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
• 
PAD-
if you’re not being ironic and you think that the inevitable end of the present situation is a nuclear bomb, I would suggest that just leaving would be good. This isn’t Chicago and we don’t have to stay there.
Haven’t had the time to scroll through every comment, but The Bomb is only effective anymore as a deterrent, not as a weapon. And even the THREAT of dropping the bomb is only effective if the other country already has one. It’s like, “If you drop yours, We’ll unload our payload on you.” If it comes to it, and we do drop a nuclear weapon on Iraq, or anyone for that matter, be prepared for a lot more attacks on US soil from other countries to retaliate and have essentially the entire world looking to ally together and take us out. Basically, we’ll start WWIII, only this time we’ll be on the wrong side.
“Apparently, CBS is under fire- not for releasing the torture footage, but for actually keeping it under wraps until the New Yorker broke the story.”
The New Yorker broke the story? I’d thought it was “Sixty Minutes.” Well…good. I always felt the print media has more stones than TV any day of the week.
PAD
I keep thinking back to the “Encounter At Farpoint” episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation everytime I read about the abuse of the Iraqis. Basically, Q believed that humanity was a savage child race. If you ask me, both sides in this war are proving that Q was right.
JHL
“Apparently, CBS is under fire- not for releasing the torture footage, but for actually keeping it under wraps until the New Yorker broke the story”
60 Minutes broke the photos. The military asked CBS not to make the photos public but, of course, for a TV show like 60 Minutes, you don’t have a story if you don’t have visuals. CBS held the photos until the story was needed that week. Needed to serve the partisan media’s agenda.
“I keep thinking back to the “Encounter At Farpoint” episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation everytime I read about the abuse of the Iraqis. Basically, Q believed that humanity was a savage child race.”
Less than 20 military guards out of the 200,000+ personnel over there is enough to label them all as such? I think not. Think of it in terms of a percentage of the whole and then try to say something like that.
Mr. Wesley, we probably wouldn’t even have to wait a while for nuclear armageddon. Everyone, including the U.S. and Russia, still has their missiles on launch on warning status. A couple of nuclear blasts in the Middle East and we’d be lucky to avoid a full-scale exchange.
My recollection of the situation at CBS was that they held the story at the request of the government (which was already investigating the situation), but that they published when they learned that someone else was about to publish the story that they’d been sitting on. I have no complaints about the way that CBS news handled this.
I’ve heard various folks on interview shows complain that the government should have released the story before CBS did. I’m of the opinion that they *couldn’t* do that, since CBS had held the story for them. If someone holds a story for you, you don’t get to break it for them, if you’re the government and ever want to receive that courtesy again.
As far as the original question that PAD posed, the reason for *not* nuking Iraq is that — even if you set aside the moral questions involved — it won’t solve the problem there and will likely create more problems that it would solve.
As others have observed, there’s no Emperor in Iraq who can tell everyone in Iraq to lay down their arms and command obedience. An impressive show of force won’t likely result in surrender, but in continued resistance.
Further, World War II was one of the last times(possibly *the* last time) when it was considered allowable — by “civilized” countries — to bomb the civilian populace as opposed to strictly military targets. The Germans bombed London, the Allies bombed Dresden, and eventually the U.S. bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
After WWII, “we” (whoever that collective we *is*) decided that is no longer acceptable behavior, even in wartime. I tend to think that’s a good thing. Not everyone in the world agrees with this.
Which is why there were a lot of people in the world who cheered when Al Qaeda killed a lot of civilians in New York on 9/11. (The Pentagon, of course, would qualify as a military target. None of the passengers on the airplanes involved would qualify.)
So we’ve got a choice. We can be on the side of the terrorists morally and bomb the living bejeezus out of the civilians and not give a dámņ about it, or we can try to adhere to a higher moral standard, even if we sometimes fail.
Given a choice in the matter, I’ll try to stick with the higher moral standard.
>This isn’t Chicago and we don’t have to stay there.
No, but though the cops were as corrupt as they come, the U.S. still came in and fired them all and now the Mob is trying to run things. Seems to me there’s a responsibility in there somewhere to make sure the bad guys don’t win out after all, especially when the U.S. is responsible for eliminating one of the only things holding them in check.
Just got this email from my father. I think it’s a perspective we need at this time.
***********
Subject: FW: It’s Time to Reevaluate Our Involvement!
Every day there are news reports about more deaths. Every night on TV there are photos of death and destruction. Why are we still there?
