OT: stream of thought.....

[red5angel]

I was thinking about that marine that was suposed to have shot the unarmed Iraqi a week ago. It's a funny thing war and a funny thng that there are rules. There's something sick in the idea that one minute you could be trying to kill each other and the next you have to honor the codes of war.
Do I blame him? I don't know, I don't think so. I'd have sent him on his way, his gun is probably needed anyway, in a battle like fallujah.
I remember rolling through the streets of Moghadishu and even being shot at. Random sniper fire mostly, never took any casualties, one wounded. I never hated the people I ran into daily out there. Of course I didn't have to sweep the city and clear it of 3000 screaming muslims trying to kill me.
I see beheadings, rpg's and car bombs killing children and Iraqi families just trying to survive. Are we really the invaders and are we really doing most of the damage?
What would happen if I got shot in the face, or my buddies were dying in the streets, killd by faceless assassins who refused to show themselves, and used the brutal and public killing of civilians as a tactic to try to turn me away.
One of my old Instructors was killed 3 days after the war was supposed to be officially over. I keep seeing his face...would I see the face of the iraqis laying on thta floor or would I still hear the bullets and the moans?

I don't know. I hate them. The insurgents that is. Do I have the right? I don't know. I know they don't look at me like I look at other people. I can't imagine what an Iraqi civilian sees when they see american soldiers, but I like to believe any level of education that was free of extremist or oppressive propoganda would understand that the world is what it is, and once america is free and clear of Iraq, the people of that country will have a chance to make it something for them, and not about a few of the rich and powerful.

[Li Nin KiT]

blah blah blah stfu.

[CaptinPickAxe]

Where is the honor in killing UNARMED CIVILIANS?

If he didn't shoot them, he has more honor in his pinky finger than in the entire being of a person who would kill the innocent.

The chain of command is broken when morality is being comprimised.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by red5angel
I can't imagine what an Iraqi civilian sees when they see american soldiers Something like this, probably:

[Li Nin KiT]

Originally posted by Serpent
Something like this, probably:

wrong, they dont see them as savours anymore.

[red5angel]

blah blah blah stfu.

wow, I see we have some idiots in hiding on this board, Thanks for making yourself known.....consider yourself not worthy of this thread.


CPA, I"m not saying what he did was wrong, but put yourself in his shoes for a moment. First, we're not talking an innocent civilian, we're talking a combatant, somebody who has been trying to kill this soldier and his buddies.

What is this morality you speak of? I mean really, where is the morality you speak of in the beheading of innocent civilians. How about that chick that worked for CARE? Where was the morality there? The taking of innocent civillains for ransom or to free insrugents? Then beheading them when you don't get what you want, where's the fukking morality in that? It's easy to speak of morality when you're not being shot at, or sliding the body of your buddy into a plastic bag to be shipped home.
Fukk, these guys are barely human. they don't look at non muslims, and americans as anything but less then human. they want to die for their cause, then let them die for their cause, Let them die by the thousands for all I care and let the bodies pile up to block out the sun. Let them rot in their "morality".

[red5angel]

wrong, they dont see them as savours anymore.

you are a reatrd aren't you? Before you become fodder why don't you stop and fukking read what he posted, then look at the picture you retard.

[Chang Style Novice]

Serpent, be serious.

Red, you want to know what an Iraqi insurgent sees when he looks at an American soldier?

Here's a reminder (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/)

And try and remember who invaded who, genius.

[joedoe]

The main problem red is that not all of them are insurgents. And how would you feel about someone shooting an unarmed man in the USA?

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Serpent, be serious.
I was.

[diego]

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/iraqis_tortured_newyorker-k.jpg

onward christian fuqn soldiers....

[red5angel]

joedoe, it depends, are we at war?

CSN - before you decide to start being an ass, just pay attention to what I'm fukking saying, use your brain and not your heart.

but seriously, you people are fukking right. What right do we have to assure ythat our country, and outr way of life stays strong and in the lead. Easy for you to fukking sit on your couch and complain about the way the govenrment is. Remember you don't have to worry about people barging into your house and taking you away to be torutured. Oh I know the conpsiracy theories but you know as well as I do it just doesn't happen that way in this country.
But that's ok, you keep fooling yourself with some sort of armchair morality on what is right and wrong in the world. In the meantime the world is going to continue to play by the only the strong survive.
but whatever, enjoy your comfy life, your ability to question and your chance at an education.

