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
• 
Karen,
I never menat to say that I thought you were un-American. I just hope you understand that it can be perceived that way, especially those on the left who are much more in the “foaming maniacs” category or by those on the Right who definitely use less critical thinking skills.
I feel the coverage by the Big Three has predominantly been on the negatives. While this could be cataegorized as “truth” or even a “point of view”, so are the Iraqis who HATE the terrorists and hated Saddam and do welcome us with open arms.
In this respect, I agree with you. It is a complicated problem, and bush has hardly been triumphant in trying to explain what our goal is, or even in emphasizing the positives. But, I just feel in general there’s a lot of people and a lot of posters here who are more inclined to BELIEVE the good news and not the bad news.
That’s all.
I think the only solution is to beg their pardon for starting a war and give a finish to the occupation. That’s all.
In Spain, in the XIX century, Frace invaded us and the Spanish people gived a lot of hëll to the French and at last they won. We had a tirane king ruling there, and after that he came back. But nowadays these people are called heroes, but the Iraquian people are terrorist… why?
I don’t think that Fatman and Little boy was a good solution also. And this has nothing to be with now I’m living in Japan. This action meant the life os American soldiers was more valuable than the life of a lot of Japanese civilians.
In Irak had died Americans, Spanish, Japanese, Birtish… but no one in Spain or Japan spoke about nuking them…
What thing do we use in our cars? Petroleum or blood?
Micko
Your Spanish guy in Japan
Tim H,
You may not come here regularly, but it may help if you actually stated what was so insulting about my prior two posts, specifically the latter.
I took strong positions against the terrorists and feel we should take strong, decisive action against them as well.
But if you want to take cheap potshots at me without even saying why, go ahead. Attack if you wish.
Jerome,
I hope your lengthy screed above was posted in the heat of passion rather than after some thought. (No shame in that — I think we’ve likely all done that. I know I have.)
If not … well, frankly, you scare the hëll outta me.
First, you’re doing exactly what you say shouldn’t be done as a result of Abu Ghraib: blaming an entire group for the actions of a few people. Many Iraqis have already gone on record as saying that they are as shocked and nauseated by Berg’s killing as we all are.
Second: after saying that Berg’s killers have nothing to do with Abu Ghraib and everything to do with “a war against the West” (which sounds like it should have a stirring Howard Shore score underlying it), you then go on to say that we need to take all the gloves off … in Iraq, which you’ve already said isn’t the primary issue here. Zarqawi (sp?) is al-Qaeda, not Iraqi — but your suggested response is about Saddam, about al-Sadr, and about Iraqi cities we haven’t yet managed to pacify.
You’re fighting your war in the wrong place.
Yes, Berg’s killers were absolute savages. Saying “we must move in with overwhelming force and forget all about X” (where X = diplomacy, respect, cultural sensibilities, the rule of law in the region, etc.), however, is not going to do one dámņ bit of good in the long term. You say “we won’t sink to THAT level”, but beyond that you don’t give any indication of what level of behavior you would consider inappropriate even if it gets the job done. (From the tone of your piece, so far as I can tell not sinking to that level means you wouldn’t use a knife when beheading someone.)
You say “this is not a war that can be won by half measures.” By “a war” you appear to mean eradicating every terrorist in the region. If that’s your definition, then I’ll go you one better: this is a war that cannot be won, PERIOD. Not by military force.
You want to go in and level cities? You want to go in and uproot any group you find until you find the “evil, cutthroat terrorists”? You want “every last one of the savage thugs” dead, and don’t care who or what stands in America’s way in the process? You want to escalate our presence in the region by vast amounts (which will almost certainly mean a reinstatement of the draft)?
Why not say that the death of any American at Iraqi hands will result in the killing of 500 Iraqis, including the perpetrator’s own family? It worked so well for the Centauri Republic, after all.
It hasn’t worked for Israel in Gaza, and they’ve got a lot more history in and rights to the region than we do.
If your policy is adapted, we will fight the enemy by becoming them — and Iraq is not the only nation that will be destroyed by such an action.
Again, I seriously hope you posted the above in anger and in haste. If not, and if after looking back at it you’ll still stand by every word … well, I’ll have to hope there aren’t enough of you to make that happen.
TWL
Karen,
I never menat to say that I thought you were un-American.
You seem to deliver this particular backpedal a lot, Mr. Maida. You’ve said it to Jonathan, to Karen, to me (at least twice), and I believe to others.
