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
• 
Roger wrote: “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?”
True, but it really depends on what problem we are talking about. If it is a abberrant behavioral issue, like this prison abuse problem seems to be thus far, the company commander — perhaps even up to the division level — are really as far as you can realistically go with the blame. Someone at those levels should have had first-hand knowledge of the conditions at the prison. At higher headquarters levels, leadership generally asks for reports and other indirect updates of a given operation — often distilled for brevity’s sake — trusting the integrity of his/her commanders at the lower levels. The Army does not teach, nor condone at an institutional level, much of the behavior — particularly the most bizarre stuff. What senior commander would even think to ask, “Oh, yeah, today I have to make a note to ask Maj. Bagodonuts if his prison guards are raping and torturing prisoners.” With the reams and reams of operational information being digested at the higher levels, particularly with fighting still going on, such micromanaging would not be the norm.
Of course, it will be now, and it will no doubt negatively impact the war effort in ways far-removed from the current public perception issues.
Based on the information I’ve seen thus far, the lower-level troops let their bosses down, and instead of pointing fingers, they should take responsibility for their actions.
But it’s still early on in the investigation, so we’ll have to wait and see where this whole thing leads.
Russ Maheras
Jeff:
>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.
I never saw nor see it as a point of “having to do” anything that another country or countries tell a nation to, but there is a middle ground between that and completely ignoring their input, alietnating them, and not at least hearing them out. In our current situation, no pause or consideration was given, even after the majority of nations came down on the other side of our president’s viewpoint. Not changing his stance, wasn’t my concern, it was not bothering to acknowledge any of the many points being made by the rest of the world.
i hear a lot of you say that if Bush wins or if the draft is re instated you will move to Canada. Why Canada. It’s freakin’ cold up there & a heck of a lot more expensive. I say if you all want to move that bad try Mexico. For $20 you can buy 80 houses & the weather is a lot nicer too.
Joe
Good point Joe. And I know a little Spanish and almost no French. I live in Washington State so it would be a heckuva lot easier to go north. 🙂
1) The tortured Iraqis were never verified as “soldiers, a lot of them are innocent people swept up in mass arrests.
2) Berg was not decapitated by an Iraqi.
3) The war without rules began in Sept 2001, when the Bush admin allowed the US to be attacked to wage a series of wars to control the last remaining reserves of cheap oil.
http://www.rise4news.net/Ruppert59.ram
Most of the comments here have been interesting reading. Agree with them or not, most people expresssed opinions that showed some thought.
Then I get to Horace. Horace shows no evidence of being a person with whom one can have a reasonable discussion. However, against my better judgement, I’m going to reply to his statements.
Horace, you state that the tortured Iraqis were not soldiers, but innocent civilians swept up in mass arrests. I’d like to know the source of your knowledge of this. Could you please point me to some evidence of the innocence of these individuals?
You state that the person who beheaded Mr. Berg was not an Iraqi. If the person who did the beheading was who the CIA believes, then you are right. However, since these murderers were masked, it’s difficult to say for certain who is who. Assuming you are right, however, what’s your point? Is murder not murder simply because the killer was not an Iraqi?
Your third statement has me totally perplexed. If you insisted the Earth is flat I couldn’t be more uncertain of where to begin. I think I see your premise–the Bush administration knew about the Sept. 11 attacks in advance and used that as an excuse to gain control of the world’s oil supply. (That’s worked out well hasn’t it, with oil passing $40 a barrel). I’m very interested in your evidence to back up this very strong and very extreme view. Please point me to evidence of this horrible conspiracy?
Horace, if you are going to express such extreme viewpoints, please do us the favor of backing them up with evidence. Otherwise it’s difficult for other people who have taken the time to examine situations and evidence to take you seriously.
But Peter, we shouldn’t nuke Iraq because we don’t have to. We have enough conventional bombs to do the job without making Iraqi’s into night lights.
Putting aside whether or not we should have gone over to Iraq, once we did, “Shock and Awe” should have been what the Pentagon hyped it as: Carpet Bombing. (yes, they didn’t copme out and say it, but they hinted at it.) Instead, while the quantity of bombs used were more than that of Desert Storm, they were used in a small quantity at a time. They basically overhyped it and then when people complained they rolled out the, “This is not a movie/video game” excuse.
Yes, I know it was to scare the Republican Guard into surrendering and yes, I know that they wanted reduce civilan casualties, but the reason why the militants are having a field day is because they heard what shock and awe was going to be and they think we wimped out. (That and we’re part or puppets of the Zionist conspiracy, and we’re devils, and all the other reasons they use.) But I think it’s time that we stop acting half-assed and show the Militants that America will not tolerate our soldiers being killed.
A nice start would be cutting of the black market’s supply lines and such…
Charles F. Waldo
Posted by Fred Chamberlain:
“I never saw nor see it as a point of “having to do” anything that another country or countries tell a nation to, but there is a middle ground between that and completely ignoring their input, alietnating them, and not at least hearing them out. In our current situation, no pause or consideration was given, even after the majority of nations came down on the other side of our president’s viewpoint. Not changing his stance, wasn’t my concern, it was not bothering to acknowledge any of the many points being made by the rest of the world.”
No pause or consideration? There was about a year of debate and hand wringing at the UN AFTER they approved force to enforce their own resolutions. Then they voted and changed their mind when they saw that the US was actually serious about following thru on it.
Don’t forget the UN voted for it, before they voted against it. Why is that sounding familiar…?
PAD,
I’m glad you enjoyed the “positive” stories in Iraq. I wish there were more of them reported as well, which is precisely my point. How many stories have the network carried on the kurds, who have had our back in Iraq and are perhaps our strongest allies there? Again, it just seems the negative in interpreted as “truth”, while the positive would be viewed by many of those same people as “propaganda”.
In regards to my alleged “smearing”, I just have to say a few things, because the accusation genuinely hurts my feelings.
First, I never accused someone directly of being un-American. Trust me, I’VE been called un-American by the “kill ’em all and let god sort ’em out” crowd. criticism from such people really doesn’t bother me however, because they obviously have a limited worldview and so I consider the source.
What I was stating was that it seems a lot of people seem to hold us not to an equal standard with those we are at war with, but a far GREATER standard. In that case, I do feel there is a bit of bias.
Or to real world example, there is nothing more annoying than a mother who thinks her child can do no wrong. But it is absolutely horrifying to find a mother who feels her child can do no right.
Also, you don’t exactly act in a genteel manner at all times yourself. If I recall, you even admitted in your last thread (Bush v. Kerry)that supporters of Bush were probably insulted by your implication we like him because we’re afraid of picking the smartest guy in the class. And then justified it by saying you’ve never met a sensitive neo-conservative, or something like that. I’m paraphrasing, so please forgive me if you don’t feel i’m conveying your feelings in an exact manner.