[CaptinPickAxe]

Unarmed...you said it, not I. Shooting an unarmed man is like beating up a retard. Unfair and dispicable.

Kill the ones who are still shooting, not the ones who have given up. How ****ed would you be about an UNARMED American soldier being slaughtered?

[red5angel]

that's right gentleman, you post some pitctures of a few people committing atrocious acts, I'll post some of my own:

http://www.september11news.com/AttackImages.htm

This ones always fun to watch when your feeling like an american oppressor:

http://www.1underground.com/bergpromo.shtml


Wait! how about this, surely this is an prime example of the ultimate morality?

http://www.cargolaw.com/2000nightmare_cole.html

why would we ever go to war against muslim extremists?

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/newsfacts-sudanstrikes.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/08/08/wbom08.html

Seriously, it's all about america really. We're at fault for all of it. We make the muslims hate us. We make psychotic killers who have nothing else but a violent interpretation of their religion to turn to right?

wait a minute, who's killing all those children in Iraq again?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/iraq_10-04-04.html


do we want to continue posting pictures of all the atrocities commited or shall we move past that very rudmientary and inaccurate way of arguing? Seriously, a few mistreatments of prisoners in IRaq and suddenly that makes us horrible oppressing invaders? Grow up.

[red5angel]

Unarmed...you said it, not I. Shooting an unarmed man is like beating up a retard. Unfair and dispicable.


Did he give up or did he just get hit by so much return fire and shrapnel that he couldn't lift his gun anymore?

[CaptinPickAxe]

Is it really nessicary to kill a person who is no longer a threat? Wouldn't throwing them into jail for their crimes be a more humanitarian approach? How can we expect them to remain some what "civil" when we no longer abide by the rules WE wrote?

[red5angel]

I know what you're saying, I do. It's just hard to take off those shoes.

how do you determine if they are no longer athreat?

[CaptinPickAxe]

Like you said, if he can no longer lift his gun.

[red5angel]

even if he could, he would?


did you know that the geneva convention considers baled out pilots as non targets? They carry pistols and knives, but you can't shoot at them.

[CaptinPickAxe]

You can't shoot medics either. I'm saying if someone is incompacitated and can no longer fight, is it right to kill them? I think they should rott in jail. If one of our guys was in this situation, I'd hope they ended up in prison. You have to look at it from both ends of the spectrum. Would you want done to you what you do to others?

[CaptinPickAxe]

And how can you be pro-life but also pro-war?

war=death a.k.a. anti-life

EDIT: I mean generic 'you'

[FuXnDajenariht]

so basically you made a whole thread just to say ur for the war....again...

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by CaptinPickAxe
And how can you be pro-life but also pro-war?

If you feel that the war in question will minimize human suffering and death.

[FuXnDajenariht]

but not when its really gonna just cause more...

[Christopher M]

:confused:

[red5angel]

I think they should rott in jail.

and that's more humane?

just for the record, I'm pro-choice.


so basically you made a whole thread just to say ur for the war....again...

you're not paying attention.


but not when its really gonna just cause more...


sometimes you have to break a few eggs. The american revolution for example......

[FuXnDajenariht]

you seriously can't compare this to the revolutionary war. every innocent person that gets killed over there is validation. im sure they were begging us to invade Iraq after 9/11. break a few eggs? sooo...basically 10,000 people losing their lives is compared to breaking a couple chickin eggs. its easy for pro war people to scream go troops! from their armchairs when their own little children aren't getting shredded by uranium tipped bullets.

i laughed my ass off the other day when Bush said he sincerely hoped Iran didn't have nuclear weapons. he wants to give them the "benefit of the doubt". everyone and their mother knows Iran has them. will we be invading them too? of course not. because now N. Korea and Iran knows we can't do sh!t about it. besides the lack of military resources we'd look like warmongering monsters to the rest of the world..... credibility? whats that? besides like i said before. N. Korea actually is crazy enough to push the button if we step foot in their country. the whole country is brainwashed. "winning them over" is even less of a possibility than in Iraq. they'll fight till the last Korean draws breathe.


i can't waaait for world war 3. :)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by FuXnDajenariht
you seriously can't compare this to the revolutionary war.