Methinks it’s time you looked at why you make that charge so often.
TWL
Ray Cornwall,
“If the conditions that caused people to become terrorists in the first lace dn’t go away, then more people decide to become terrorists”.
See, that’s the basic disconnect. Sort of like eliminating the “root causes” of crime. Crime is not a direct result result of poverty. NYC spent billions in poverty programs, etc. It was only when Giuliani got tough on criminals (and Pataki reinstituted the death penalty, though there is less direct connection in regard to this) – by cleaning up times Square for example – that the crime rate.
And just as you claim conditions cause terrorism.Well, there will always be “conditions” (you won’t specific, so I won’t try to guess). But not all Muslims who are angered by conditions decide to become terrorists.
And unless you feel we should just leave people alone who aggressively seek our destruction, I would really like to hear an alternative plan from you.
Jerome,
I read in my very local little town newspaper about a toy drive that our troops gave to Iraqi children. There’s some positive news for you. I would love to hear and read positve news all the time, but as a rational person I know this is not going to happen. True journalists dig for stories that affect us. There are some wonderful positve articles out there, but they have no bearing on this discussion. Shall I talk about he multi-part story that was in my paper about the ex-con who turned his life around? I, and others, speak to the negative because we see the need to change something for the better. I’ll talk about positive news when we have no reason to talk about the negative news anymore.
Tim,
If the current administration manages to stay in power after this election, I hope you have room in your car for some of the rest of us to go to Canada with you. 🙂
“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.”
Yeah, but in real life you can point to the destruction of the Thugee sect by the British, or the elimination of the Assassin movement of al-Hasan ibn-al-Sabbah, or here at home the breaking up of the Ku Klux Klan as a major power and instrument of terror. The Nazi Werewolf guerilla movement was crushed.
Depending on one’s view of terrorism, one can probably find many many examples in history where a “terrorist” group met ultimate defeat. I suspect that, to the Romans, Spartacus, Boudica, and Vercingetorix were terrorists. Defeating them was not easy but they did succeed at doing it.
Tim,
Regarding your most most recent post (I need to go to my night job, but will respond to your longer one ASAP), I did NOT make a CHARGE of anti-Americanism at Karen, Mr. Lynch. I simply stated why it could be INTERPRETED that way. If you feel that is splitting hairs, what can I tell you?
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.
Oh, my aching ears. And eyes–“fourth” has a “u” in it.
1) “News that will make a profit”? Care to define that fairly ridiculous turn of phrase? Do you mean news that gets people to turn on the TV and watch? Oh, so we’re back to the “if it bleeds, it leads” charge against TV news. I want to know what the problem is with that–blood _is_ news. Violence is news. Abu Ghraib is news. Nick Berg’s murder is news.
2) Why does the media always have to have a secret agenda like it’s a Group in Illuminati, for crying out loud? The job of the news media is to report the news, nothing more, nothing less.
(Yes, I’m sensitive to the topic of news. It’s in my blood.)
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.
Oh, my aching ears. And eyes–“fourth” has a “u” in it.
1) “News that will make a profit”? Care to define that fairly ridiculous turn of phrase? Do you mean news that gets people to turn on the TV and watch? Oh, so we’re back to the “if it bleeds, it leads” charge against TV news. I want to know what the problem is with that–blood _is_ news. Violence is news. Abu Ghraib is news. Nick Berg’s murder is news.
2) Why does the media always have to have a secret agenda like it’s a Group in Illuminati, for crying out loud? The job of the news media is to report the news, nothing more, nothing less.
(Yes, I’m sensitive to the topic of news. It’s in my blood.)
Jerome,
How do you explain national crime statistics going down while the economy was humming along and rising again when the economy tanked? Poverty is certainly one of the causes of crime. And Giuliani’s get tough on crime actions were probably a part of the decrease, but what else was going on? To say that was the only reason is a little naive. Too many factors go into human behavior to say that doing A causes B and will directly result in C. If it were so easy we would have a crime free country by now.
Jerome,
If you’re so frequently saying things that “might be interpreted” as accusing people of being un-American or anti-American, perhaps you should look at why the further clarification is so often needed.
That’s pretty much what I said last time, but perhaps this is in a more palatable form. Perhaps not.