We occupied this land, which we had to take by force, but it causes us nothing but trouble. Why are we still there?
Many of our children go there and never come back. Why are we still there?
Their government is unstable, and they have loopy leadership. Why are we still there?
Many of their people are uncivilized. Why are we still there?
The place is subject to natural disasters, which we are supposed to bail them out of. Why are we still there?
There are more than 1000 religious sects, which we do not understand. Why are we still there?
Their folkways, foods and fads are unfathomable to ordinary Americans. Why are we still there?
We can’t even secure the borders. Why are we still there?
They are billions of dollars in debt and it will cost billions more to rebuild, which we can’t afford. Why are we still there?
It is becoming clear…
.
.
.
WE MUST PULL OUT OF CALIFORNIA!!!!!!!!!.
************
Any laugh in a storm, kids. Weather report: it’s monsoon season.
“If one wanted to put the blood of Nick Berg on Bush, there’s two ways. First, the obvious: If Bush hadn’t launched the Needless War, Berg would never have been over there and would still be alive.”
Since we are sprouting what if’s…
What if Saddam had been left in power…
Next year he probably would have made a pact with North Korea and Libya to obtain and distribute Nuclear weapons.
Libya would never have admitted it was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
We try sanctions after sanctions on Saddam. He gets fed up and launches Nuclear missle attacks at Israel.
Can you say game over?
Yes, it was a what if scenario. But wasn’t it a possibility?
Chew on that for a bit.
This is going way off track here, but i just read through all the postings (whew!) and it’s still fresh in my mind, so…
While i think an argument *could* be made for the necessity of bombing Hiroshima, i tend to think that Nagasaki was unnecessary and would likely constitute a war crime were it to be more closely examined. We bombed Hiroshima on August 6th and Nagasaki on the 9th. At the time we did it, reports of the scope of what had happened were just beginning to trickle in and the Japanese government really had no idea of the extent of the damage. A somewhat more ethical government than we apparently had at the time would have waited a few extra days for them to see it, and then promised more if they failed to surrender. Hiroshima alone, combined with the Soviets’ declaration of war, would have done the job. And then there would only be one annual memorial here (Japan), rather than two. And a lot less people would be dead or suffering from radiation poisoning, the gift that keeps on giving.
(And thank you to whomever indirectly mentioned the firebombing of Tokyo and Kobe. They did kill nearly as many people as the atomic bombings – some here argue they are war crimes as well – and are often forgotten outside of Japan.)
For those of you who would censor a free press, shame on you. The media has a responsiblilty to keep the citizens of this country informed. It hasn’t lived up to this in a very long time. We get soundbites instead of stories. Now we have a story of substance and all you can do is call CBS traitors. A free and open press is vital to a democracy. How else will you keep those in power honest? Secrecy allowed the Nixon administration to almost get away with Watergate. The press gave us the information that let us know it was corrupt. It is not the press’s job to make the current administration look good. It’s purpose is to uncover the truth and report it to the American people.
Karen:
>For those of you who would censor a free press, shame on you. The media has a responsiblilty to keep the citizens of this country informed. It hasn’t lived up to this in a very long time. We get soundbites instead of stories. Now we have a story of substance and all you can do is call CBS traitors. A free and open press is vital to a democracy. How else will you keep those in power honest? Secrecy allowed the Nixon administration to almost get away with Watergate. The press gave us the information that let us know it was corrupt. It is not the press’s job to make the current administration look good. It’s purpose is to uncover the truth and report it to the American people.
I’d just take this opportunity to again invite people to check out online news sites from nations around the world. I used to believe that NPR was fairly non-biased until I began checking out European, Middle Eastern, and Asian sites. It really is eye-opening.
Starwolf, dude, if my two choices are nuke or bail, I vote for bail.
Good Day PAD:
My feelings about the war are as follows:
It is wrong and we should leave immediately. I was honorably discharged from the Army in 1988, and I believe in defending the country; however, this has gone on long enough.
I think your issue of Captain Marvel (the poking fun at the war parody) summed it up best.
My final thought with respect to a nuclear response. I don’t know how much longer I will be sucking air on God’s green earth but I would like to continue to do so without having to wear a radiation suit. As satisfying as it might be in the short term, a nuclear detonation will have horrifying effects to the ecosystem.
Everyone on the board is right to feel outrage at many aspects of the 9/11 events but let’s start to work at healing and attempt to end this obviously pointless war.
Regards:
Warren S. Jones III
Actually the thought of nuking everyone in that part of the world comes growling into my mind whenever an atrocity like this is committed. It would be a horrible atrocity, but how do we make Americans safe?