:confused: Me?

[FuXnDajenariht]

Originally posted by red5angel


sometimes you have to break a few eggs. The american revolution for example......

[Christopher M]

Aha, sorry. I thought you were elaborating your "but not when its really gonna just cause more..." remark after my confused face guy.

[scotty1]

a few mistreatments of prisoners in IRaq and suddenly that makes us horrible oppressing invaders?

No, invading makes us the invaders. No way to argue round that one.

Basically, if a wounded Marine was executed by an Iraqi insurgent you'd think that was OK?

Of course not, so it's not right the other way around either, and as far as the insurgents are concerned it probably just further demonstrates the West's perceived lack of morals.

EDIT: you, to us.

[FuXnDajenariht]

lol my mistake. i was too lazy to click quote. what can i say...ima lazy **** :D

[FatherDog]

red5 figured Abu Ghraib was fine and justifiable, because torture is A-ok if we /might/ get some information out of it. Now he figures that a Marine shooting an unarmed man is also A-okay. I'm saddened, but I'm not surprised. It merely demonstrates that his views have consistency, if not morality.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Morality? arbitrary values according to the particular observer's perspectives.. morality changes with each situation..

There is no absolute "right/wrong".. there are only consequences and our arbitrary labels of desirability..

The US takes action in the guise of liberating an oppressed people, as liberators and with its radical right-wing leader it stands to reason that the US would abide by the "golden rule" regardless of the situation.. Now, that is fine as a State position, but.. in the heat of battle, in the stress of war, the individual's perspectives and morals sometimes override the state position.. it happens, it doesn't make it right/wrong.. it makes it something to consider and search for ways to avoid..

The US has assumed the role of "World Leader" primarily through its superior military, its economic influence, and its desire to export democracy.. it is obligatory that in exporting democracy the US must attach the same rights and expectations it has for its own people to those it is liberating and to those that oppose liberation.. "inalienable rights", are not for a particular nation/caste/culture.. they are inherent to all people.. regardless of the situation, it s the sanctity of life that should be the consistent motivation of actions like war....

Be well...

[Radhnoti]

Just to add a different perspective to this...
The marine who shot the insurgent had just lost a friend earlier that week to a terrorist using a "playing dead" tactic. Apparently this is one of the main ways our guys get killed. Terrorist lays down with other dead terrorists and plays dead or injured, "mop up" units come through, bad guy shoots and/or pulls grenade pin killing as many Americans as possible.

Picked that up on NPR, not exactly a mouthpiece for the Bush administration...

FuXnDajenariht - "sooo...basically 10,000 people losing their lives is compared to breaking a couple chickin eggs."

It's funny how people focus on that statistic and ignore the statistics of the people murdered/tortured under Saddam's regime. Yeah, yeah...I know, "THAT is not why Bush went to war!" Gotcha, I've heard it...

I'm not even a big supporter of the war, but it aggravates me when people start crying about all the poor Iraqis we've killed, intentionally forgeting about the horror inflicted upon that populace BEFORE we ever got there.

[David Jamieson]

Are we really the invaders and are we really doing most of the damage?

This is the thing you said that sort of stumped me for a second.

But, yes, the US really are the invaders and yes, they are doing the most physical damage.

[FuXnDajenariht]

Originally posted by Radhnoti
J

It's funny how people focus on that statistic and ignore the statistics of the people murdered/tortured under Saddam's regime. Yeah, yeah...I know, "THAT is not why Bush went to war!" Gotcha, I've heard it...

