world. America (and the world) was introduced to a tactic that SO upped the scales in its audacity that for several days I seriously sat ther wondering if we were watching the slow-burn start of WW3. I’m still not sure.
Like you, Peter, I don’t know what the exit strategy is. If we leave, the area becomes a bloodbath and the inference is that America/the Co-alition can’t follow through on its promises. (Remind me what those were, as they keep changing so often?) The dominoes start falling.
We stay and there’s the real chance that this continues to be a Vietnam, only this time most of the Arab world gets pìššëd øff and that isn’t good for anyone. More dominoes.
Personally, the only thing I can see happening that works in any way is the handing over the reins to the United Nations – which is really what should have been done in the first place.
Sadly, I’m reminded of an old episode of The Next Generation that was briefly banned in the UK. Data was talking about the fact that far from being useless and fated to fail, most terrorist movements have been successful (he mentioned the IRA, thereby inciting the UK broadcasters wrath). He commented that most terrorists finally win by negotiating but that often it’s their terrorists actions that makes people sit up and take notice, hence getting them a seat at the table.
Of course, in this war in Iraq, some people don’t ever see sitting down at a table with the enemy as being anything short of an unholy option. Which is where we came in, right?
John
“Since the topic’s come up, can anyone justify teh *second* use of the Atomic Bomb, Nagasaki, without including Hiroshima?”
I’d think that most of the arguments that could be used to justify dropping the first bomb on Hiroshima can be used to justify the bombing of Nagasaki. Notably, prevention of the loss of American lives, ultimately lessening the loss of Japanese lives (less still died than would have in a invasion). Add to that, it proved to the Japanese that we had more than just one of the things and that we were willing to keep using them. Implicit in the threat of the Bomb is that we’d keep using them if they didn’t surrender.
Therefore, I think that if the use of the first Bomb can be justified, then the use of the second can be justified as well. I’m not going to get into an argument over whether the first bomb was justified as I’ve got mixed feelings about it.
Since the topic’s come up, can anyone justify the *second* use of the Atomic Bomb, Nagasaki, without including Hiroshima?
Anyone at all?
Actually yes.
As a psychological weapon, a timely second atomic attack would be especially effective. If the US had just dropped one A-Bomb and that was it or there was an indeterminably long pause till the next bombing, the Japanese reaction probably would have been
Justify Nagasaki. –Brian
One good justification inserted here. –Sasha
And, as callous as it sounds, there’s the Russia factor. If we had only dropped the one, Russia might have had the same reaction attributed to Japan.
What I find interesting, Brian, is your request to “justify Nagasaki without including Hiroshima.” That’s meaningless–a statement like “was dropping the second atomic bomb necessary” by definition includes in the factors to be considered the dropping of the first atomic bomb. How should I consider the one without the other?
Justify Nagasaki. –Brian
One good justification inserted here. –Sasha
And, as callous as it sounds, there’s the Russia factor. If we had only dropped the one, Russia might have had the same reaction attributed to Japan.
What I find interesting, Brian, is your request to “justify Nagasaki without including Hiroshima.” That’s meaningless–a statement like “was dropping the second atomic bomb necessary” by definition includes in the factors to be considered the dropping of the first atomic bomb. How should I consider the one without the other?
Another thought:
People are speculating on the differences between the Japan and Iraq. Well here’s a doosy. In Japan, a highly respected leader formally surrendered to the U.S. and gave the whole affair a definitive end in the Japanese mind in addition to setting an example to his people. In Iraq, the dictator that everyone feared for than Death Itself went underground in the hopes of continuing a guerrilla war against the U.S. forces.
p.s. Since it seems that this thread is about to become an argument over the use atomic weapons, I’d like to say that it seems obvious to me that Mr. David was being ironic. Right, Peter? If we want to argue about something, how about we argue about realistic senarios to salvage the situation in Iraq.
Mitch wrote: “Japan’s the only example I can think of where an occupied country came out the better for the occupation.”