Here are some facts:
Muslim extremists want to kill any and all Americans. Al Queda offered a series of rewards last week. The highest rewards were for American leadership in Iraq, but they offered $13,600 in gold for the killing of ANY American anywhere. That includes you, me and those kids in the preschool down the street. They offered a similar reward for the British and half that amount for citizens of Japan and Italy. That’s not soldiers, folks. That’s your grandma and the kid who delivers your pizza.
I do not believe it is possible to negotiate with people who think like this and who act like this. It would not be enough to pack up and go home. It would not be enough to stop supporting Israel. The only thing that will satisfy people with this type of extreme view is the day when everyone in the world is bent to their will or dead.
People like this do not operate in a vacuum. If the rest of the muslim world would denounce these people, would demand accountability from them, would see to it that they were stripped of their power and influence, then things could change.
Otherwise, the only way to ensure that these extremists pose no threat is to kill them, imprison them or make them burrow so far underground they’ll never see light again.
These muslim extremists want us dead. ALL of us. They will not stop until they get their way. They may be willing to save those who cower to their terror until last (such as Spain), but they will not stop and will only negotiate as a means to the very bloody and violent end they are committed to.
Is a premeditated atrocity on an unprecedented scale the only answer? I don’t know. But I do know this is a war and everywhere your daughters go without wearing a burkah, everywhere you worship as you please, everywhere you read what you want, eat what you want and express yourself the way you want is the front.
It’s a war with an extreme ideology. And it’s them or us.
Fred,
In this day and age, to be informed takes a lot of work. I certainly don’t rely on TV and daily newspapers for news. The bias is there, but as I said, soundbites have replaced in depth reporting in most instances. I applaud CBS for breaking ranks and informing us. I have no illusions that this will last, but it does give one hope.
Duane,
All the more important to go after the extremists and not be distracted by the war in Iraq. We need to go after terrorists. It’s also important to note that not all Muslims are extremists, as not all Christians are Southern Baptist. We should get out of Iraq and put our resources into finding and detaining the real enemies.
Ray said:
Heck, want to have some real Bush-bashing fun? The guy was over in Iraq looking for a job. Why didn’t he stay at home and look? Because, of course, there aren’t any jobs! Why? Because of Bush’s handling of the economy!
c’mon, Ray. Of all places in God’s green earth to look for a job he goes to iraq! & what do presidents have to do w/ the economy. The economy is never the result of the person in charge of the country. they get blamed if it’s bad but never praise when it’s good. & there are tons of jobs out there. some not as good as others, but beggars can’t be choosers. The economy is to complex to blame the president, regardless of who that president is.
Joe
Darin –
I have to comment on “Mission Accomplished” banner being in reference to the Aircraft Carrier’s mission being accomplished…
… you think the President’s staff doesn’t have total control over the environment of
a PR appearance, why exactly?
If it was meant only as a local “we’re done men and women!”… the banner wouldn’t have been in view for the TV cameras. They’d have taken it down until the President was done, IMO.
That it was meant locally… I hadn’t heard, but it sounds plausible enough.
So I have to think that the message Bush’s PR folks were trying to get across was meant the way most people took it: “End of major combat operations” = “Mission Accomplished”.
A nice, dramatic image to get the point across. Can’t really ask for better PR.
At least as far as the President’s PR staff is concerned … and as far as the message they were trying to get out. Which, I’d suggest, is different than what the men and woman aboard the aircraft carrier might have been feeling with their OWN “mission accomplished” and getting home to port.
Such PR appearances are incredibly choreographed, from what I understand. As the banner stayed up, I can only assume the PR folks meant for it to do so.
Just a few thoughts.
Sorry Ray, I TOTALLY missed the rest of your post. I don’t know what happened. Sorry.
Heck, want to have some real Bush-bashing fun? The guy was over in Iraq looking for a job. Why didn’t he stay at home and look? Because, of course, there aren’t any jobs! Why? Because of Bush’s handling of the economy!
c’mon, Ray. Of all places in God’s green earth to look for a job he goes to iraq! & what do presidents have to do w/ the economy. The economy is never the result of the person in charge of the country. they get blamed if it’s bad but never praise when it’s good. & there are tons of jobs out there. some not as good as others, but beggars can’t be choosers. The economy is to complex to blame the president, regardless of who that president is.
Joe
===
Your argument would be great if you could read. I posted a sarcasm notice right underneath it, and then corrected myself a bit later. So, y’know…
>Or maybe they can make more, but it
“Such PR appearances are incredibly choreographed, from what I understand.”