I'm not even a big supporter of the war, but it aggravates me when people start crying about all the poor Iraqis we've killed, intentionally forgeting about the horror inflicted upon that populace BEFORE we ever got there.

so we help the Iraqis by killing more Iraqis. yea, that makes alotta sense.... :rolleyes: think about what you just said. so hypothetically im chasing a dangerous serial killer, im gonna stop him from killing by murdering everyone in his neighborhood? mmmkay. whatever you say man....

we should learn from this war that countries have to handle their own demons. no foreigner is going to liberate any country that doesn't want their help. especially by force. its ridiculous to think that. there will always be resent. they will always pick the devil that they know instead of sum self righteous wanna be cowboy from country they hated in the first place.

[CaptinPickAxe]

It scares me. Americans can come on to a international forum and give us such a bad name by saying they agree with the slaughter of unarmed, injured troops.

When you stoop to the level of terrorist, you yourself becomes one.

Liberators? Bah! We're oil mongers and janitors to the first Bush's shortcomings.

[Radhnoti]

FuXnDajenariht - "so hypothetically im chasing a dangerous serial killer, im gonna stop him from killing by murdering everyone in his neighborhood?"

Your hypothethical is flawed I think. How about you see a dangerous serial killer go into a home, his MO is to kill whole families, you shoot him and accidentally shoot the father behind whom he was hiding.

FuXnDajenariht - "...countries have to handle their own demons...".

I lean this way as well to be honest. But to say the U.S. has made things worse in that country...it's just wrong. Saddam literally had millions of his own people killed and tortured.
There's a big debate going on right now in our media about whether or not to release the thousands of hours of tape that's been found of atrocities committed in Iraq prior to our arrival. The stuff is just so terrible no one wants to broadcast it. The flip side is that it would likely solidify the U.S. position's "righteousness", in most who've seen the tapes opinion.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by red5angel
joedoe, it depends, are we at war?

...

Excellent question red. If you are at war, then the rules of war apply. If you are not at war, then it is not really the place for soldiers is it?

This is a very interesting point. In my (very possibly flawed) opinion, there are some situations that call for soldiers, and some situations call for forces that are trained more like police. Sending soldiers in to carry out peacekeeping operations always seemed a little funny to me since soldiers are trained to kill.

[FuXnDajenariht]

....but you continue firing and accidently kill the rest of the family too.... what good did you do?

i suppose killing a couple thousand is alright. i mean its not as bad as millions.... only a couple thousand lives from a sovereign nation.... no biggie... i feel so much better.

~end sarcasm~


big momma america has to liberate the world. save the foreigners from themselves right?

so tell me. when are we droppin troops into Sudan?

[CaptinPickAxe]

right after we nuetrilize the threat in N. Korea and Iran...all without catching Bin Laden, the perpitrator of 9-11.;)

What are we crusading for again? I could of swore it was to catch the people responsible for 9-11...wasn't that al Queda?

[MoreMisfortune]

red is a very bad person
but i dont hate him cos of that
i say "no" to hate

now let me get back to my uranium enrichment lil project thing i gots going on, ok

[Radhnoti]

FuXnDajenariht - "...only a couple thousand lives from a sovereign nation..."

Again, have you weighed that against the LITERAL millions killed by the once dominant regime?
I'm not arguing about whether we should be there or not, as I would prefer not to have been. I'm questioning the moral high ground opponents of the U.S. administration want to take.

joedoe - "If you are at war, then the rules of war apply. If you are not at war, then it is not really the place for soldiers is it?"

I agree. But who has a "police force" large enough for this job? I think you have to try to follow the models our history have provided. Occupied Germany, Japan, etc. Troops didn't just win and leave there, nor could they do so here. "In for a penny, in for a pound", I think is the appropriate expression...


FuXnDajenariht - "....but you continue firing and accidently kill the rest of the family too.... what good did you do?"

Are you really trying to claim that Iraqi losses of...what was your figure 10,000?...makes up a large percentage of the Iraq population? If you REALLY want to make your hypothetical fair the serial killer hid behind the FISHBOWL and a stray bullet took out Flipper the goldfish. A loss, to be sure but on balance the family gained a lot.