What about West Germany? It was an economic powerhouse until it had to absorb its economically-gutted eastern half from the Soviets following the fall of the Berlin Wall.
And didn’t we occupy Italy after World War II?
Depending on your definition of “occupying,” we’ve had a significant presence — which also translated into economic good news — in allied countries following World War II as well.
For example, we stayed in South Korea after the Japanese left, following an agreement with the Soviet Union after the end of World War II. Though its boom has faded, South Korea still has a sparkling economy compared to its Evil Twin to the north.
After World War II, we also had a big presence (and still have a smaller one) in the United Kingdom. And France. And Spain. And Turkey. And Iceland. And the Philippines. Well, you get the idea…
And, Peter, to address your concern: I don’t think it’ll work. Plain and simple, if we nuke Iraq, at best we pìšš øff the rest of the world even further, at worst we start World War III.
(Okay, technically “at best” we scare the rest of the world into following us, create the Pax Americana, rule the world by force of arms under the banner of the American Empire, embody all of the worst traits of our nation, spit on the concepts of honor and freedom we started out by fighting for, and get destroyed when the revolution comes, depending on how you define “at best.” I don’t define that as a best anything. Actually, I define that as a W. Olaf Stapledon novel, but that’s neither here nor there.)
Iraq wouldn’t be Japan even if we used atomic weapons. Japan was wildly different. For one thing, we were at war with Japan–which started with us getting attacked, by Japan. For another, we were in a much more prominent position then. We had just pulled ourselves out of the Depression, Europe was in near-ruin, the Middle East was still mostly colonial, Asia was spiraling downward. Our star was ascendant–and no one else could stop us anyway, since no one else had atomic weapons.
If we bomb Iraq, I can’t see anybody–well, possibly the British, but even that’s pushing it–not getting so incredibly pìššëd øff at us that we really end up on the skids with the rest of the world. We’ll galvanize the nations that don’t like us, and certainly we’ll make Bin Laden and his allies look good. Imagine Europe now. On the one hand, they have someone saying “don’t side with them, and I’ll declare peace,” and on the other, a nation that just attacked a country with the most destructive weapon ever. Again.
Not to mention, North Korea et al–the nations who not only don’t like us, they have some nukes of their own–might decide that with nothing to lose (since we’re blowing countries up anyway) they might as well take us out too. Remember that “End of the World” flash video? “Hokay…Here’s the Earth…”? Yeah, like that.
I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know that it’s not a mushroom cloud.
And, Peter, to address your concern: I don’t think it’ll work. Plain and simple, if we nuke Iraq, at best we pìšš øff the rest of the world even further, at worst we start World War III.
(Okay, technically “at best” we scare the rest of the world into following us, create the Pax Americana, rule the world by force of arms under the banner of the American Empire, embody all of the worst traits of our nation, spit on the concepts of honor and freedom we started out by fighting for, and get destroyed when the revolution comes, depending on how you define “at best.” I don’t define that as a best anything. Actually, I define that as a W. Olaf Stapledon novel, but that’s neither here nor there.)
Iraq wouldn’t be Japan even if we used atomic weapons. Japan was wildly different. For one thing, we were at war with Japan–which started with us getting attacked, by Japan. For another, we were in a much more prominent position then. We had just pulled ourselves out of the Depression, Europe was in near-ruin, the Middle East was still mostly colonial, Asia was spiraling downward. Our star was ascendant–and no one else could stop us anyway, since no one else had atomic weapons.
If we bomb Iraq, I can’t see anybody–well, possibly the British, but even that’s pushing it–not getting so incredibly pìššëd øff at us that we really end up on the skids with the rest of the world. We’ll galvanize the nations that don’t like us, and certainly we’ll make Bin Laden and his allies look good. Imagine Europe now. On the one hand, they have someone saying “don’t side with them, and I’ll declare peace,” and on the other, a nation that just attacked a country with the most destructive weapon ever. Again.