To the point that the [I]Abraham Lincoln[/I] was turned around and taken further out to sea after the President’s arrival, so San Diego wouldn’t show in the background, thus delaying their arrival at the Everett shipyard by almost three days. The sailors weren’t happy about that, of course, but one doesn’t openly criticize one’s commander-in-chief – at least, not until one has gotten home, changed out of the uniform, and downed a beer or two…
Sorry Ray, I TOTALLY missed the rest of your post. I don’t know what happened. Sorry.
===
Maybe the same thing that happened to me when I criticized your post without reading this? 😉
Ah well. It happens. I apologize for the remarks.
Out of curiosity, are there actually people on this board who think “Mission Accomplished” was not intended to convey that the major fighting in Iraq was over? And that it wasn’t a huge blunder for Bush (never thinking that the insurgents would embark on a guerilla war designed to wear down American resolve for the occupation of Iraq)? Just curious.
“First of all, torture in a prison camp is hardly a matter of national security.”
Tell that to Berg’s family. IF the military wasn’t policing itself (but it was) THEN maybe the story should be leaked. If CNN didn’t report a story to protect their lives, the same should go for protecting our military. It doesn’t take a genius to guess at the Muslim reaction.
And Karen, I’m not for muzzling the press for ever. Just in the interest of security and just until the sitation stabilizes.
The Forth Estate was fair and even journalism. The Fifth Estate is who we’ve got now. Not just liberal but printing only news that will make a profit.
“If one wanted to put the blood of Nick Berg on Bush, there’s two ways. First, the obvious: If Bush hadn’t launched the Needless War, Berg would never have been over there and would still be alive.”
Since we are sprouting what if’s…
What if Saddam had been left in power…
Next year he probably would have made a pact with North Korea and Libya to obtain and distribute Nuclear weapons.
Libya would never have admitted it was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
We try sanctions after sanctions on Saddam. He gets fed up and launches Nuclear missle attacks at Israel.
Can you say game over?
Yes, it was a what if scenario. But wasn’t it a possibility?
Chew on that for a bit.
[chews, determines that like Cool Whip there is not enough substance to chew on, moves on to something more nutritious]
And Karen, I’m not for muzzling the press for ever. Just in the interest of security and just until the sitation stabilizes.
The problem is that, according to some, “9/11 changed everything” and that the War on Terror [TM] is never really going to end. As such, “until the situation stabilizes” is entirely too open-ended a statement to make me even remotely comfortable.
As soon as the press allows itself to be muzzled once, it becomes all too easy to find an excuse to keep the muzzle on long-term.
I’d also point out that there was an argument further upthread about whether the Berg death really was directly related to Abu Ghraib, or whether Abu Ghraib provided a convenient pretext. If the latter is true (and I suspect it at least partially is), then the press publicizing matters really isn’t relevant.
This whole discussion is coming dangerously close to “the problem isn’t the torture, it’s those bášŧárdš in the press who exposed it”, which is basically what Sen. James Inhofe said yesterday. My reaction to that is best summed up at the site I’m linking to below. (I have no connection to that site, but a friend showed me the link and I agree with the Inhofe-related entry pretty much word for word.)
http://www.youaredumb.net/
TWL
Sasha –
Sure, that’s one possibility.
And let me add a “if Saddam or Qaddafi were stupid enough to actually use a nuke, their country would be a glowing wasteland very soon – and they know it”.
As long as we’re on what ifs.
This is only for those that opposed the US going into Iraq in the 1st place. Here is my question:
1)Why?
Now i just want to know why you opposed it in the begining. Not now. I mean before a shot was fired & any soldier died.
This is for everyone else, we invaded Iraq. I know the occupation is going horribly wrong & both sides can be blamed on that. So the question is:
2) Now what? & why?
What can we do. And let’s be real about it. If you offer a solution, why do you think that should be the course of action
Why did I oppose the war?
Because it was unnecessary.
1) I did not find the WMD claims well-founded — on the contrary, the inspectors seemed to be making good progress until WE told them to ship out because we were going in.
2) Even *if* the WMD claims were well-founded, there was every indication that containment was working and that Saddam was basically a gnat: annoying and irritating perhaps, but not someone who so desperately needed removal that it was worth jeopardizing all our alliances.