TWL
>”considering the die-hard nature of the Japanese military leadership, the concept of the entire Japanese army (if not the entire population) is not off-base.” (Sasha)
But, by then, they could be simply isolated with a blockade and eventually starved into either submission, or non-existence. This was indeed one instance where the death of many was preferrable to the long-term suffering or the out-and-out death of the whole.
>”Chew on that for a bit.”
Quadaffi(SP?) may have been nutters, but not enough to let nukes fall into Hussein’s hands. The guy was too unstable. It would have come back to haunt Quadaffi one way or another, assuming he lived so long.
> “We built it to use it” (CSO)
Another popular theory is that the Americans simply did want to see if this version of their toy worked as well as the other. Not sure how well it stands up to close examination, however.
>”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?” (Mitch)
The way we let Rhuandans (SP?) choose their own future? Yes, they did learn a lot … those who survived.
>”I don’t think that Fatman and Little boy was a good solution also.” (Micko)
Not an ideal, but, realistically, the best under the circumstances. A friend in Yokohama used to tell me of the horror stories her parents recounted to her of Japanese soldiers on Okinawa forcing civilians to commit mass suicide by jumping off cliffs, because they didn’t want the civilians to fall into American hands. Now imagine this country-wide in the advent of an invasion.
>””I hope you have room in your car for some of the rest of us to go to Canada with you. :)” (Karen)”
Need a guide once you get up here? 😉
As for the idea of using atomic weapons on Iraq … the final word goes, I think, to the Peace Museum in Hiroshima. I invite anyone to go through it and then, once they come out the other end, if they still think using such weapons is a good idea, I can recommend a good psychiatric institute where they may possibly be cured of such thoughts. Or at least locked away where they can’t harm anyone.
You know what your problem is, PAD? You believe in things. The world would be a much simpler place without all the people going around creating all that conflict with their beliefs. When the dust settles on this war, I wonder what we’ll believe then. How will these beliefs shape America and its neighbors? How will we change?
We are living in very uncertain times. I wonder how it’s gonna end.
Wouldn’t Germany be a better example than Japan?
So a nuclear strike would start World War III.
Has anyone considered that this is exactly what Bush, the religious fundamentalists, really wants?
Remember, he was the one who said “history doesn’t matter.” Why? Because he believes the End of History is about to begin. And he goes to Heaven, and all of the rest of us go to Hëll. He hits the Trifecta – or is it the Trinity? – for good.
I wonder how God will view Bush’s last few years of trashing the planet, letting the poor fend for themselves, and turning to violence without exhausting other possibilities. Not to mention that I don’t think the big guy is big on lies. Heaven…might not be his ultimate destination…
Need a guide once you get up here? 😉
(Starwolf)
Much appreciated. I’ll stay here for a little while hoping things get better, but just in case, save a place for me at the dinner table! 🙂
Posted by Ray Cornwall:
“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?”
Without sounding more worse than the truth is, this question would probably be better asked to the families of the hundreds of thousands of bodies found in the mass graves in Iraq. This alone should throw Saddam into the class of a WMD all by himself.
“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.”
No offense, but screw them. They want our money, and will overlook a lot that pìššëš them off for the greenbacks. Just look at the oil-for-food debacle at the UN now.
“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.”
The assassination of the US President, past or current (or attempt to assassinate) is an act of war. Period. The fact that Clinton didn’t do anything about it just shows another major flaw during his watch. And I’ll ask again, as I did on other topics here. Please name a company other than Haliburton that has the resources and experience to do the oil work in Iraq. Also, if this is a ‘war-for-oil’, like many here were proclaiming, why are gas prices up to almost $2.00 a gallon nationwide?
“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?”
It won’t matter who’s the President. The terrorists want to kill anyone that doesn’t believe in their god the same way they do. Period. End of story. They want to destroy our way of life and bring the world to it’s knees thru intimidation.
“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.”
Yes, we are smarter than the terrorists and insurgents. But, we’re taking fire while trying not to destroy everything in our path. If we wanted to, we could use heavy weapons and level Fallujah. But no, we’re trying to preserve as much as possible and keep civilian casualties down as much as possible. It’s always easier to fight a guerilla war than to defend against it. Or are you saying that we should be using guerilla tactics (killing anything that moves)?
“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.”
Yep, the UN is doing such a great job with all of the civil wars around the world. That is, if the UN leaders aren’t counting up the money they got from Iraq. Sidebar, if everyone in the UN hates the US so much, then move their headquarters. I’m sure they could get a good price on real estate in Iceland or someplace similar.