Finally, why do you constantly highlight the things I say that piss you off or hit you the wrong way? I gave you plenty of ideas on how to push your “Fallen Angel” sales up, and yet you never responded. I even offered to interview you and try to get your book in libraries. Not even a “Sorry, I don’t think the ideas are workable, but I appreciate the effort” or something like that. Buy you found time to rebut someone you felt was calling you dishonest and tell a retailer who you felt was “cherry-picking” that he was “behaving like an ášš”.
And in regard to threads like this, I have yet to have you reply to one of my posts by saying something like, “I understand what you’re trying to say, but I disagree with it, and here’s why..”
It’s like you find nothing of value in anything I say, regardless of the thread, and I am at a failure to understand why.
Thank you.
Duane,
you are right on the money about Horace. Those were just rants.
What I was stating was that it seems a lot of people seem to hold us not to an equal standard with those we are at war with, but a far GREATER standard
Ðámņ straight. And that’s not bias.
If the claim underlying American actions — in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam (your favorite), Grenada, Panama, Kosovo, etc. — is that we possess the moral authority to right a wrong (i.e. topple another nation’s government, however dictatorial and rotten it may be), then we had bloody well better act in a more moral fashion. We can’t go in claiming we can help because “we’re better than the barbarians” and then start acting like them ourselves.
So yes, I absolutely hold America to a higher standard. I consider that part and parcel of respect for one’s country, and frankly consider it a far more patriotic stance than the ludicrous “my country, right or wrong” credo that gets bandied about.
TWL
Tim Lynch,
I don’t agree w/ a lot of what you say sometimes but the above statement is right on 100% correct. I’m a republican conservative & I’m telling you bud you are right on in that comment. As the saying goes, you hit the nail on the head.
Regardles of what those animals do, we must be at a different standard, otherwise, we are no different then the enemy. We are at war, fine, but we are not terrorists & shouldn’t behave like them.
Joe
Jerome wrote:
**I’m glad you enjoyed the “positive” stories in Iraq. I wish there were more of them reported as well, which is precisely my point. How many stories have the network carried on the kurds, who have had our back in Iraq and are perhaps our strongest allies there? Again, it just seems the negative in interpreted as “truth”, while the positive would be viewed by many of those same people as “propaganda”.**
Thing is, the Kurds supporting us really isn’t news. It’s an element of the situation, sure, but it’s not news.
Why?
The best way I can explain it is to cite the title of a good book on journalism by Pete Hamill: “News is a Verb.”
If the Kurds backed us before the war, and they back us now, it’s not news. Nothing happened. If something changes — THEN it’s news.
If the Kurds pull their support,that would be news. If France decides it’s joining the coalition, that would be news too. News is change. Same as it ever was is a Talking Heads lyric, not a headline.
The reason we get so much bad news abotu Iraq is not because evreything happening there is bad, but because things are changing for the worse. If they were staying at the same level of bad (as they were for a while), something else would dominate the news (Nipplegate, anyone?).
But until things turn around or stabilize, most of the news you hear will be bad. The good things happening there haven’t changed. When we finally restore the electricity (the target date’s been pushed back again), that will be news, and it will be good.
But don’t blame the news media. Blame the news makers.
Rob
Horace, you state that the tortured Iraqis were not soldiers, but innocent civilians swept up in mass arrests. I’d like to know the source of your knowledge of this. Could you please point me to some evidence of the innocence of these individuals?
I think Horace is confusing the Red Cross report (which did indeed report that up to 90% of those arrested in the months after the fall of Baghdad were there by mistake) with the current situation, first reported upon in America by Seymour Hersch. I think many of these mistaken arrestees were released. And a lot of this is, I think unavoidable, given the chaos of a post-fall country.
On the other hand, the Red Cross has been complaining about prisoner mistreatment in SEVERAL sites, not just the one where we’ve heard so much about. And they’ve been complaining for the better part of a year. And the administration has been unresponsive for all that time.
I think there should be thorough, public investigations of ALL these allegations, not only to address the moral issue (and make no mistake….it is going to take a LONG time to regain that in the eyes of the world), but for internal morale’s sake.
Thanks, Joe. Much appreciated.
TWL
So now that MSNBC is linking military intelligence to the torture prison, is anyone really surprised?
Dear Lord, I’m finding myself agreeing with TWL twice within a week. Maybe it really is “the end times.”
America absolutely is held to a higher standard, and rightfully so. I do disagree with TWL’s dismissal of the “my country right or wrong” catchphrase. I will support my country in any scenario, and I hope TWL’s threats to move to Canada are empty bluster. But the origin of “my country right or wrong” was actually a toast given by Stephen Decatur, which in context was, “may she always be in the right, but my country right or wrong.” The American republic is (in my mind anyway) the greatest human achievement since the printing press. It’s our responsibility as citizens to ensure that the nation is in the right as often as possible.
What bugs the life out of me is that liberals don’t give conservatives enough credit for believing this. I truly believe you guys are standing up for what you believe is right. So are we. Reasonable people can disagree on policy issues, but instead of recognizing that, Karen suggests Bush is going to hëll, Garafalo (quoted previously on this blog) equates support for Bush with a character flaw, and Kerry calls us crooked. Y’all (can you tell I live in the South?) are getting to be worse than Limbaugh, whom you claim to despise. Get over it and show some respect.
David:
>What bugs the life out of me is that liberals don’t give conservatives enough credit for believing this. I truly believe you guys are standing up for what you believe is right. So are we. Reasonable people can disagree on policy issues, but instead of recognizing that, Karen suggests Bush is going to hëll, Garafalo (quoted previously on this blog) equates support for Bush with a character flaw, and Kerry calls us crooked. Y’all (can you tell I live in the South?) are getting to be worse than Limbaugh, whom you claim to despise. Get over it and show some respect.
What really bugs me is when a member of one group generalizes behaviors and mindsets onto everyone in another. I agree with Tim as well.
(quote)Y’all (can you tell I live in the South?) are getting to be worse than Limbaugh, whom you claim to despise. Get over it and show some respect.(unquote)
One outcome of co-opting the methodology of the ‘other side’ is that it can point out how flawed that methdology is.
If Limbaughesque techniques and terminology are so egregious, disrespectful and distasteful and raise such hackles when used by ‘liberals,’ is it not equally as egregious, disrespectful and distasteful when used by, well, Limbaugh?
As for supporting one’s country — the distinction needs to be made that one can support one’s country while not supporting its policy or its leaders.
“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
After I doubled back to look at my post, I realized that I overstated what I meant. I don’t mean that the military is incapable of humanitarian works, or even that they should never do them. What I was aiming for, and obviously missed, was that while there is still fighting going on, that is what they should be focusing on. They should not have to let their guard down to help civilians when there is still an active threat.
Tim,
Let me reiterate Joe’s support of your statement. If we are the last remaining superpower, then we better dámņ well act like it. The prison scandal is a major embarrassment to the US, because it’s not what we stand for and the world knows it. They have a right to hold our feet to the fire over this one. I keep asking myself why we shouldn’t turn some of the local commanders over to the Iraqis for trial.