3) The move to war showed every sign of taking all the sympathy and goodwill we’d received after 9/11 (justifiably) and turning it into opposition and resentment. As a fairly committed internationalist, I saw the cost of that as being so great that I wouldn’t have considered it a good idea unless the benefits were both overwhelming and obvious. They were neither.
There you are. Three reasons, all of which were just as true before we crossed the border as now. Thoughts welcome.
TWL
Ok I’ve read quite a bit of the thread and become very frustrated by several posts from the “right.”
On the Prison Photos…
Yes most of us are upset about the photos… aparently less are upset about the actions, but only because it was us doing it to them. There really isn’t an US or a THEM. We’re all fûçkìņg people here. On the same point according to the military 90% of those who went through that prison including quite a few who went through the abuses and tortures(totall numbers have not come out for how many were tortured yet) were found to be innocent of any crime or conspiracy against the Coalition. So we tortured and beat to death and humiliated innocent Iraqis. No wonder they’re mad. We’re mad every time we find someone doing it to any of our people… What we have to realize like I said before, Is that there isn’t really the US soldiers and Islamic Extremeists doing this, its small groups of individuals. Its stereotyping at the worst, that allows someone to grab someone and torture/kill them as revenge for another death, despite who that someone might be. We can’t equivicate Iraqis with Extremist Muslims if we ever plan on winning this war.
On Atomic Weapons of Mass Destruction…
First off… according to several shows on the History Channel and textbooks from college…
Hirohoto was trying to surrender after the FIRST bomb. The US did not respond to his message until after they ordered the second one dropped. Granted there were reasons to drop the second one, they thought of many, all of which i’ve seen up above, but the one i’ve constantly seen given as to why? Well that was something along the lines of “We built it to use it” So in a sense it was used in revenge for the entirety of the war. War is brutal. That is done with. Now we have to suffer the shame that being the only nation to use these weapons on an enemy. But all that is done with. No use in arguing over that now. Its History. As to useing them in Iraq?? Please Peter thats pretty insane. I suspect as others that you weren’t entirely serious about the propistion but still. The result will end up with nothing good for america as the bombs begin to be dropped on us. What justification will there have ever been to get rid of WMD from Iraq? none. So no bombs. That just leads to the quick fall into armeggedon.
And on Rebuilding Occupied Nations.
Yes it worked well in Europe and Japan and Korea. But each of these nations had something that allowed it to work. Iraq has none of these. Most of the people there and in the region are completely mistrustfull of us. There are the extremely vocal few who publicly hate us beyond death itself. There is none of the aspects of what allowed our rebuilding efforts to work before. Japan had a sense of honor and submission to defeat in its culture that once Hirohito went along with us, it became easier. South Korea well they don’t exactly love us they don’t hate us that much. But they to had the culture for our help. Germany? well we were there with several other nations with us. And Germany took a long time to turn around. But in the Middle East you have a prevasive veiw of one culture with several different nations. Each slightly different on the political level but enough for the common man to consider themselves first and foremost a Muslim. Not to mention that we have other extremeists running in from outside Iraq to fill the ranks of the extremeists. And with US policies over the many long years (both made by republicans and democrats) Most Muslims distrust the Westerners especially those from the US. Massive mistrusting an occupier leads to what we have here. One act of bloody desperation leads to revenge and the vicious circle of violence that plagues Iraq just as it does Israel. Where does it end?
Tim Lynch… those are exactly the reasons I opposed the idea of invading Iraq as well. Well said.
Mr. Joe V. asked:
“What can we do. And let’s be real about it. If you offer a solution, why do you think that should be the course of action.”
I believe that I touched on this when I wrote:
“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?”
That is my ‘Exit Strategy.’ Let the Iraqi people choose their own future. It’s their country. Sure, they will make mistakes along the way but isn’t that how people learn? Through their own experience? If we, America, do it all for them then they lose something in the transaction. Dignity and self-respect. I think with this aproach I think we turn enemy into ally, or at least a dignified and respected neighbor.
Salutations,
Mitch Evans
Joe V:
>1)Why?
>Now i just want to know why you opposed it in the begining. Not now. I mean before a shot was fired & any soldier died.
I was ready to respond when I noticed Tim summed it up as wel as I could. So wihout being redundant, without being redundant, I’d only add that Bush not only seemed wayyyyy too eager to move ahead with his “war on terrorism”, but he also appeared too invested in making a point not to hear what the rest of the world’s leaders were almost universally saying against his planned invasion that this seemed to smack in the face of any logical, well-planned, unifying move towards peace, IMO.