“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 there is the crux of the problem. These extremes don’t want compromise. They want total destruction and obedience. They want democracy to end and to move to a totally religious state. Many people here complain that Bush is a Christian, but don’t seem to have a problem that these terrorists have faith of one kind or another.
“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.”
Yes, there is a magic bullet. It’s a .44 round in the center of the forehead. And catch up with us? Hëll, it caught all of us blindsided on Sept. 11. And March 11. And it will keep catching up as long as these lunatics are out there. Sitting around a campfire singing KÙM BA YAH only works if everyone is singing. It won’t work if one of the people around the fire has a friend sneaking up behind you with a knife ready to slit your throat.
Finally for all that want to complain and gripe about the government, please feel free to continue. But remember, if the War On Terror is lost, you’ll probably the the first to go under the new regime. From all I’ve heard, they don’t take kindly to dissidents. Just food for thought.
“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.”
No. No, you don’t get to do that. You don’t get to bìŧçh out the messenger because of what happened with Berg. If the military gave a dámņ about Muslim reactions, then they never should have embarked on a course of subjugation and torture in the camps in the first place. You can’t blame the press for reporting on the misdeeds of the military and then claim it was the press, not the military, that is to be blamed.
“And Karen, I’m not for muzzling the press for ever. Just in the interest of security and just until the sitation stabilizes.”
It doesn’t matter if you’re in favor of forever or for a short time. Allow it for a short time, and forever will follow.
“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.”
No, the Fourth Estate is an existing phrase referring to the media, and the Fifth Estate is what you called it because you got it wrong.
PAD
“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.”
See, whereas a lot of liberals think that conservatives are slandering, libelous dolts who smear people possessing differing opinions with unfair and ridiculous “what-ifs” and then pretend they bear some resemblance to reality.
I would *love* to see footage of Iraqis talking up Americans. Personally, I got a kick out of the articles showing men getting haircuts and women throwing off their veils in Afghanistan with the fall of the Taliban, and I thought it was great when the Iraqis were tearing down Saddam’s statue. I think Bush’s actions were completely dunderheaded, but since we’re there, I am thirsty for news that matters are proceeding well and that we’ll be out of there soon.
Instead I see polls being taken where, a year ago, only 17% of Iraqis didn’t like that we were there, but now the number has swollen to over half and it’s growing.
Journalists should strive to be impartial, Jerome, rather than eagerly smear entire groups who hold to a particular political belief. You’ve got some serious work to do in that regard.
PAD
“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”
I’m sorry…did you just say that photos depicting US soldiers raping Iraqi women were frauds…and that this was an UNFORTUNATE revelation?
Man, I don’t mean to bust on you (okay, maybe I do a little) but really, I’d say that it was dámņëd fortunate they were frauds. Don’t we have enough tsuris as it is?
PAD
“The Nazi Werewolf guerilla movement was crushed.”
There were Nazi Werewolf guerillas? Seriously? I mean, sure, I hate Nazis and everything, but they had werewolves working for them? How cool is that?
So the “Angel” episode with the vampire Nazis on a U-boat…that was fact based?
PAD
To Russ Maheras
thats all well and good Russ… but I also wrote a lot of other things… and i was not speaking specifically of you… Had I been I would have adressed you in particular.
Yes i was speaking for those on the political “right.” and so that you know… the “right” isn’t a party. One can be independent and be right, just one can be republican and thought “left.” I didn’t say a particular party because I was hoping to avoid the demo/repub namecalling and wished only to speak to the conservative veiwpoints that were being expressed.
So I regret that you took it so personally. It wasn’t an attack on you specifically.
PAD says:
I’m sorry…did you just say that photos depicting US soldiers raping Iraqi women were frauds…and that this was an UNFORTUNATE revelation?
“Man, I don’t mean to bust on you (okay, maybe I do a little) but really, I’d say that it was dámņëd fortunate they were frauds. Don’t we have enough tsuris as it is?”
Well, I meant unfortunately for the credibility of The Boston Globe and the pinhead politician. Of course. That’s what the opening line (“Speaking of responsible media”) was all about.
“There were Nazi Werewolf guerillas? Seriously? I mean, sure, I hate Nazis and everything, but they had werewolves working for them? How cool is that?”