Not to mention, North Korea et al–the nations who not only don’t like us, they have some nukes of their own–might decide that with nothing to lose (since we’re blowing countries up anyway) they might as well take us out too. Remember that “End of the World” flash video? “Hokay…Here’s the Earth…”? Yeah, like that.
I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know that it’s not a mushroom cloud.
My 2 cents: I think going into Iraq was mistake for one reason because the US Military is not trained in being an “occupying” force and is most successful when they can go in break things, kill people, and then return home to celebrate. However, that being said, I find it quite interesting all these people suddenly concerned about how Iraqis are being treated when under Saddam’s rule they suffered much more. The way these killers in Iraq are acting I’m starting to think they deserved Saddam.
In the end I think only one good thing will come from the war In Iraq: Bush has displaced the battlefield of the war on terror from US soil to Iraq soil. All the terroists are focusing their efforts over there, attacking soldiers, so we are, by default, safer over here.
“If anything, I wonder how many American are upset not because of the abuse, but because of the photos of the abuse. I mean, we’re the USA! How dare we get caught torturing prisoners! This stuff’s supposed to be done in secret! We stand for freedom, apple pie, and all that jazz!’
Well that’s all nice and cynical and all but the fact is that WE are the ones who allowed the world to know about the abuse. WE are also the ones who will punish it. Meanwhile a significant chunk of the world will go on merrily doing the same atrocities day in and day out, to little if any condemnation.
“How do we restore our rep to the world? We let the world decide. And we accept their judgment. If that means they judge Bush, Rumsfield, ME, to be a war criminal, so be it. We screwed this one up, big time. We have to sincerely apologize to the world, regardless of the price of that apology. Any other decision will only cement our reputation as an arrogant, uncaring people.”
Funny funny stuff, man. Oh wait. You ARE kidding, right? Just which paragons of virtue will be sitting in judgment of us? The entire UN? They’re too busy shredding papers to avoid revealing the entire Iraq “Oil For Bribery” fiasco.
“I don’t blame them for their hatred of the United States.”
‘Cause, you know, WE’RE the ones that tell them to slice off their daughter’s clitoris and generally condemn women to subservient status, thus ensuring that they as a culture will never advance into, oh hëll, I don’t know, maybe the 18th century. Yep. That’s us.
“Al-Quaida would not have had this excuse if our military were acting under the rules of the Geneva convention.”
And God knows, these are guys who need an excuse to kill people.
“It wasn
While I do believe that what the American military prison guards did was wrong, that does not translate into pity for the terrorists that they did that crap to. I also think that the decapitation of the American hostage can be blamed, at least in part, on CBS. They are the ones who let the world see the pictures. There was no need to do that, except to support their partisan agenda in this election year.
Ham–is “ignorant” your vocab word of the week or something? I’ve seen two posts of yours and that’s all they say: Someone else is ignorant. And stupid. Get a new line.
Ken–nice way to dodge the question.
PAD
I also think that the decapitation of the American hostage can be blamed, at least in part, on CBS. They are the ones who let the world see the pictures. There was no need to do that, except to support their partisan agenda in this election year.
You know the world is doomed when a television network showing news is deemed “partisan.”
I also think that the decapitation of the American hostage can be blamed, at least in part, on CBS. They are the ones who let the world see the pictures. There was no need to do that, except to support their partisan agenda in this election year.
You know the world is doomed when a television network showing news is deemed “partisan.”
“If you want to get all weepy and angry why not focus on the fact that while the world clutches its chest and gets a case of the vapors over prisoners sexually abused in prisons (which sure never happens in MOST prisons!) around a million or so innocent men women and children will be slaughtered in the Congo in ways that would make Vlad the Impaler weep. And we will do nothing. Nothing at all. Because if we did, well, people might get hurt.”
I brought up the Congo months ago. A number of people had no idea what I was talking about. I assume we do nothing because there’s no oil there. If there is oil, then I’ve no idea why we’re doing nothing.
PAD
“If there is oil, then I’ve no idea why we’re doing nothing.”
The Congo is a land rich with resources, including oil, I believe.