“I keep asking myself why we shouldn’t turn some of the local commanders over to the Iraqis for trial.”
Because, to quote Heinlein, “A man should be able to shoot his own dog.”
It was our servicemen who committed these crimes. We should try them, with media present, convict the guilty, and punish the convicted – and not with mere discharges, dishonorable or otherwise. Those responsible should be looking at a few years in Leavenworth, making little ones out of big ones. We should show the world, rather than just telling them, that we hold ourselves to a higher standard than, say, al-Qaeda operatives, who will slowly behead an innocent bystander, do.
“What bugs the life out of me is that liberals don’t give conservatives enough credit for believing this. I truly believe you guys are standing up for what you believe is right. So are we. Reasonable people can disagree on policy issues, but instead of recognizing that, Karen suggests Bush is going to hëll, Garafalo (quoted previously on this blog) equates support for Bush with a character flaw, and Kerry calls us crooked. Y’all (can you tell I live in the South?) are getting to be worse than Limbaugh, whom you claim to despise. Get over it and show some respect.”
I try hard not to lump all conservatives together. Picking on Rush & company is one thing, because I do think there’s a “hive mind” mentality when you hit national political commentary. But when we’re on a message board like this, it makes more sense to focus on your words and viewpoints rather than your affiliation.
Rest assured, if I criticize you on this board, it’s not because you’re a conservative. It’s because you’re wrong. 🙂 Heck, if you’re a liberal, and I think you’re wrong, I’ll tell you.
As for respect, well, I’ll respect you if you buy Fallen Angel. I mean, this IS Peter’s board…
David Bjorlin:
I do disagree with TWL’s dismissal of the “my country right or wrong” catchphrase. I will support my country in any scenario, and I hope TWL’s threats to move to Canada are empty bluster.
The problem with saying “I will support my country in any scenario”, though, is that it essentially gives said country a free pass to do whatever it wants knowing it has your support.
To use a no-doubt-shockingly-inappropriate analogy, it’s rather like people who will watch anything and read anything with the Star Trek name on it because “it’s … it’s … it’s Trek!” When they buy every single novel, regardless of whether it’s written by someone wonderful (say, PAD) or someone ghastly (say, Diane Carey — apologies to those who like her work), and when they watch everything up to and including things like Voyager’s “Threshold”, they are sending the message that the only thing that matters is the name. Quality is not an issue for them, and as such there’s no pressure to excel.
Now, obviously, national allegiance is a lot more deeply rooted than any given fandom — at least, I hope so. When one pledges support regardless of actions, however, it’s essentially endorsing blind loyalty rather than holding them to an actual standard of policy or behavior.
David, I suspect you agree with most of that and mean something slightly different by the phrase than I’m seeing — but regardless, I think any sort of oath of blind allegiance is well and truly dangerous. Change happens through skepticism and testability, not lockstep agreement.
In terms of “conservatives want America in the right just as much as liberals do,” I certainly believe that in general. I don’t think anyone is likely to say that, for example, John McCain doesn’t care deeply about what happens to this country — or, as a different example, Barry Goldwater.
None of the three people you cited were referring to conservatives in general, which is why it’s such a pity you decided to tar all liberals equally. All three of them were referring very specifically to the Bush administration or a subset thereof — and frankly, where most of them are concerned I tend to agree with the sentiments you so disliked (okay, apart from the “hëll” part, being an atheist and all). Sorry if that disturbs you.
TWL
Just adding my two cents, I agree that the United States does need to be held to a higher standard. Not only because we’re the sole remaining super power, but also– and more importantly– because we present ourselves as having the ideal form of government, one of the people, by the people and for the people. We don’t always live up to our own ideals, and when we fall short of them, we should make every effort to correct that. If present ourselves as a model to the world, then we should make every effort to present ourselves in the best possible light.
In the prisoner abuse/torture scandal, that means we punish the individual soldiers involved, as well as those in a position of command who either authorized such actions or, through inaction, let them happen. I also think that someone high up at the Pentagon should be fired, either Rumsfeld or a high-ranking officer. Why? Because we need to send a message that such behavior will absolutely not be tolerated, and that when it happens, we do not simply give a slap on the wrist to the individual soldiers involved, then sweep it under the rug.
On the one hand, it tells the military brass that such actions as the torture of the Iraqi prisoners will lead to repercussions far up the chain of comand; and, on the other hand, making an example of a high ranking official sends a message to the world that we are serious about not tolerating abusive behavior by members of our military.
Yes, there will always be those who will hate us no matter what we do, and would have hated us even if we’d never done any wrong to anyone for any reason. But if the punishment for the prisoner abuse is essentially a slap on the wrist, it just gives more people a legitimate reason to hate us. In the long run, it will hurt us to incur increased enmity against us.
As to “My Country, right or wrong”, a quick google seached turned up three different contexts to that statement.
At this site:
http://www.summitlake.com/COMMENTARY/RightOrWrong.html?reload_coolmenus
We have:
“Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right, but our country, right or wrong.”
Stephen Decatur, April 1816
And
“I can never join with my voice in the toast which I see in the papers attributed to one of our gallant naval heroes. I cannot ask of heaven success, even for my country, in a cause where she should be in the wrong. Fiat justitia, pereat coelum [“Let justice be done though heaven should fall” – anonymous, circa 43 B.C.]. My toast would be, may our country always be successful, but whether successful or otherwise, always right.”
John Quincy Adams, August 1, 1816
and then, at this site:
http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/jun02/voice.htm
we again have the Decatur quote, followed by this:
“Fifty-five years later, Carl Schurz, German-born U.S. general and U.S. senator, clarified the concept, “Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right.” British author, G. K. Chesterton would probably have agreed with Schurz, since he wrote in 1901, “‘My country, right or wrong’ is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying ‘My mother, drunk or sober.'”
Personally, I think Schurz and Chesterton said it best. If your country is right, then that’s great, but if your country is wrong, isn’t it best to change whatever that wrong is and put things to rights? Why would anyone want their country to be wrong or to do wrong?
In some cases, what is right and what is wrong is a matter of opinion and political point of view. Bush has done wrong? Put things right by voting him out of office. Bush has done right? Vote to keep him in office for a second term.
But in other cases, such as the Trail of Tears, slavery, and the forced interment of Japanese-American citizens, there is no doubt that a wrong has been committed. The abuse of those prisoners in Iraq crossed the line. It was wrong. That wrong needs to be put right.
Rick
That should be “internment” I knew something about that word looked wrong.
Rick
What happens to an empire when it becomes to powerfull and arrogant? It seems to me that we have come to a turning point and I hope to God we can turn back.
Of course you can never take back the things you have done wrong, but you can be truly sorry for what you have done and try to make amends and ratify a situation you have created.