Again, I'm a fan of the founding fathers wishes to "avoid entangling alliances", but having overthrown the Iraq regime the U.S. now has a responsibility to set Iraqi citizens on the road of political self-determination. And, bad news for all Bush haters, if the U.S. succeeds, history will certainly judge Bush as kindly as the other successful wartime Presidents.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Radhnoti
FuXnDajenariht - "...only a couple thousand lives from a sovereign nation..."

Again, have you weighed that against the LITERAL millions killed by the once dominant regime?
I'm not arguing about whether we should be there or not, as I would prefer not to have been. I'm questioning the moral high ground opponents of the U.S. administration want to take.

joedoe - "If you are at war, then the rules of war apply. If you are not at war, then it is not really the place for soldiers is it?"

I agree. But who has a "police force" large enough for this job? I think you have to try to follow the models our history have provided. Occupied Germany, Japan, etc. Troops didn't just win and leave there, nor could they do so here. "In for a penny, in for a pound", I think is the appropriate expression...


...

I agree. You cannot invade, topple the ruling party, then leave. And I can accept that while the military are probably not the appropraite force to handle this, the police probably aren't either. You would need a peacekeeping force that sits somewhere in between.

Let me throw another model at you - East Timor. Granted it was a much smaller scale than Iraq, but the military went in first, secured the country, then handed control over to civilian authorities that were backed up by an international police force. I personally believe that was a great success.

Anyway, arguing about it here is not going to make an ounce of difference. We can make comparisons between Iraq, Germany, Japan, or East Timor all we want but the situations are different in every case.

[diego]

Originally posted by red5angel
joedoe, it depends, are we at war?

CSN - before you decide to start being an ass, just pay attention to what I'm fukking saying, use your brain and not your heart.

but seriously, you people are fukking right. What right do we have to assure ythat our country, and outr way of life stays strong and in the lead. Easy for you to fukking sit on your couch and complain about the way the govenrment is. Remember you don't have to worry about people barging into your house and taking you away to be torutured. Oh I know the conpsiracy theories but you know as well as I do it just doesn't happen that way in this country.
But that's ok, you keep fooling yourself with some sort of armchair morality on what is right and wrong in the world. In the meantime the world is going to continue to play by the only the strong survive.
but whatever, enjoy your comfy life, your ability to question and your chance at an education.

so that is why the states are there they care about things like china fuqn up tibet so they gonna be freeing up tibet next eh..gonna see GW and the beastie boys doing free tibet gigs soon...maybe get arnold on stage to do a lil strong man complol

i thought we were there for wmd so when we gonna free every nation from tyrants...there is a long list so when we going?:)

[diego]

Originally posted by Radhnoti
FuXnDajenariht - "so hypothetically im chasing a dangerous serial killer, im gonna stop him from killing by murdering everyone in his neighborhood?"

Your hypothethical is flawed I think. How about you see a dangerous serial killer go into a home, his MO is to kill whole families, you shoot him and accidentally shoot the father behind whom he was hiding.

FuXnDajenariht - "...countries have to handle their own demons...".

I lean this way as well to be honest. But to say the U.S. has made things worse in that country...it's just wrong. Saddam literally had millions of his own people killed and tortured.
There's a big debate going on right now in our media about whether or not to release the thousands of hours of tape that's been found of atrocities committed in Iraq prior to our arrival. The stuff is just so terrible no one wants to broadcast it. The flip side is that it would likely solidify the U.S. position's "righteousness", in most who've seen the tapes opinion. wtf and this is why bush went into iraq?...i'm lost on this...who exactly gave bush the ok to invade iraq?

i remember the un saying wait we need more time and bush was like f it we going preemptive striking and all that all scared of wmd...yall changing history or did i miss something?

mad peeps live under tyrants where there are no wmd we going there next cuz they could use our help!??

[diego]

Originally posted by Radhnoti
FuXnDajenariht - "...only a couple thousand lives from a sovereign nation..."

Again, have you weighed that against the LITERAL millions killed by the once dominant regime?
I'm not arguing about whether we should be there or not, as I would prefer not to have been. I'm questioning the moral high ground opponents of the U.S. administration want to take.



well if peeps told bush not to go in i think they stand on solid ground being bush lied about why he was going into iraq...