Joe:
I was against the war on Iraq. Too many Iraqi civilians would die trying to get Saddam out of power. Hey, I’m glad he’s out of power, but if thousands of Iraqis have to die to get him out of power, was any real good done?
Also, we were damaging our goodwill with the rest of the world. Not only is it a bad practice to pìšš øff your neighbors, but in a weakened global economy, this had the potential to further weaken the US economy.
And, to me, this war was not so much a response to 9/11 for our president but rather the fulfillment of a personal agenda. By invading Iraq, he not only took revenge on Hussein, who had tried to kill his father, but also rewarded his energy industry friends and Haliburton, a company that his VP has close ties to.
What to do from here? Revamp, rethink, and reconnect.
Revamp: Get a president in there with the ability to communiacte our goals to the world, to our citizens, and to our military. The world doesn’t trust Bush (and they might not trust Kerry that much, but they’ll trust him more than they will Bush). Americans don’t trust Bush. The military obviously doesn’t understand Bush; if they did, why did some of them decide to take it on themselves to torture Iraqi prisoners?
Rethink: Our military is painfully inadequate at handling small, guerilla-based tactics. Sure, we can play “shock and awe” better than anyone, but we can’t handle these street-level scrimmages without suffering substantial casualties. Reinvent the army again; focus on developing smaller squadrons that can handle terrorist tactics. Right now, it’s safe to say that in some areas, we’re not smarter than the terrorists. Let’s GET smarter than them.
Reconnect: Get down to the UN and win back some of the countries that have lost faith in us. Heck, go overseas and make the case to the people of Europe and Asia. I do believe that the people of the world want to believe in American ideals; let’s put a trustworthy face to those ideals and get the world behind us again.
Most people want these terrorist attacks to stop. No one wants to relive Madrid, the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and all of the other attacks that have needlessly claimed the lives of civilians. You’re a Muslim, and you don’t agree with us? Hëll, I don’t agree with ‘us’, anyway! Let’s work together and fix the problem. And maybe we can’t come to a solution, but maybe we’ll find a compromise, and you won’t kill my countrymen.
And if that fails…then you try something else. There isn’t any magic bullet here; these are dámņ tough problems. But just because they’re tough does not mean that we can run ramshod all over the world. It’ll catch up to us, and sooner than you think.
CSO wrote: “Ok I’ve read quite a bit of the thread and become very frustrated by several posts from the “right.”
CSO then responded with, in part: “Yes it worked well in Europe and Japan and Korea. But each of these nations had something that allowed it to work. Iraq has none of these. Most of the people there and in the region are completely mistrustfull of us. There are the extremely vocal few who publicly hate us beyond death itself. There is none of the aspects of what allowed our rebuilding efforts to work before. Japan had a sense of honor and submission to defeat in its culture that once Hirohito went along with us, it became easier. South Korea well they don’t exactly love us they don’t hate us that much. But they to had the culture for our help. Germany? well we were there with several other nations with us. And Germany took a long time to turn around.”
The right? The political right? You must mean me, because I’m the only one who discussed the occupation of countries other than Japan, which everyone else had fixated on.
Sorry, CSO — I’m an independent voter. Keep in mind that just because someone states something that is seemingly at odds with a liberal point of view does not automatically make them a conservative. As I said before, I’ve been voting since 1972, and it is a rare election that I ever vote a straight ticket for either major party.
Karen,
Why is that the only time you feel the media are “informing” us is when they give us information that coincides with your point of view?
You disagree with the war in Iraq, so therefore anything that shows us in a bad light – and therefore wrong – must be true! What BRAVERY by CBS to show pictures that were guaranteed to put the war effort in a bad light and inflame the Muslim world!
If CBS had shown Iraqis who supported us or acts of American kindness, then that would be dismissed by the left as “propaganda”.
people wonder why a lot of ordinary Americans accuse liberals of being un-American, and this is why.
It is hard to say PAD but like many situations in our world there is no a black or white answers, when I was groin up I keep wondering if that bomb in Hiroshima was absolutely necessary I am sure if President Bush was to take that action the uproar all over the world would be tremendous.
I know the United States has the power to stop those atrocities but I don
To Everyone,
First, let me dismiss the nuclear option out of hand because it would be immoral and the chances of us actually using it are nil.
But to those who actually believe – on the Right or the Left – that Nick Bergwas killed by an alQaeda offshoot in retaliation for Abu Ghraib abuses, I only have one word:
Bull.
Were there any known abuses at Abu Ghraib when Wall Street Journalreporter Daniel Pearl and Italian hostage Fabrizio Quattrocchi were murdered by Islamic terrorists?