The problem may be with the assumption that we only got involved in Iraq because of the oil. Obviously we could have gotten the oil from Sadam using the same sweetheart deals he had with many courageous members of the UN and it would have cost far far less than the so called “War for Oil”.
Rest assured that if we ever DO try to stop the slaughter in Africa we will be accused of going after diamonds and/or gleefully killing as many dark skinned people as possible.
There is no oil in Congo. Don’t go so far away. Look at Haiti. The US could have done much to prevent the tragedies going on there but they have generaly ignored the situation.
9/11 was a tragedy, an atrocious act but in a way, something the US had coming for a long time.
The US has been spreading terror and destruction for decades in the name of democracy. Unfortunately, the world is fighting back stooping to their level.
Also, who exactly would be happy to hear that we are going to try to save the Congolese? Me, maybe you….most conservatives would hate the idea because the Congo doesn’t affect us directly and most liberals would hate the idea because it would be us imposing our will on some other country.
Not a great vote getter.
“9/11 was a tragedy, an atrocious act but in a way, something the US had coming for a long time.
The US has been spreading terror and destruction for decades in the name of democracy. Unfortunately, the world is fighting back stooping to their level.”
Let me be the first to say it: YOU sir, are a mental case.
Have a nice life. Keep taking the meds.
Dropping a nuke on Iraq would be the dumbest thing we could do right now. In the case of Japan, it was arguably necessary to end World War II. World War II also happened to be one of the longest, bloodiest modern wars at that point.
There is no comparison to WWII Japan and present-day Iraq. In World War II, Japan bombed us, bringing us into the war. After a war that took years, we ended it with the most devastating weapon ever known. People were for that at the time because of all the fighting that had come before.
In present-day Iraq, we have a situation where we as a country decided to go and kick their áššëš. Almost no one else wanted us to do it, and the war was as bloodless on our side as wars get. Imagine how the world is going to react if we walk into Iraq, beat them into submission, occupy them for a year, and then drop a nuke on them? The rest of the world would see us as someone who picks out countries we don’t like, makes war on them without regard for what the UN decides, and then obliterates much of their nation with the most dreaded weapon of all time. (A Weapon of Mass Destruction, for those who have forgotten.)
They would see us as a threat to everyone on the planet. We would be a greater threat to the rest of the world than Saddam Hussein was if he really did have WMDs. If they were smart or even the least bit logical, they’d likely try and bring us down before we do any more harm.
PAD, I agree you do have a nice way to dodge the question. It seems to work well for you each time!
“How do we restore our rep to the world? We let the world decide. And we accept their judgment. If that means they judge Bush, Rumsfield, ME, to be a war criminal, so be it. We screwed this one up, big time. We have to sincerely apologize to the world, regardless of the price of that apology. Any other decision will only cement our reputation as an arrogant, uncaring people.”
Funny funny stuff, man. Oh wait. You ARE kidding, right? Just which paragons of virtue will be sitting in judgment of us? The entire UN? They’re too busy shredding papers to avoid revealing the entire Iraq “Oil For Bribery” fiasco.
See, this is where I think that argument falls down.
The “sure, we did a bad thing, but everyone else sucks worse than we do” defense is really just arrogance disguised as self-justification. If that becomes (or continues to be) our policy, then in the court of world opinion we are heavily asking to be taken down a peg, and absolutely no one is going to give a dámņ the next time al-Qaeda does so.
The fact that other countries, or other world organizations, have made mistakes — serious ones, even — does not mean we should avoid making amends when we’re the ones who screw up. In this case, we did: we went in claiming to be a paragon of virtue bringing democracy to those unruly Iraqis, boasted about “closing Saddam’s torture chambers”, when in fact evidence has surfaced that they’ve reopened under new management.
So yes — contrition. Amends. Honest acceptance of consequences. Actual willingness to change behavior.
All are called for. It remains to be seen how many will actually happen.
If we do, that’s not going to make everything magically okay, but it’s a necessary first step.