[ZIM]

Originally posted by diego
wtf and this is why bush went into iraq?...i'm lost on this...who exactly gave bush the ok to invade iraq?

i remember the un saying wait we need more time and bush was like f it we going preemptive striking and all that all scared of wmd...yall changing history or did i miss something?

mad peeps live under tyrants where there are no wmd we going there next cuz they could use our help!??
IIRC, the invasion of Iraq fell under the authorization for given in the Gulf War, because part of the 27? given reasons for going in were violation of the cease fire [no treaty was signed, I think].

[FuXnDajenariht]

Originally posted by Radhnoti

Again, have you weighed that against the LITERAL millions killed by the once dominant regime?
I'm not arguing about whether we should be there or not, as I would prefer not to have been. I'm questioning the moral high ground opponents of the U.S. administration want to take.

Are you really trying to claim that Iraqi losses of...what was your figure 10,000?...makes up a large percentage of the Iraq population? If you REALLY want to make your hypothetical fair the serial killer hid behind the FISHBOWL and a stray bullet took out Flipper the goldfish. A loss, to be sure but on balance the family gained a lot.



your still missing the point. its still doesn't give us the right to go into their country and cause even '1' unjustified death. will you be happy if the death toll goes up to a million? it doesn't matter what Saddam has done. Its what 'we' do and the image we present to the rest of the world. a democratic nation can't decide to invade another nation for any 'reasons' that they chose. the internation community is against the war because it sets a bad precedent.

it really does no good either to go on and on about helping millions of people who have already died. we stood back and did nothing. we're attacking them after the fact. ur analogy about the family is good but the hypothetical family is already dead and buried with a 7 eleven built on top of their graves.

so not only were we lied to for the reasons to go to war, i think we're on exuse number 3 or 4 now, the new justifications aren't even acceptable because a) for every innocent Iraqi that dies 5 insurgents replace them. the war is getting worse not better with no end in site. i guess their not responding well to our brand of liberation. b) millions of people die every day from dozens of countries. imagine if we spent the billions of dollars used for the invasion to try and develop these countries. helping with the poverty crises. these are also the nations, not surpisingly, that are ruled by dictators just like Saddam, who abuse their own people just as bad. we cooould help them if we wanted to but we dont. so no one is buying the liberation excuse. if our President wants to nation build or "change the world" there are plenty of opportunities that dont involve the spilling of anyones blood. its not moral high ground its common sense. people are trying to call out the Presidents administration on his bold faced lies. if you ask me they are the ones on the self righteous trip. thinking they can spread democracy by force.

[FuXnDajenariht]

also let us not forget who helped place saddam in power, his regime, the millions killed as a result....

another case for nation building? :o

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by FuXnDajenariht
the internation community is against the war because it sets a bad precedent.

What precedent?

[FuXnDajenariht]

stating reasons for going to war that never really existed. i think everyone is in agreement for their being concrete justifications for an invasion.

pre emptive strikes sound good in theory. but its hard to do against an enemy with no national allegiances.....

[Christopher M]

Actually, the pre-emptive doctrine was written and first executed by Clinton -- and the "international community" was so unphased by it that most of them are unaware it even happened.

As Zim pointed out, the second Iraq War did not reference the pre-emptive doctrine in any case, but instead argued that the cease fire agreement of the first Iraq War had been violated.

[David Jamieson]

...instead argued that the cease fire agreement of the first Iraq War had been violated.

Chris, you are infering that this was the reason the Bush admin gave when attempting to get the second resolution from teh UN in order to go to war with Iraq.

That may have been one of the points, but it was certainly buried waaaaaaay deep amongst the cries of WMDs, Powells anthrax vial waving and blurry sat photos of supposed wmd filled warehouses and bunkers.

The Bush admin pretty much stated they had reliable intelligence showing that wmds were being manufactured in Iraq and that Saddam even had stockpiles of biochem weapons.

This of course was later discovered to be untrue.

Then the Bush admin attempted to shift focus from their huge blunder and apparent outright lie and said "support the troops".

and then after that it was "saddam is evil" and after that it pretty much broke down into a game of responding to questions by directing people to read 1000 page documents, not unlike what is done here to position oneself as correct sometimes.