Oops, I misspoke. Actually they were Nazi Werewolf Gorillas. How f***** up was that? Bášŧárdš!
fortunately, Hitler’s knowledge of actual gorillas must have come from watching King Kong. Once the unfortunate beasts reverted during daylight hours they merely became placid herbivores, easily shot.
Now, wanna hear about how WE tried tying small bombs onto bats so that they would fly into German barns, drop the bombs and destroy the German agricultural base?
The terrorists want to kill anyone that doesn’t believe in their god the same way they do.
William Boykin, line 2. General William Boykin, please pick up on line 2…
TWL
Posted by: Joe V. at May 12, 2004 04:52 PM
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
What we do now is allow the military to act like a military. The only army that should be concerned with doing charitable works is the Salvation Army. Have our armed forces clear an area thouroughly. Then let the Peace Corp, or whatever the equivalent is today, handle distributing food, teaching school, and other things of that nature.
On FNC this weekend, they were showing some of the positives that came out of the war so far, and one image was particularly striking in my view. They had video of our soldiers handing out knapsacks full of school supplies to Iraqi students. It was a sweet sentiment, but the wrong people were doing it.
I think the efforts in Iraq would be easier to sell to people if the military part was treated as a separate entity from the rebuilding. I am not trying to bait anyone here specifically, but there are certain mindsets that would see the tape of the soldiers helping the children, and not be able to see anything except an army uniform. If the two aspects of our being there were kept separate, then people who were opposed to the war on genuine concern for people’s well being, such as being a pacifist, they could still help and support the rebuilding without compromising their principles about the military.
Apologies if this is somewhat off-topic in that it’s not about Iraq, but it’s certainly germane to a political thread.
Given recent conversations about how each “side” of the political dialogue should try and reach out to opposing viewpoints and have honest discussion, I thought the editorial below was informative. Assuming the event in Kalamazoo being described is being reported honestly (and I’ve no reason to believe otherwise), I hope I’m not the only one who finds this a bit unsettling.
http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=6228
TWL
“Without sounding more worse than the truth is, this question would probably be better asked to the families of the hundreds of thousands of bodies found in the mass graves in Iraq. This alone should throw Saddam into the class of a WMD all by himself.”
Funny thing- Bush’s has killed more Iraqi civilians per month that Hussein did per month as leader of Iraq. Does that make Bush a WMD?
“No offense, but screw them.”
I can’t begin to comprehend who’d come up with such a stupid statement. You don’t want to offend the rest of the world, but you want to screw them?
Yes, they want our money. But we also want THEIR money, and their resources. It’s a global economy, and you can’t go around pìššìņg øff your trading partners, no matter how much more “manly” it makes you feel. Get a clue.
The fact that Clinton didn’t do anything about it just shows another major flaw during his watch. And I’ll ask again, as I did on other topics here. Please name a company other than Haliburton that has the resources and experience to do the oil work in Iraq. Also, if this is a ‘war-for-oil’, like many here were proclaiming, why are gas prices up to almost $2.00 a gallon nationwide?
====
Actually, Clinton’s “bomb away” program destroyed whatever was left of Hussein’s WMD program. That’s why we haven’t found any- Clinton destroyed them all. Probably between sessions with Monica too.
As for Haliburton, even the Wall Street Journal (just last week!) has written about what a terrible, expensive job they’ve done overseas.
Why are gas prices so high? SUV’s. Demand is dramatically higher than it was before the SUV boom, so gas prices rise as a result. I never said the oil companies want to sell cheap gas; they just want to get to those lush Middle East oil pumps.
Misspelling “fourth” was a mistake. Using “Fifth” was quoting, I think, Glenn Beck (might have been Shannon Burke). I thought it was a clever use. Sorry I didn’t attribute it.
The Military didn’t do it, soldiers in the military did, against the rules. The Military is dealing with it. While the decapitation is just par for the course, that they used Berg was in direct relation to the revelation that was unnecessary at this time.
Also, let me clarify that I want the press to voluntarily keep certain things underwraps for the time being, not that someone else should do it for them. An adoption of ethics that was common in WWI and II.
Finally, “if it bleeds it leads” IS true. How many stories have you seen on the positive developments in Iraq? A few? Isn’t that news, too? With it’s significant absence, you don’t have balanced reporting.
I firmly believe that if the military has U.S. support behind them, they will work better, faster and more effectively. Never underestimate morale as a significant force. I’ve heard from several soldiers and contractors that they are mystified and demoralized by the lack of reporting what they are really accomplishing.