The big problem that we have, at least what I think, is that too many people, especially those in power, do not see that we have done any wrong. And what’s worse, how do you convince someone that what they are doing is wrong when they are wholeheartedly convinced that they do right?
In my opinion, torturing those people was very wrong. Those responsible should be publically punished. How else are you going to show the world, and more importantly ourselves, that we truely understand how horrible these actions were?
I don’t want to be part of something where atrocities breed more atrocities. Why can’t we try to end the cycle?
I worry every day now. Not just for the U.S. but for everyone around the world. There are innocent people everywhere even in Iraq. I cannot condone or even begin to understand the necessity of bombing a whole culture, because we think our culture is right.
We are a country founded on the right to decide our own fates. Who are we to decide anothers fate?
When I look to the future I don’t want to see blood. We have come so far in this world, isn’t there another way?
In the end everyone will have to answer for their actions. It’s silly to think that we as a country won’t. Let’s try to fix what we’ve done wrong so no one tries to fix it for us. Let’s do what’s right instead of doing what’s comfortable and easy. Let’s take the hard path because you can feel better about youself at the end.
By all that’s holy, I want to feel good about our decisions as a country. I want to lay my head down on my pillow at night content, knowing that we’ve done some good.
And just maybe if we take responsiblity for our actions, other people will as well. Lead by example,not by force.
And for God’s sake, VOTE.
Blackjack wrote: “After I doubled back to look at my post, I realized that I overstated what I meant. I don’t mean that the military is incapable of humanitarian works, or even that they should never do them. What I was aiming for, and obviously missed, was that while there is still fighting going on, that is what they should be focusing on. They should not have to let their guard down to help civilians when there is still an active threat.”
All areas of Iraq are not the same. Some places have few insurgent problems, and the military folks, while still exercising due diligence, are reaching out to those Iraqis who are receptive. This definitely has its risks, but it is critical to do so if we want to show the Iraqis the positive side of America. You don’t win friends by hunkering down in a bunker somewhere. It takes face time, and action — not words.
By the way, based on what I know about the Air Force mentality, these reach-out efforts are probably originating at the unit level.
The URLs below are some Air Force-related humanitarian stories, written in just the past week, showing how this service interacts with people around the world. You’ll probably never read any of these stories in your local newspaper, because no one died, no one was maimed, and the stories don’t feature pictures of anguished, teary-eyed people spattered with blood.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007716
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007689
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007703
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007679
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007713
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007683
Some of you may look at these stories as “propaganda” because they were written by Air Force journalists. But keep in mind that the stories are actually written for an internal military audience who reads the base newspaper. This group is much more “in the know” about such ongoing activities than the average civilian, and can be a much tougher audience.
Regardless of your point of view, keep in mind these are real events, real people, and that the military journalists covering these events are taught to follow the same ethics and protocols when covering a story as, say, a journalist with the Miami Herald. I know, because I WAS a military journalist.
Russ Maheras
Tim Lynch said:
“The problem with saying “I will support my country in any scenario”, though, is that it essentially gives said country a free pass to do whatever it wants knowing it has your support.”
OH MY GOD!!!! TIM, I AGREE WITH YOU AGAIN.
In all seriousness, we the people do need to criticize wrong doings. If we commit a wrong doing, then we as a nation need to own up to it, admit it & rectify the mistake, same as with anyone.
I support our troops in Iraq for the invasion, & i do believe we went in with the right intentions, i do however have to admit that the administration made a horrible mistake in the occupation of Iraq. Now i think both sides are to blame for the situation, HOWEVER, ultimatly this is the president’s fault. This is why: THE PRESIDENT WEAKEANED. Bush’s priority right now should be being Presidential, not caring about re election. The people will ultimatly decide if what he did was right or wrong with their votes. The president should be doing his best & allowing the troops to be their best. Instead, he ties their hands and says fight a war with one hand tied behind their back.
We are at war. Yes. Fine. I agree. We are. Some say we shouldn’t be there to begin with. Fine, I understand your point. But we must fight the war as americans, not barbarians or subhumans. we are the standard by which the world is measured. We conduct ourselves with honor & integrity.
Like Karen said (oh boy, i agree with another lib. God help me) being patriotic means a lot more then just waving your flag around.
Joe V.
Crystal: We are a country founded on the right to decide our own fates. Who are we to decide anothers fate?
I agreed with that until 9-11. That has made me realize that, for better or worse, we have to defend ourselves from Radical Islam. While forces outside of Islam can’t reform the religion itself, we do need to take steps so that moderates within it have the chance to do so. Afghanistan was a good first step since it was ruled by the Taliban. Iraq is another good step, but not as good. Iran is likely the next major one we need to be concerned with.
Now, of course, we are faced with the age-old adage of leading the horse to water and how to make it drink. How do you get the Iraqis and other moderates to want to remake their country and religion so that non-Muslims are no longer threatened?
This is a long-haul project, and it will be difficult. I have mixed feelings about nation-building, too, but we can’t stand by and watch another 9-11 happen without doing anything.
Hey Mark,
I agree that we need to defend ourselves. But if we don’t hold ourselves up to higher standards how can we expect others to do it. We need to keep humanity in all of our dealings. Not throw it to the wind.
I personnally think we are dealing with the war in the wrong way. Instead of a military standpoint we need to take a police standpoint. Infiltration. There are plenty of Muslims that do not agree with the al quida movement. (Did I spell that right?) Recruit them. Build up their police forces. Show them the policing tactics that we use here. Raiding and such. As a society they need to learn how to police their own society, not rely on us to do it for them.
Education is the key I think. 9/11 sickened me too, but I don’t think destroying them will make it right.
Tim Lynch,
A few things:
1) If you would reread my “screed”, you would know that I do not equate Muslims with terrorists. I do feel it is a mistake to let the insurgents regroup. They view it as weakness. I would love to work in harmony with the Iraqi people, and I would also love to crush those who would kill us. It is foolhardy to try and be sensitive to the Muslim culture and then at the same time ignore the fundamentalist aspects of that culture that value strength and “standing up’ to the enemy and view our hesitancy not as “negotiation” but “capitulation”
2.) To me, this war is a defining moment for our nation. As John McCain, a man you claim to respect, said to Judy Woodruff when asked “Do you think we can win?” :
“We must win. We MUST win.”
And I don’t think McCain is viewed as “a loose cannon, and he definitely doesn’t blindly follow Bush, who I feel deep down he holds with utter contempt.
3.) I read the Kalamazoo link, and let me say I’m disappointed. While I could spend days citing instances where the Left has silenced sppech on college campuses, that is irrelevant to this argument. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And, much like I feel Kerry not being really tested in the primaries could hurt him, if Bush only speaks to those who agree with him for the rest of this campaign (although this was the students’ doing apparently) and doesn’t get challenged, well, that will hurt him as well. And even if it doesn’t, what hapened in Kalamazoo is just wrong.