What exactly would you suggest is an appropriate response to Abu Ghraib, Bill? I’m seeing a lot of posturing and bluster (much more so than usual from you), but so far you’ve mostly scorned any expression of concern. You haven’t gone the Rush route of “this is the equivalent of fratboy games”, but that’s the tone I’m getting, and I think you’re better than that.
TWL
Darin said:
*While I do believe that what the American military prison guards did was wrong, that does not translate into pity for the terrorists that they did that crap to.*
Well, let’s check the facts. Some of the people mildly inconvinienced by having poles inserted in their posteriors, raped and urinated on by the moronic minority of serving co-alition troops weren’t actually terrorists. Some were only suspected of mild thievery and looting. Come to think of it, how many of them had been *charged* with anything at that point? Even if they were, my rule of thumb is always, what would *OUR* reaction be if such actions were taken against *OUR* troops. Not so sure we’d be saying ‘Ah, well, šhìŧ happens!” if it was.
It’s one thing to apply pressure under interrogatuon. It’s another entirely to humiliate people for the sole purpose of getting off on it and mugging for the camera as you do so.
Darin:
*I also think that the decapitation of the American hostage can be blamed, at least in part, on CBS. They are the ones who let the world see the pictures. There was no need to do that, except to support their partisan agenda in this election year.*
Yup. Sure. Let’s NOT let the world see what is being done in their name. However, I presume you’d also ban pictures of a president on an aircraft-carrier proclaiming ‘mission accomplished’ as that could be seen as electioneering too?
It was right to show the world what was going on. After all, Amnesty International and The Red Cross had submitted written proof months and months ago and neither the UK or US government had done anything practical to deal with abuse. Forty-eight hours after the facts go public, everyone is scurrying to pass the buck and claim their surprise. If they’d dealt with it properly and earlier, instead of the now classic ignore-bad-news-and-it’ll-go-away strategy, there wouldn’t be such a mess.
That being said, as long as the progress of punishing either side for human rights violation continues (and is seen to continue) I see no need to *keep* publishing new pictures. Their release to date has done what they needed to.
If one thing is for sure, it’s that history continues to have examples of ‘Do as we say, not do as we do…’
John
Chiming in after a ‘Lurker’ hiatus, here.
First, count me amongst those who believe that the use of nuclear weapons would be a mistake. We Americans have enough problems without adding to them by creating a desert of blackened glass.
Second, the “Japan Analogy” has an inherent flaw: Iraq is NOT Japan. The cultural motivations/imperatives create mindsets that are quite different and will react differently to stimuli.
As far as solving this mess… You know, I almost think that I will not be taken seriously with this suggestion because of the source. Too bad. Here it is.
I find myself thinking that we, America, should adopt a non-interference foriegn policy. Yes, I’m suggesting something based on the Prime Directive.
I think we need to get out of propping up puppet governments and attempting to tell other cultures how to operate. I think America should enter other countries by invitation only. In the cases wherein the (majority of) citizens of said country inform America that they want their leaders removed in favor of a peaceful governing body then MAYBE we could help.
Trade would still require negotiation, but medical and disaster relief would be offered and not forced or used as political leverage.
Of course, defending ourselves from agressors would still be a requirement.
We like to believe that America is right just because (some say) it is the best country on the planet to live in. That may be true. ‘Best’, however, does not automatically translate into ‘Right’ or ‘Justified.’ For me it DOES mean that we should strive to lead by EXAMPLE.
Perhaps the best way to start would be to get ourselves away from this one-party system we’ve allowed ourselves to get conned into. What I mean by that is that the Democrats and Republicans have been working together for decades to sustain their shared power-base. It’s up to us. We, the People. We are the only ones who can force change for the better.
But we won’t. Perhaps it is our refusal to grow in such a direction that helps to make us appear arrogant. Maybe we should start behaving as the ‘Civilized Society’ that we continually claim to be.