That some prisoners were abused and some were tortured is horrible and unexcusable, but it is a small fraction of what’s going on over there, yet it dominates the news. That’s just wrong.
Last rebuttal to you, Jeff, and then I think I’m done with this thread:
“Finally for all that want to complain and gripe about the government, please feel free to continue. But remember, if the War On Terror is lost, you’ll probably the the first to go under the new regime. From all I’ve heard, they don’t take kindly to dissidents. Just food for thought.”
See, here I fully agree with you. I will continue to complain and gripe about a government that ain’t getting the job done. And if we lose the War on Terror, I’ll probably get killed. That’s WHY I’m complaining. I WANT to see the end of terrorists in this world. My problem isn’t the mission, it’s the plan and the execution. Both of those were conceived and executed by the Bush administration, to less-than-spectacular results.
Hey, if you don’t complain about the War on Terror, and we lose, I don’t think the new regime is going to go, “Hey! This guy didn’t complain! Let’s keep him around!” We’re both screwed if we lose.
“No offense, but screw them.”
Ray:
>I can’t begin to comprehend who’d come up with such a stupid statement. You don’t want to offend the rest of the world, but you want to screw them?
Now that is one overwhelming libido, but can you blame him? Imagine the cost of flowers or follow-up phone calls alone.
In regard to Haliburton:
How do we know another company couldn’t do the job? Did anyone else get the opportunity to bid? There are so many companies out there that also have experience. The contract went where it went because of Cheney. No fair practices, no looking to see if anyone else could do it, just let’s give it to the people he used to work with. Anyone who thinks they got this job fair and square is deluding themselves.
“Well, I meant unfortunately for the credibility of The Boston Globe and the pinhead politician. Of course. That’s what the opening line (“Speaking of responsible media”) was all about.”
Okay, fair enough.
Me, I’m still thinking about the Nazi werewolves, whether guerillas or gorillas. There’s just GOT to be a story in there somewhere.
PAD
Blackjack wrote: On FNC this weekend, they were showing some of the positives that came out of the war so far, and one image was particularly striking in my view. They had video of our soldiers handing out knapsacks full of school supplies to Iraqi students. It was a sweet sentiment, but the wrong people were doing it.”
I totally disagree. Humanitarian relief has ALWAYS been a large part of the Post-World War II U.S. military mission. At every base I was ever assigned to, there were hundreds of official and unofficial efforts to help those in the surrounding community and elsewhere. As a matter of fact, I could easily write an enormous book about the military-sponsored volunteer efforts I’ve personally participated in or observed. I’ve pulled tires and junk from rivers on Earth Day; cleared overgrowth from a historic, but abandoned 19th-Century cemetery; cleaned highways as part of a unit-sponsored “adopt-a-highway” program; helped during several base-hosted Special Olympics; collected toys, food and clothes for the disadvantaged; donated books to school libraries; helped build a home for the “Habitat for Humanity” program; and who knows what else. And most of what I’ve listed, though organized by military units or volunteers, is just the stuff done off-duty! And to be honest, my contributions are NOTHING compared to what I’ve observed many, many other military people do.
On the official side of the equation, I’ve observed many humanitarian and disaster relief missions during the 20 years I spent in the military. For example, when I was stationed at Dover AFB, it seemed like the Air Force was always flying generators here, food there, and doctors and medical supplies somewhere else.
The same goes for disaster relief, both at home or abroad. The military is almost always involved during the aftermath of tornados, floods, earthquakes, etc.
Which is why, when I read stories about U.S. military people building schools, “adopting” schools and orphanages, providing medical care, and working on community projects for the locals populace in Iraq, it doesn’t even register anymore in my mind because it’s something “we always do” — it’s normal ops, in military lingo.
To say the military is ill-equipped to handle such chores is to not really understand what your military’s mission is all about.
Russ Maheras
“Misspelling “fourth” was a mistake. Using “Fifth” was quoting, I think, Glenn Beck (might have been Shannon Burke). I thought it was a clever use. Sorry I didn’t attribute it.”
I wasn’t busting on you about spelling it wrong; I just chose to spell it correctly. I don’t know who either Glenn Beck or Shannon Burke are, but if they said “Fifth Estate,” they got it wrong, too. And yes, if you don’t want people to think you’re getting it wrong as well, then you would have been well advised to say, “…or, as so-and-so-calls it, the Fifth Estate.”