3.) Again, if I “scared the hëll out of” you, I hope it was because you misinterpreted my words. I simply feel we need to fight to win. I am quite certain many of our soldiers have died being careful not to harm civilians, and even taking care to acknowledge sensibilities.
What i would do is storm the places wherethey feel “safe”. But I would make sure to bring camera crews along. Then we could see which side is really callous toward innocents and “sacred” sites.
4.) For the record, I do not “blindly” follow this Administration or the Republican party. I defend the ACLU as much as I defend the NRA, and I simply feel we are doing the right thing and MUST win.
5.) Your “Star Trek” analogy is a good one. There is a friend I used to watch “Buffy” and “Angel” with. I saw the last fe episodes of “Voyager” with him, too, just because I wanted to see how it ended, though i had long ago given up watching it. Then I decided to give “Enterprise” a shot. What the heck. It was new.
it was also terrible. I think I saw a total of three episodes. Then I STOPPED WATCHING IT! This was inconceivable to my friend, who nevertheless had spent every episode we watched critiquiing everything about it, from the acting to the dialogue to the premise to the pacing. In phone conversations, he would constantly and gleefully point out the abysmal ratings and claim that “This shows things aren’t as rosy as Berman would have us believe.”
I finally replied, “Boy, you’re obsessed with proving that, aren’t you?
Enraged, he replied, “And you’re obsessed with proving that the ratings are good!”
I’m like, “No. I don’t care. I stopped watching it. Maybe if more people do the same, they’ll cancel it and put a better Star trek show on.If you hate it so much and enjoy seeing it fail, why are you still watching it?”
To which he said, “Because it’s Star Trek”.
Sigh. Me, personally, I would rather read one of the novels instead of watching a poor show. And for the record, i feel only Michael Jan Friedman and christie Golden come close to the quality of PAD’s Trek stories, and I agree that Diane Carey’s novels are pretty poor (if she has Picard talk to the holoKirk ONE MORE TIME…. 🙂
I overgeneralized, and I apologize for that. I do, however, stand behind the sentiment. An awful lot of people on the left don’t merely disagree with conservatives, they demonize us. With all due respect, TWL, of the three examples I cited, only one (Karen) was referring to a single conservative. Kerry was referring to the Republican party as “crooked,” and by calling support of the President a “character flaw” it’s possible to simultaneously insult about a hundred million people; an impressive accomplishment, but uncalled for. Perhaps they were making the same error I did by exaggerating the scope of their statements, but frankly I think they said exactly what they meant.
On the deeper issue, I don’t agree with you (still addressing TWL) when you equate allegiance with “lockstep agreement.” I don’t agree with President Bush on every issue. For one thing, President Bjorlin probably wouldn’t have gone to war in Iraq because the political costs were so high. I’m going to vote for Bush’s reelection anyway because I agree with most of his decisions. Bush understands Realpolitik. Either Kerry doesn’t or he understands but sucks at it. Whether the candidate of my choice wins the election has nothing to do with being an American, however. As best I can tell, you take the John Quincy Adams position, whereas I favor the Decatur/Schurz viewpoint.
The inclination to cut and run confuses me deeply. You wrote last week that there was a 50-50 chance you’d bail if Bush were reelected. Suppose many liberals were to go with you; do you really think leaving the world’s only superpower in the unchallenged hands of us Bushies will help? In any event, politics are cyclical. I remember the “V for Vendetta” comic that came out a while back, under the British Conservative government. Alan Moore wrote in his introduction to the trade paperback that he was thinking about leaving Britain because Thatcherism bothered him so much. How dumb do you think he’d have felt after Blair was elected? (And re-elected. And may be re-elected again next year…) Don’t leave. Stay and fight for what you believe in. I certainly will be doing just that, no matter how many times Kerry is elected, or even if the Democrats drag Mondale out of retirement and make him President. I’ll still be here, bìŧçhìņg loudly.
Also, I liked Diane Carey’s novels when I was in high school. I don’t know what I’d think of them now.
Incidentally, I agree with skrinq that picking on Limbaugh is legitimate. My disagreement with Al Franken isn’t that I think he’s wrong to call Limbaugh a big fat idiot, it’s more of a “pot, kettle, black” issue. “Don’t stoop to the level of your opponent” is the whole point of this thread.
“Karen suggests Bush is going to hëll”
Please read the post above that one and then mine. It states that Bush thinks he’s going to heaven. I then said he may not be. I never specifically said he’s going to hëll. While I’m not up on all things Christian, since I am Jewish, don’t you people have a limbo place, too? Anyway, my post was said tongue in cheek with a little smiley on the end. I would never presume to seriously talk about where anyone is truly headed in an afterlife, since I’m not sure what awaits us. It was certainly NOT meant as a rant against all republicans, and I would absolutley hate for anyone to think I have come even close to Rush’s screeds.
Sorry, just checked back and saw that there was no smiley face. I can only say that I meant “Heaven…might not be his ultimate destination…” in a lighter way than it was taken.
I think it’s all too easy to demonize either side because both sides are plagued by yammerhead idiots.
*sigh*
Just gotta make sure that YOU aren’t being a yammerhead…..
Just a few hours ago we got an apology from ‘The Daily Mirror’ – one of the British tabloid papers that a huge proportion of the population read – for publishing faked pictures of British soldiers from the Queen’s Lancaster Regiment abusing prisoners. Also, the paper’s editor, the scandal-tastic Piers Morgan, finally got shamed into resigning. (finally!… sorry just a snippet of personal bias in there)
Now, just cos there’s no proper photos doesnt mean it isnt happening, but it doesnt prove it either. pictures are a million miles away frpm rumours and for a paper with a majority readership in this country and international exports to publish photos without taking time to check they’re genuine – putting lives from the QLR, other British soldiers, other coalition soldiers, and even the population of my country at risk is abyssmal behaviour.
That said, I can understand wanting to print them, I’d back them if they were real because the truth is what is needed and coming from one of facet of the multilimbed beast al-quida claim to be fighting illustrates how we are all not the same, and deserving of individual concern and not an umbrella term like ‘western capitalist pigs’ or whatnot.
Duane and Joe V,
The first thing I said:
Jerome,
1) If you would reread my “screed”, you would know that I do not equate Muslims with terrorists.
Never said you did. Look back at my response — I never mention Muslims or Islam in any form. I don’t know exactly what you’re responding to here, but it’s clearly something you’re reading into more than it’s something I said.
2.) To me, this war is a defining moment for our nation.
Hold it right there.
Define “this war”, if you would.
The “war on terror” is nothing more than a figure of speech. As “terror” is an emotion and an abstract concept, it’s not something you can actually declare war ON. As Lewis Lapham put it a year or two ago, declaring a war on terror is akin to declaring a war on pride, or a war on lust.
If you want to start talking about winning or losing “this war”, you need to define your terms.
Who or what, exactly, are we at war with? “Terror” is not a valid answer.
How do we know when we’ve won? Who exactly would need to surrender or somehow end hostilities for us to know we were victorious?