The answer is no.
had the abuses at Abu Ghraib come to light when frenzied crowds in Fallujah burned and mutilated the bodies of four Americans and strung them from a bridge?
The answer is no.
No, the murder of Nick Berg had nothing to do with Abu Ghraib.
This slaying was about the war against the west in general – and America, in particular.
For those who are constantly yammering about how we should “focus on Bin Laden” the beheading may have been carried out PERSONALLY by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a top aide of Osama Bin Laden.
It seems many people, including a lot of the media and the posters on this blog, have forgotten aboy 9/11.
That attack was a declaration of war – despite some imbeciles who try to compare it to the Oklahoma City Bombing – and should have been enough to justify all-out war. But the hand-wringing over the war in Iraq – and over even modest steps America took to defend itself, like the Patriot Act – suggests that many truly have lost sight about what the war is about.
Well, yesterday we all got a shocking reminder.
And for those who somehow equate degradation that can be a part of many college hazings with the brutality of what happened yesterday, or to the contractors in Fallujah, please explain why you hold us to te highest possible standard while those who would kill us to the lowest?
This is not a game. It is not an episode of Oprah. An enemy that is as fanatical and cold-blooded as exemplified by yesterday’s events do not give us “points” for restraint, compassion or understanding.
Indeed, they took our unwillingness to launch a full-out assault on Fallujah and Najaf as one of weakness. Or haven’t some of you gotten that point of view from the BBC, or Palestinian and Asian newspapers? You know,the media that “doesn’t spew American propaganda, propaganda being anything that portrays our mission as successful, our leaders as competent, and our soldiers as noble.
As far as Moqtada al-Sadr andhis ilkare concerned, they stood up to us and won, because we sent a signal that we are weak.
No more.
This war cannot be won with half measures.
It can only be won and can only end with the total annihilation of those who practice butchery and barbarism and those who have set as their goal the destruction of America.
we made a mistake negotiating with them at Fallujah, because there can be no negotiating with such people. There can be no compromise with those who seek to destroy us.
Yesterday, the white House promised to “pursue” those responsible and bring them to justice”
In my opinion, that sounds like cops ‘n robbers thinking, and is not nearly enough.
America needs to come out swinging,and it must not stop until EVERY LAST ONE of the savage thugs are dead.
if that means the resumption of major combat in Iraq, so be it. If we need another division of troops to finaly finish this job, let us transplant them from Europe or Korea if we have to, and in sufficient numbers to get the job done.
At this point, I say:
TO HÊLL with political sensitivities in the region.
TO HÊLL with negotiating with radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in Najaf and the Sunni insurgents in Fallujah.
TO HÊLL with hand ing Saddam Hussein over to Iraqis, as some want to do, and risking some reverse – or perverse- kangaroo trial that results in his survival.
Evil, cutthroat terrorists need to be eradicated.
That is a job that is going to require overwhelming and brutal force. There is simply no “nice” or painless way to accomplish such a task.
As yesterday demonstrated quite clearly, the enemy is bound by no moral compunctions.
And, yes, we need to be better than that, and won’t sink to THAT level.
But, for the first time in a while, we need to steel out backbone and have our military fight like it means it.
It’s the only way we are going to win this war.
Bombing people for the sake of terrifying millitants is ludacris. It’s exactly what Al-Qaida thought they were doing with Sept 11, the Madrid train bombings, Bali and others – bombing targets in order to terrify those in the west that they view as millitants and terrorists too.
All bombing like that is, is terrorism of our own. And that is an unacceptable action for a powerful nation that stands for independance of thought, belief and action to take.
I don’t come here regularly, but every time I do Maida seems to be insulting someone. Is this normal?
Speaking of responsible media, we have the Boston Globe, which reported that some dimwit politician name Chuck Turner distributed photos that were supposed to be of US soldiers raping Iraqi women. The nation of Islam supplied the photos.
Unfortunately the photos are frauds–simply pørņ pictures taken off of the internet (where, apparently, pørņ is easily found, I am told). Also, the Globe ran a photo of the pictures uncensored, which must have really gone great with the cornflakes and coffee.
In a related vein, a news conferance in Iraq had some guy start yelling about how his bandaged arm had been mutilated by americans but then some of the other Iraqis claimed he was a liar and when they held him down and took off the bandages his arm was miraculously healed, Allah be blessed.
German TV, showing the kind of lack of bias that we Americans can only wish for, showed the conference and his claims without cluttering up the viewer’s minds with the part about the fraud claims.