When it comes to the war in Iraq (yes, it IS a war), I would suggest this: “We’ve gotten rid of your criminal ruler. When your people figure out how they want to be governed let us know if you need a hand. We’ll see what we can do. We’ll be watching.” Then we leave Iraq and let the Iraqi people Figure themselves out. It may seem callous, but it would be wrong to force a way of live on the Iraqi people and wouldn’t it be far more satisfying to them if they made those decisions for themselves? Wouldn’t that be better for everyone in the long term? If they want freedom from tyranny shouldn’t they have the freedom to decide that for themselves?
Salutations,
Mitch, not to be confused with Mr. Maltenfort.
All right first let me say this DROPPING THE BOMB
WILL SOLVE NOTHING!!!!!!If any thing it will piss everybody off more and cause god knows what further destruction ,long term.
The terrorist who beheaded that young man..to be honest they would have done it if the sun came up.The big thing to remember is we cannot get into a never ending cycle of payback.No matter what we are supposed to be the good guys and should act as such.Not to be all Captain America but we gotta be better than that.Bringing them to justice and when appropriate killing terrorists
is fine but torture and humiliation of potentially innocent people is wrong.
The whole problem is this “war “was an arrogant,not terribly well planned event with no exit plan.There was no link to Al queda,9/11,or weapons of mass destruction.The whole bringing freedom to the iraqis sounds good but its flawed cause:
1.there are other places we could free and dont(hello cuba!)
2.we are applying freedom by our rules which is contradictory.
As far as the morons in the prisons torturing people good job,(sarcasm)Now we know why the next generation of iraqis will hate our guts.
I need a break gotta watch 24,at least the terrorists arent real there and everyone is good looking:)
Ken–nice try. Answer the question.
PAD
Ken writes: “What is so funny is that this is PAD’s typical way of steering away from an argument and point that he was losing and even had to cheat by editing his post.”
I see no indication that Peter edited any of his posts. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I’d love to see it. Otherwise, we’ll just have to assume you make things up in order to try and win an argument.
Tim says
“What exactly would you suggest is an appropriate response to Abu Ghraib, Bill? I’m seeing a lot of posturing and bluster (much more so than usual from you), but so far you’ve mostly scorned any expression of concern. You haven’t gone the Rush route of “this is the equivalent of fratboy games”, but that’s the tone I’m getting, and I think you’re better than that.”
I thought calling the soldiers who did this “sadists” made it clear where I stood on them. Don’t know where I scorned any expression of concern, though I certainly think it completely wrong to say that Sadam’s torture chambers have merely “opened under new management”. It really IS more wrong to have murder as a policy than it is to have the occasional sadist perform acts for which they will be punished. Or are you seriously suggesting that the acts of the US soldiers, heinous as they were, even approach the creative use of paper shredders that will be providing fans of snuff videos with entertainment for many years to come?
Appropriate response? Well, jail time at a minimum, perhaps in Iraq where I’m sure they will receive the very best of care.
Given the fact that their actions have gone a long way to giving aid and comfort to our enemies, it’s tempting to try them for treason, raising the amusing possibility that they might get shot.
So I guess I don’t see this as fratboy games, since I generally don’t look forward to the jailing and/or shooting of fratboys. Since you give no examples of my “posturing and bluster” I can’t really defend myself so I’ll just have to humbly hope that I mend my ways.
My point about the UN was simply that I don’t see where they are in any position to judge us. Under their watch Sadam was able to torture and kill thousands without fear of any punishment greater than worrying about where to stash several billion dollars in loose bills. Under us scores of prisoners were subject to illegal humiliation and abuse. Nobody will get rich off it. Several will go to jail and have their lives ruined.
I don’t have confidence in the UN’s ability to make things right. If the actions of some American soldiers tar us all than I guess the recent massacre in Kosovo performed by a UN policeman makes them unsuitable to judge. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/024rjfgr.asp) It isn’t only bad when a US administration makes mistakes.
Well that’s all nice and cynical and all but the fact is that WE are the ones who allowed the world to know about the abuse. WE are also the ones who will punish it. Meanwhile a significant chunk of the world will go on merrily doing the same atrocities day in and day out, to little if any condemnation.