How do we know when we’ve lost?
If you cannot provide answers to those, then the only conclusion is that the “war on terror” isn’t a war per se, but simply a new state of mind you’re using to justify new tactics and policies.
As John McCain, a man you claim to respect, said to Judy Woodruff when asked “Do you think we can win?” :
“We must win. We MUST win.”
I would like to see the exact context of the question. He could have been talking about winning the battle with the Iraqi insurgents. He could have been talking about winning the war for Iraqi hearts and minds. Based on the small quote you included above, there’s no way to know exactly what he meant.
(As an aside, your phrase “a man you claim to respect” is a rhetorical tactic that implies I don’t actually respect him, but merely pretend to. You’re an intelligent person, so I assume I don’t need to go into detail about precisely HOW disgusting I find that tactic. I’ll just ask, firmly, that you not use it again.)
3.) Again, if I “scared the hëll out of” you, I hope it was because you misinterpreted my words.
Based on your post clarifying it … no, it’s not. Your premise seems to be that we can achieve all our goals in Iraq and the Middle East as a whole solely on the basis of military force, so long as we “fight to win.”
I feel quite strongly that said belief will not make America the slightest bit safer, and in the long run is quite a bit more likely to destroy us than to save us.
So no, I don’t think I’ve misinterpreted you. I think I’m reading your take on things just fine.
As long as I was asking you to define your terms, though, here’s another one along the same vein:
If we need to “fight to win”, what exactly does that mean? What tactics and approaches ARE you willing to see our military or our interrogators carry out, and what tactics or approaches would you consider unacceptable under any circumstances? Specifics, please: one man’s proper interrogation is another man’s Abu Ghraib, and I’d like to see exactly where you feel the lines should be drawn. Your previous post suggests that there isn’t much of a line for you, and I assume you simply forgot to correct that.
TWL
David,
With all due respect, TWL, of the three examples I cited, only one (Karen) was referring to a single conservative. Kerry was referring to the Republican party as “crooked,” and by calling support of the President a “character flaw” it’s possible to simultaneously insult about a hundred million people; an impressive accomplishment, but uncalled for.
I would disagree with the Kerry line. When I first heard it, I took it as referring to the Bush administration and in particular the dirty-tricks squad that runs misleading ads. I never for a moment thought he was referring to all Republicans. Considering how strongly he’s praised both McCain and Warner recently, I don’t think he really could be.
Garofalo’s line about “a character flaw” is really more of a line against Bush than it is against all Republicans, I think, but I’ll concede that people could be justifiably offended by that one. (Given the number of Republicans I’ve seen quoted recently who aren’t planning to vote Bush this time around, though, I suspect not all conservatives are as offended by it as you were.)
On the deeper issue, I don’t agree with you (still addressing TWL) when you equate allegiance with “lockstep agreement.”
That’s your right, but it’s what’s logically implied by the statement “I will support my country under any scenario.”
When there is no scenario that would make you withhold your support, that means anyone running the country can count on your support regardless of the actions they take.
If there’s no way for someone to lose your allegiance or support, then you have no claim or hold on their subsequent actions, since you’ve already pledged your support. It may not be lockstep agreement, but so far as I can tell under any practical circumstances it means any disagreement is irrelevant.
Perhaps we’re meaning slightly different things here. What exactly do you mean by “support my country” in this case?
The inclination to cut and run confuses me deeply. You wrote last week that there was a 50-50 chance you’d bail if Bush were reelected. Suppose many liberals were to go with you; do you really think leaving the world’s only superpower in the unchallenged hands of us Bushies will help?
No, of course not, and that’s a legitimate argument on the side of me staying. I think you’ve misread me if you believe I’d be leaving for the sake of the country. If I leave, it will be for the sake of my family (esp. my daughter-to-be) and my own mental health, among other reasons. I’d just as soon not go into particulars here, however, as it’s a fairly upsetting thing to have to think about and I’d just as soon wait until I have to do so.
(I will say that if Bush wins a second term, I have strong suspicions that your statement “politics are cyclical” may break down for a good long time, which is part of my concern.)
TWL
Tim,
In response to your preceding questions:
1.) You accused me of “blaming a whole group for the actions of a few people”. If you did not mean Muslims, what did you mean? Iraqis? I never said we should “kill all Iraqis” either. I said we should kill those who are determined to kill us.
2.) In the context of “this war” I mean, for now, the War in Iraq. Actually, we’ve won the war. we are trying to win the peace.
Who are we at war with? Muslim extremists, from iraq and coming over from Iran and Syria.
How will I define victory? When these insurgents stop trying to disrupt our plans to rebuild Iraq, stop trying to hinder the process of forming a new government, stop trying to kill our soldiers, and barring that, when we kill them all.
How will we know when we’ve lost?
If we leave Iraq with our tail between our legs with no stable government in place, with the insurgents still there feeling they “stood up” to the mighty U.S., and with terrorists all over the world emboldened by our retreat/failure.
2.) McCain was talking about the battle against the insurgents in Fallujah. I feel he fears failure for the same reasons I stated above.
And for the record, Tim, you reeeeeeeeally are reading into things that aren’t there if you take a statement like “a man you claim to respect” as a “rhetorical tactic that implies i don’t really respect him”. If that is what you feel was implied, then sorry, the implication is all in your head. I could just as easily have said “a man you’ve stated you respect”. Or is that offensive, too, somehow? Judas Priest, Tim, next thing I know if I say “A man I know you respect” you’ll acuse me of putting words in your mouth or reading your mind.
can we please have a discussion, without you electronically bludgeoning me for every semantic slight you feel I “imply”. You’ve stated you respect McCain many times. That’s all i meant by “claim”.
Cheese and crackers.
3.) “Fight to win” means we fight to win. That does not mean nuking or even napalming them. It does mean we no longer will allow them to seek “sanctuary” in mosques. If they can defile it with guns, weapons, and plots to kill, well then, sorry, I don’t have a problem with storming them and taking thenm out.
While i realize this might rile some of the Muslim world, al-Sadr does not have a huge following. He is a radical. And many Muslims blame him for defiling mosques for reasons i just mentioned.
And if they are using wmen and children as human shields, we confront them up close and personal. Make sure we bring a camera too. Men who hide behind women and children don’t get a lot of respect in the Muslim world either.
As for interrogation tactics, well, I do agree with you that beatings and sadistic torture do not make us better than Saddam Hussein. We SHOULD be better than that. But embarrassing them? Please. They are trying to kill us and their information could save lives. In that context, even the leash girl would be borderline if the abuse wasn’t physical and the photo was merely staged for psychological effect. That is a very thin line to draw, but draw it we must.
Hope this answers your questions.
Jerome,
1.) You accused me of “blaming a whole group for the actions of a few people”. If you did not mean Muslims, what did you mean? Iraqis? I never said we should “kill all Iraqis” either. I said we should kill those who are determined to kill us.