Peter, this has been an enjoyable thread…but I still don’t see how it is possible that you can give any serious thought to using nuclear arms. You keep saying that the question is serious and if I keep suggesting otherwise it will get insulting (not my intention) but I’m having trouble seeing your thinking here.
Berg was not murdered by the people who would be killed by bombing Baghdad. You don’t even give evidence that a majority or anything approaching it of the Iraqi population supports the killing of Americans. So the Untouchables analogy kind of falls apart since the “they” you will be putting in the morgue are not the same “they” who put “ours” in the hospital.
shKennedy makes the photos sound less graphic, and less prominent, than Hayes does. Not having seen the print edition, I can’t offer an opinion, except that this is clearly an embarrassment for the Globe regardless. Though as Kennedy notes, it’s a bigger embarrassment for the Boston politician, , who was distributing the photos. No doubt the Globe will be making that point, too.
“It can only be won and can only end with the total annihilation of those who practice butchery and barbarism and those who have set as their goal the destruction of America.”
Cut off a limb and two shall take its place!- HAIL HYDRA!
I mean, I learned this in comic books…you can’t win a terror war by killing all the terrorists, because if the conditions that caused people to decide to become terrorists in the first place don’t go away, then more people decide to become terrorists.
We aren’t going to win this war by having people fear us, because there will always be people who will say, “Fear? I have no fear! I’ll take you on anyway!”
And last I checked, to answer an earlier post, there is no non-nuclear bomb that merely levels a city.
Jerome,
As I recall, I said the press doesn’t offer much of substance any more. We get sound bites instead of in-depth reporting. I don’t believe we are getting much concrete news from the right or left. And if you think I’m happy that our soldiers abused prisoners just so I can applaud CBS, please think again. I am more than apalled and shocked. I was in the military. I remember being briefed on the Geneva convention. I am stunned that people I may have served with are capable of this.
How am I un-American because I choose to criticize the media? How am I un-American if I choose to criticize how my government is being run? I believe in the goals of United States. I don’t think we are heading, as a country, in a positive direction. That does not mean I am less patriotic than some flag-waving guy off the street who jumped on the patriotic bandwagon and bought his flag after 9/11. It is part of my responsibilty as a citizen to find out the truth and use it to make informed decisions in elections. I read books that are also critical of Democrats and based on these findings, ALL politicians are bought and paid for. I am liberal, but there are those on the left who also abuse the common trust. That doesn’t happen to be the topic of this thread, though.
Jerome,
On the contrary. We don’t think we should have gone to war in Iraq, but should have concentrated on the real enemy. Bin Laden. If we had kept our resources in that direction instead of heading of to Iraq, maybe Berg would not be dead. Maybe we would by now have captured the real terrorists.
In response to Darin.
Perfectly willing to put my hand up if I’m wrong, but hasn’t at least one of the prisoners featured in the photos – and since released *without charge* – claimed that he was in fact in because of petty theft. Before the whole ‘They would say that wouldn’t they?’ chorus, I don’t believe the fact has been disputed.
Even if these were higher-security prison areas, I’m not sure most of the photos show viable forms of genuine interrogation. The Administration’s response has been one of being shamed by these photos – rather than turning around and saying ‘The actions were not pleasant, but necessary, this is war.’
I have no qualms about saying that the execution of Mr Berg is infinitely worse – a murder in the most horrible and most public way. My heart goes out to his friends and family. But it’s common knowledge that a *minority* of Iraqis have no problem with viciously killing occupying forces. They should be hunted down and face the full force of justice. Why not just execute the offenders? Because we’re supposed to be better than they are. We prove a charge and *then* punish.
I don’t condone the murderers’ actions, but it is a minority and we shouldn’t judge all the Iraqis by the actions of the few, however horrifying. You either agree with that (which is after all the reasoning used by America to try and calm Iraqi fears about abusers)or you don’t. If you think it’s somethign more than a rogue volatile minority, then that flies in the face of the ‘official co-alition line’ that most of the country is simply soooper and right behind Uncle Sam and it’s just a few pockets of nasty people left to clear up.
Given all the facts in the public domain, it seems to me that far from Iraq being part of a war ON terror, terror seems to be doing jussssst fine, thank you. Wanna bet there’s more Al-Quaeda operatives there than there were eighteen months ago?
John
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/172852_interogate12.html
So, it would appear that not only were the actions at Abu Ghraib immoral, unethical, vicious, and barbaric, they were also counterproductive and stupid.