“The Military didn’t do it, soldiers in the military did, against the rules. The Military is dealing with it. While the decapitation is just par for the course, that they used Berg was in direct relation to the revelation that was unnecessary at this time.”
Trying to distinguish the military from soldiers in the military is ridiculous. Furthermore, for those willing to swallow the notion that the travesties at the prison camp were the actions of a few independently-operating soldiers–and that their superiors are shocked, SHOCKED, to learn that torture is going on in here–I will remind you that conservative thinking dictated Watergate was merely a third rate burglary perpetrated by independent operators. That was before the free press dug and dug and found out just how high up the chain of command it went. Mark my words: This is Torturegate. The press is doing what they’re supposed to do: Search for the truth. And conservatives are doing what they’re supposed to do: Blame the free press. It’s nice to know that everyone has still got their assigned role down.
“Also, let me clarify that I want the press to voluntarily keep certain things underwraps for the time being, not that someone else should do it for them. An adoption of ethics that was common in WWI and II.”
It was a different time. The development of television has made the world smaller and more intimate, and secrets are simply harder to hide. The vast majority of this country had absolutely no clue that FDR, for the latter half of his term, was in a wheelchair. It has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with the development of the news media as the TV camera reveals that which reporters with pen and paper did not or could not.
“Finally, “if it bleeds it leads” IS true. How many stories have you seen on the positive developments in Iraq? A few? Isn’t that news, too? With it’s significant absence, you don’t have balanced reporting.”
I never said it wasn’t true. What I was responding to was the assertion that liberals don’t *want* to see positive stories because it would interfere with their agenda. As for reporting, personally I think you have zero clue as to what “balanced reporting” means. Balanced reporting doesn’t mean that for every story about bad things there’s also a story about good things. Otherwise for every story about a man being murdered in New York, you’d need to present a story pointing up the millions of men who weren’t murdered that day. Balanced reporting means that when you write an article, you try to quote people from all sides of any conflict so that the story is presented in an even-handed manner. That’s it. That’s all. Any other requirements are handed down by complaining readers who are upset, not because they really think that NO political agenda should be served, but because they think THEIR political agenda ISN’T being served.
PAD
Russ M:
>I totally disagree. Humanitarian relief has ALWAYS been a large part of the Post-World War II U.S. military mission.
*snip*
>To say the military is ill-equipped to handle such chores is to not really understand what your military’s mission is all about.
Russ,
While I believe that this should be a focus, I think that this quote and its context succinctly sum up the skill and insight of our military leaders in this “crusade”:
The Military didn’t do it, soldiers in the military did, against the rules.
Sorry, but this is just not a well informed statement.
Yes, the individual soldiers did it and deserve the main responsibility blame. But organizationally, the military deserves blame for dumping this duty on untrained soldiers (reservists, for heaven’s sakes!), giving them unclear instructions and giving them no support or supervision. And it’s not like they didn’t know it could happen…traning and supervision are put in place specifically to prevent prisoner abuse.
And the administration deserves some scorching for ignoring reports of this abuse…the Red Cross has been trying to talk to the US on abuses for the better part of a year.
As an aside, Roger, reservists are not untrained soldiers. Reservists go through the same training as the active duty military and almost all have been active duty before becoming a reservist.
Posted by: Ray Cornwall:
“No offense, but screw them.”
“I can’t begin to comprehend who’d come up with such a stupid statement. You don’t want to offend the rest of the world, but you want to screw them?
Yes, they want our money. But we also want THEIR money, and their resources. It’s a global economy, and you can’t go around pìššìņg øff your trading partners, no matter how much more “manly” it makes you feel. Get a clue.”
Here’s your clue. The phrase ‘screw them’ is a euphamism that can mean ignore/disregard them. The US doesn’t have to bend over foreward because France or any other country says so. In reverse, they don’t have to do the same if the US says so. It is a global economy, and there are other places to go for goods and sales. If I walk into Sears to buy a hammer, and the sales clerk makes rude remarks, I can always tell the clerk “screw you”, leave and go to Home Depot. This doesn’t mean that I want to have body parts touching in intimate ways.
As an aside, Roger, reservists are not untrained soldiers. Reservists go through the same training as the active duty military and almost all have been active duty before becoming a reservist.
Sorry…I wasn’t clear here. I meant training at guarding and interrogating prisoners. And I think untrained personnel have no business participating in interrogation procedures.