You said that the Berg killing was evidence we should have launched an all-out assault in Falluja and Najaf, despite the fact that just a sentence or two earlier you said that the killing had nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with al-Qaeda’s “war against the West.” You said, and I quote, “to hëll with cultural sensibilities.” You said “we made a mistake negotiating with them” at Falluja.
That does not specify “those who are determined to kill us”, or even mention al-Qaeda. That discusses Iraq, and specifically the means by which you think it should be pacified. So, no, you didn’t say “kill all Iraqis”, nor did I say you did. You did, however, move immediately from the brutal killing of one man by al-Qaeda to a discussion of what we should do in a country which was not allied with them.
Of course, I’ve no doubt this doesn’t bother you, as Bush has tried to link Iraq to 9/11 for the last two and a half years. He has not succeeded, and neither will you.
2.) In the context of “this war” I mean, for now, the War in Iraq. Actually, we’ve won the war. we are trying to win the peace.
If “we’ve won the war”, then the McCain quote you were so insistent about bringing up is somewhere between confusing and meaningless, isn’t it?
Okay, so “the war” means Iraq. Got it.
1) Are you willing to accept the statement that said war is not synonymous with the so-called “war on terror”?
2) Why is a war that we started “the defining moment of our generation”, to use your words? This is Bush’s war, not mine, and I’ll be dámņëd if I let his mistakes define the rest of my life.
Who are we at war with? Muslim extremists, from iraq and coming over from Iran and Syria.
Is anyone opposed to the Iraqi occupation a “Muslim extremist”? Is anyone who shoots at us in the streets of Baghdad an extremist? Are people allowed to defend their homes without being linked to terrorism?
And if they really are coming over the border from Iran and Syria, does that mean you also recommend invading those countries and toppling those governments to ensure stability in the region?
If not, why not given the parallels with Iraq?
If so, why not say so openly?
How will I define victory? When these insurgents stop trying to disrupt our plans to rebuild Iraq, stop trying to hinder the process of forming a new government, stop trying to kill our soldiers, and barring that, when we kill them all.
What exactly gives the U.S. the right to forcibly rebuild a country when its own natives are saying quite loudly that they don’t want us there?
Let me rephrase: Colin Powell has said that once the interim government is in place on June 30 (a proposition I consider highly unlikely, but that’s a different issue), if said government tells us to leave, we’ll leave. Do you agree with that, even if it means our own plans for Iraq are left half done? At what point are we “allowed” to leave? At what point do the Iraqis truly have sovereignty over their country?
Or if June 30 arrives, and the government wants us gone because they think it’s the only way to achieve stability, do we insist that we have to “kill them all”?
How will we know when we’ve lost?
If we leave Iraq with our tail between our legs with no stable government in place, with the insurgents still there feeling they “stood up” to the mighty U.S., and with terrorists all over the world emboldened by our retreat/failure.
Unfortunately, you’ve left a big middle ground here. Your implication here is that we cannot leave until there is a safe, stable government in Iraq — even if that takes us the next century.
Is that an accurate assessment of your position? Has Bush’s choice to invade Iraq locked our country into a commitment of blood we can never escape?
You also never say whether this government is one that has to like us. Suppose that stable government says “leave tomorrow, or our soldiers start shooting.” Do we “leave with our tail between our legs”, or “kill them all”?
You don’t seem to be leaving a lot of happy options here.
2.) McCain was talking about the battle against the insurgents in Fallujah. I feel he fears failure for the same reasons I stated above.
If that’s what he meant, then for you to use it as a statement about the entire war is entirely dishonest and disingenuous.
And for the record, Tim, you reeeeeeeeally are reading into things that aren’t there if you take a statement like “a man you claim to respect” as a “rhetorical tactic that implies i don’t really respect him”.
No, frankly, I’m not. The word “claim” has a very different meaning from the word “states”, which is the alternative you suggested this time around. “Claim” implies that it’s a statement one party has asserted but which may or may not be true. “States” is far more neutral. You’re a political activist, a journalist, and one who sounds off a great deal about slanted media coverage to boot — I categorically refuse to insult your intelligence by believing that you choose your words without considering how they play.
You do this a lot — you phrase things which imply your debating “partners” are somehow not representing their own opinions or evidence honestly, and then get defensive when someone calls you on it.
Am I mortally offended? No, of course not — but I’m going on record here as saying that I’m not planning to play that game with you any more.
can we please have a discussion, without you electronically bludgeoning me for every semantic slight you feel I “imply”.
Certainly. All you need to do is stop using them. I think most of this particular thread has been a reasonably informative discussion, for example.
3.) “Fight to win” means we fight to win. That does not mean nuking or even napalming them. It does mean we no longer will allow them to seek “sanctuary” in mosques.
Okay, there’s one data point — or really two, one on each side of the “what’s okay” line. Thank you.
While i realize this might rile some of the Muslim world, al-Sadr does not have a huge following.
I don’t think the latter is relevant to the former, or at least not as relevant as you’re suggesting. Sure, al-Sadr doesn’t have a huge following — but that doesn’t mean a lot of the Muslim world wants us to go in and take care of him. (Consider, for example, how we would have reacted had the KGB assassinated Tim McVeigh shortly before Oklahoma City.)
And if they are using wmen and children as human shields, we confront them up close and personal.
Again, that’s somewhat vague. Does that mean we storm every place where such things are happening? And if it needs to be “up close and personal” with cameras involved, doesn’t that mean we can’t use the tanks, missiles, air strikes, etc. that are so strongly linked to American military power?
Do you mean we go hand-to-hand, or simply that no location where these alleged hostages exist should be allowed to remain standing with impunity?
As for interrogation tactics, well, I do agree with you that beatings and sadistic torture do not make us better than Saddam Hussein. We SHOULD be better than that. But embarrassing them?
Sexual humiliation up to and including simulated rape is a lot more than simple embarrassment, particularly for Arab men. This isn’t a case of some teenager telling her girlfriends that so-and-so stuffs her bra.
Please. They are trying to kill us and their information could save lives. In that context, even the leash girl would be borderline if the abuse wasn’t physical and the photo was merely staged for psychological effect.
Thank you. You have clarified your positions substantially. It doesn’t change my feelings about them (if anything, it confirms them), but I appreciate the clarification.
TWL
Horace,
Thank you for the clarification of your points. I have seen articles pointing to “up to 90%” of Iraqis originally detained mistakenly. From that you are willing to assume the people being abused were innocent. I’m not so certain of that myself. I don’t know that the people originally detained were kept, or that these people taken by mistake were the people mistreated. I’m sure the facts will come out as the investigation continues. Even if the prisoners were soldiers, their treatment is still abhorrent, but it would be good if this point can be clarified soon.