==
What’s this we stuff? Haliburton is cutting off Internet access to soldiers, supposedly in reaction to this stuff. You think Bush decided to leak this stuff? BS. The stuff leaked on its own.
By the way, I’m not being cynical. I do think there are a lot of Americans out there who condone the abuse of the Iraqis and are angry that the stuff leaked. There are plenty of people who are happy with the knowledge that we have people on the payroll who torture others for us, as long as it’s not on the nightly news. I’m not one of them, though.
People do condemn what other countries do. It’s just that few people listen.
==
Funny funny stuff, man. Oh wait. You ARE kidding, right? Just which paragons of virtue will be sitting in judgment of us? The entire UN? They’re too busy shredding papers to avoid revealing the entire Iraq “Oil For Bribery” fiasco.
==
Nope. Technically, this stuff is a war crime. And we (the US) helped write the definition of what a war crime is. So we’re, in that sense, sitting judgement on ourselves.
And so what if others judge us? You think they don’t know? What are you afraid of? Being a part of the world?
As for the rest of your post, I don’t know of any case where Iraqis practice clitoridectomies, so I have no idea where you’re going with that argument. There are a lot of cultures on this planet. Stop being afraid of them.
Talk about distortions. When I say that Iraq could turn out like Japan what I mean is a former enemy could turn into a helpful ally. That’s it. That’s all. Nothing to do with nuking anyone. Despite what is happening in prison camps now. Let me put it to you this way. America bombed Japanese cities for weeks and killed 200,000 thousand cilivans. This was BEFORE Fat Man and Little Boy. America stayed in Japan for SEVEN YEARS after the war. We will be in Iraq as long if not longer. Even if John Kerry is elected. Its not going to be easy. Hopefully it will all work out. I cant predict the future like PAD.
I brought up the Congo months ago. A number of people had no idea what I was talking about. I assume we do nothing because there’s no oil there. If there is oil, then I’ve no idea why we’re doing nothing.
==
Maybe the oil’s hard to get to? That’s actually one of the best arguments for Afghanistan; not only is there oil, but the oil is relatively easy to get to. One pipeline, and you’re in the Gulf.
Yes, oil companies DO think this way.
“I think we need to get out of propping up puppet governments and attempting to tell other cultures how to operate. I think America should enter other countries by invitation only. In the cases wherein the (majority of) citizens of said country inform America that they want their leaders removed in favor of a peaceful governing body then MAYBE we could help.”
But how do we know what a majority wants? It’s doubtful that we would be dealing with a democracy.
Do we do a poll? Mail a survey? And what if a majority is supporting a genocidal dictatorship? If 51% of the German population had been shown to be in favor of turning Jews into lampshades that would not be a good excuse for the world to have sat back and done nothing.
I’m not picking on you–I like your scenario. Kind of us in the Klattu role from DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL. Swoop in, seriously dìçk around with the locals with our heap big technological juju, and swoop off with a well-delivered carrot/stick speech. Some Bernard Herrmann music would be great too.
>Since the topic’s come up, can anyone justify teh *second* use of the Atomic Bomb, Nagasaki, without including Hiroshima? (Brian)
Most Japanese I’ve come to know in Japan over the years, especially the older ones, agree the first one was needed. Many don’t quite feel the same way about the second. They figure it’s more a case of politics in action.
>Did the Japanese character allow them to adapt where other nations would have gone into a tailspin? (Mitch)
Actually they DID go into a tailspin. The nation as a whole was so traumatized that they seriously considered banning the use of Japanese and adopting French as the official language to expiate their collective shame.
>Notably, prevention of the loss of American lives, ultimately lessening the loss of Japanese lives (less still died than would have in a invasion). (David)
People tend to forget that part. They also tend to forget that, horrifying as the A-Bombs were, the massive firebombing raids on Tokyo easily killed as many, if not more people in a single night.
>Or maybe they can make more, but it