Roger wrote: “Yes, the individual soldiers did it and deserve the main responsibility blame. But organizationally, the military deserves blame for dumping this duty on untrained soldiers (reservists, for heaven’s sakes!), giving them unclear instructions and giving them no support or supervision. And it’s not like they didn’t know it could happen…traning and supervision are put in place specifically to prevent prisoner abuse.”
Oh, man, are YOU misinformed about today’s reservists! Reservists are typically older and more experienced than many active duty troops. In addition, many reservists who are military security police/security forces have collateral jobs as police officers in their civilian lives. As a matter of fact, I believe I read that two of the soldiers up for abuse charges in Iraq had full-time prison guard jobs as civilians back in the United States. One soldier was a civilian guard in a maximum security prison, and the other was a civilian guard in a medium security prison.
The bottom line, there was absolutely no excuse for such behavior even at the lowest level, in my opinion.
Russ Maheras
Further, the chain of command is supposed to be held responsible to the actions of the soldiers under its command. When I was at HQ SAC in the USAF, anything I did or said on duty reflected immediately on TSgt Mathews (NCOIC of my section), Maj. Kinsey (my OIC), Col. Trent (my unit CO), and Gen. Chain (the CINCSAC). If anyone had a problem with the way I comported myself on duty, they would take it up with TSgt Mathews; if she could not satisfy them, the complaint would go up to Maj. Kinsey, and include TSgt Mathews as well; and so on. If it got as far as the Colonel (or, God forbid, the CINCSAC), everybody between him and me was in deep trouble – for not keeping me in line.
Those soldiers at Abu Ghraib had superiors, who were supposed to be keeping an eye on things. Either those superiors failed at their assigned tasking, or they actually did issue the illegal orders the soldiers are citing. Either way, they should be removed from the assignment; if the latter case, courts-martial are in order.
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in…
Jeff:
“Here’s your clue. The phrase ‘screw them’ is a euphamism that can mean ignore/disregard them. The US doesn’t have to bend over foreward because France or any other country says so. In reverse, they don’t have to do the same if the US says so. It is a global economy, and there are other places to go for goods and sales. If I walk into Sears to buy a hammer, and the sales clerk makes rude remarks, I can always tell the clerk “screw you”, leave and go to Home Depot. This doesn’t mean that I want to have body parts touching in intimate ways.”
Y’know, I actually did know you meant “ignore/disregard” as oppose to “have conjugal relations with”. And I still think it’s an asinine, immature viewpoint. If you buy a hammer somewhere else, no one really cares. But if one or more countries decide to do business elsewhere, BAD things happen. Look at the Pennsylvania milk market, which increased milk prices over 25% as a result of Japan’s fears that our cattle are infected with mad cow disease, despite the lack of a full-blown outbreak. Heck, remember gas prices in the 70s as a result of the oil embargo?
How many examples do I have to site before you realize that pìššìņg øff a trade partner hurts a lot of people, maybe even you? We might be the most powerful nation on earth, but we are not an island, nor can we afford isolationist policies or pigheaded arrogance towards our neighbors on the planet.
Not to mention the trade imbalance. We already owe quite a bit to other nations because we buy so much more than we sell to them. If China or Japan stop bailing us out, then you’ll see what a depression looks like.
“Me, I’m still thinking about the Nazi werewolves, whether guerillas or gorillas. There’s just GOT to be a story in there somewhere.”
Well, I’m glad to hear that because I agree. One of my projects this summer is to try to hammer out a low budget script for a horror movie that would tie together the werewolf squads with the Viking Berserkers and set it in (all together now) a small Southern town.
Incidentally, there’s some debate over how effective the werewolves were. Not very, it would seem (they did assassinate a few big targets) but they were highly feared and probably helped to make the eventual division of Germany inevitable
Oh, man, are YOU misinformed about today’s reservists! Reservists are typically older and more experienced than many active duty troops. In addition, many reservists who are military security police/security forces have collateral jobs as police officers in their civilian lives. As a matter of fact, I believe I read that two of the soldiers up for abuse charges in Iraq had full-time prison guard jobs as civilians back in the United States. One soldier was a civilian guard in a maximum security prison, and the other was a civilian guard in a medium security prison.
OK…I thought I read that the guards were not trained in detention duy. My mistake.
On the other hand, I still think there are chain of command problems and lack of supervision questions. And that SHOULD be laid at the feet of the military…that’s why there is a chain of command, isn’t it?