You believed the CIA? But they were wrong on so many other things. Have they suddenly gotten more efficient? Anyway, CIA right or wrong, if the Iraqi people want peace in their country, they cannot allow gangs of murderers, such as the people who killed Nick Berg to run loose in their midst. Whatever the nationality of the killers, they must not be allowed to kidnap and kill at their own pleasure. This means Iraqi citizens cannot turn away and ignore gangs of thugs among them. It seems to me that the best way to get rid of the Americans is to prove that Iraq can control itself without them and not descend into further chaos.
Your “proof” of U.S. perfidy in the 9/11 terrorist attack led to a web site that seemed pretty far out there, Horace. I tend to be skeptical of frothing-at-the-mouth anti-war ranting, just as I am skeptical of similar my-country-can-do-no-wrong breast beating. The material I saw on the web site showed me nothing that made me give any credence to your claims that the U.S. Executive Branch allowed 9/11 to happen. And, as it associates you with some very illogical conspiracy fans, it throws a wet blanket on any legitimate points you might make on other topics. Please consider your sources when making your claims.
The Americans went to war with Iraq over “weapons of mass destruction”
Heres a crazy thought instead of torturing sorry “liberating the Iraqi people” America could send their troops home.
If you saw a 6 month baby being killed infront of your eyes, what would you do to stop it? Think about this question carefully…. would you act differently if it was an Iraqi baby.
How many Iraqis would die in a nuclear attack?
What would the repurcussions be?
-perhaps the foundation for World War Three will be laid
-perhaps an Iraqi living in America would decide he has nothing to live for except revenge
-what answer will you give to God after you have taken over a country, enslaved a nation, all for oil (don’t kid yourselves that was why Iraq was invaded) and then nuked the country, killing thousands of innocent men, women, children
World War 2 was about patrioism
What is this war truly about?
What irrevocable damage has American already done to itself, and how far will it continue for
-oil?
-pride?
-arrogance?
-ignorance?
Perhaps Peter David is right, perhaps we should “help the Iraqi people” and what better way to help them than send a nuclear weapon towards them… can you think of something better?
No, (?)
The Iraqi war is over OIL? You really think we would take the political risk and spill our soldiers blood for oil when we could, you know, have made deals behind the world’s back like France and Russia and gotten oil that way? Or a hundred other less painful options.
Your “name” provides the answer.
NO wrote: “World War 2 was about patrioism. What is this war truly about? What irrevocable damage has American already done to itself, and how far will it continue for -oil?-pride?-arrogance?-ignorance?””
Well, actually, President Roosevelt (a Democrat), and President Truman (another Democrat) were both criticized regarding World War II for some of the same reasons you are criticizing Bush regarding Iraq (and 9-11, for that matter).
Critics have said:
— By cutting off Japanese access to rubber, oil, and other critical raw materials because of an embargo against Japan, Roosevelt “forced” Japan’s entry into WW II. The same critics, however, conveniently gloss over the fact that Japan was militaristic and had invaded neighboring countries long before Dec. 7, 1941. As a matter of fact, it was these Japanese forays that led to the embargo in the first place.
— Roosevelt allegedly had advance warning about the Japanese attack, but he chose to ignore it so the U.S. would be forced into a war that was already raging because of Japan’s ally, Germany. Again, the critics fail to mention that these Pearl Harbor “warnings” were as ambiguous and scattered as Bush’s “warnings” regarding 9-11.
— Truman supposedly dropped two a-bombs on Japan because he was a racist, and is thus, guilty of war crimes and genocide. The critics (bless ’em) ignore the Battle of Okinawa, which, because of its widespread introduction of the Kamikaze, and the “fight-to-the-death” credo of Japanese troops, was by far the bloodiest battle fought in the Pacific. It was the first major battle fought on Japanese soil, and the last major battle fought before the a-bombs were dropped. Based on the death toll on BOTH sides during that bloody island battle, Truman and his generals knew an invasion of the mainland would kill or injure MILLIONS. His one-two atomic punch quickly brought the stubborn Japanese leadership to its knees, ending the war quickly and decisively.
I find it sad (and a bit ironic) that 60 years later, Bush is being hammered by almost identical one-sided, partisan criticism from the OTHER side of the Congressional aisle.
“It’s all about oil, and racism against Arabs, and stubbornness, and let’s-go-to-war conspiracies, and…”
Gee, where have I heard that before? Haven’t we learned anything from history?
Russ Maheras
I suspect that if and when Cheney’s energy commission minutes ever come to light, we’ll see that yes, in part, this WAS about oil. But I do agree with you, Jerome, that doing so was a stupid, wasteful, tragic idea.
Rob
Over the past two years, I have chosen to play dumb and ignore what is going on around me in my world, because basically it is just too horrific to put into words. I have not felt a comfort or safety zone in my life since 9/11 as many other people, I am sure. The hardest part to get over is that a group of human beings could feel so tormented by our beliefs that they would feel the need to murder other innocent human beings.
Men in our country haven been given a job to do, defend our country, our people, our ways, our rights to democracy that were established over 200 yrs ago. It is unfortunate that many of our men that are attempting to accomplish this feat are barely into manhood theirselves. Of course we should expect mistakes to be made, but just as we teach our children mistakes are wrong, we must as a country also teach our soldiers when they have wronged.
I spoke to the mother of a soldier the other day. She was quite emotional and said she hadn’t seen her son in over 20 months. She said it is a constant battle to be both defensive and apologetic for “her son the soldier”. I believe the truth of the matter is that we are all equal in spite of our opposing views and that the basis is human life. For every one soldier that walks Iraq on either side, there is his family, his mother, his sister, his brother, father, grandmother… etc etc.
The soldier is taught in his training to be tough and strong and ever endearing to the cause, that doesn’t leave an option for having feeling, because emotion might get in the way of the job, but we cannot allow them all to be desensitized either. How many soldiers came back from VietNam with nightmares of war that left them less than human in mind? What will be the product of our soldiers minds now in the future?
How many of us have allowed ourselves to also be desensitized to keep from admitting we have a problem with what we see or how we are involved?
Stop some of the craziness, that’s all I can hope for.
“Gee, where have I heard that before? Haven’t we learned anything from history?”
Bush certainly has. Let’s see what he learned:
1) The 1994 election taught that a president can be incredibly popular from a military action, but see his popularity erode once that action ceases and American attention returns to matters of stateside importance. Therefore, the wise president keeps America in a state of war so that the electorate will be perpetually aware of it and thus afraid to make a change. Lesson learned.
2) Vietnam taught that allowing home viewers to see images of row after row of flag-draped coffins can have a rotting effect on support for a war. So the best thing to do is lay down a ban on all such shots. Lesson learned.
3) Watergate taught that revelations of shady dealings and dirty tricks can bring down a presidency. So the best thing to do is make your administration even more secretive. Hone your ability to keep the lid clamped tightly down at all times. Make yours the most secretive presidency in history, and also try your best to keep the press out of your hair since, if you give them a sword, they will stick it in and twist it with relish. Lesson learned.
I’m sure there’s other lessons he’s learned as well.
PAD
Dead on accurate on all three points…