The UN and many of it's member nations do not support the US in their aggression towards Iraq.

It seems it is the US who won't listen to reason. Not unlike a madman with a gun in a IHOP shooting people who knew his wife taht screwed around on him.

Let's not kid ourselves here about Bush's motivations. They are as clear as the nose on your face.

To delev into the meaningless minutia of liberty, freedom, al quaida protection of teh american people, homeland security etc etc on this particular question is but mere obfuscation and evasion.

Clinton didn't write a doctrine of pre-emptive striking. All actions taken under the Clinton presidency militarily speaking were retaliatory measures and I would ask you to indicate where they were unwarranted and where any other country wouldn't be justified in doing the same.

And yes, he supposedly ordered and aspirin factory to be blown up. That was an error and another indicator of why military action is becoming unnacceptable in so many ways.

There are the techologies available and certainly there should be the brain power available to come to more constructive ways.

I personally don't understand with such misanthropic thinkers are allowed to get and retain office so frequently. I guess it has a lot to do with their being unable to hold down a job in the private sector, I dunno, was that a cheap shot or a modern truism?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
...the reason the Bush admin gave when attempting to get the second resolution from teh UN in order to go to war with Iraq.

What is the index number for this 'second resolution' you refer to? (Of course, there is none, because there never was any such thing.)


That may have been one of the points, but it was certainly buried waaaaaaay deep amongst the cries of WMDs, Powells anthrax vial waving and blurry sat photos of supposed wmd filled warehouses and bunkers.

No: these aren't two different things, they're one and the same. The issue of WMD arose as a way of demonstrating Iraq's aforementioned non-compliance.


The UN... do[es] not support the US in their aggression towards Iraq.

What is the index number of the resolution describing what you allude to here? (Of course, there isn't one, because there never was any such thing.)


Clinton didn't write a doctrine of pre-emptive striking.

Yes he did. For the Sudan and Afghanistan attacks in 1998. Here (http://www.acmi.canoe.ca/CNEWSStrikeAtTerrorism/aug20_clinton16.html) is his thoughts on the matter: "Today I ordered our armed forces to strike at terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the imminent threat they presented to our national security... Our target was terror. Our mission was clear -- to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Osama bin Laden ... [who] share a hatred for democracy, a fanatical glorification of violence, and a horrible distortion of their religion to justify the murder of innocents. They have made the United States their adversary precisely because of what we stand for and what we stand against... The United States does not take this action lightly. Afghanistan and Sudan have been warned for years to stop harboring and supporting these terrorist groups... The risks from inaction to America and the world would be far greater than action. For that would embolden our enemies, leaving their ability and their willingness to strike us intact... no campaign for peace can succeed without a determination to fight terrorism."

Sound familiar?


I would ask you to indicate where they were unwarranted

I haven't called anything warranted or unwarranted, or indeed offered any judgement on anything. I'm only clarifying some of the objective facts.

[David Jamieson]

Chris-

The following article speaks of the second resolution Bush sought to have passed at the UN to justify his war in Iraq. He did not receive the second resolutin and nor did the first open the door for his plan.

Although he and his cabinet attempted to argue that resolution 1441 gave them the right to act in the way they did. It appears the member nations did not agree and were pretty clear that they felt that 1441 was being adhered to by the Iraqi government.

after the couldn't get the 2nd resolution to the table, is when Bush more or less broke ties with the UN and in so doing minimized teh value of that organization and against the protestation of millions of people globally, "respectfully disagreed" [with the rest of the world and the UN] and with teh UK and a small band of needy countries who could easily be bribed or swayed into coming along, acted unilaterally in their agression towards teh nation of Iraq.

an article about it:


http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/22/sprj.irq.iraq.wrap/

Secondly, Clintons actions do not constitute a -pre-emptive striking doctrine, and even if they did, doesn't mean it is correct either morally or ideologically. The attacks by the US on Sudan and afghanistan were directly targeting agressors who had already made attacks on the US. The embassy and the cole were the chief reasons for attacks like these and these attacks are retaliatory.

In the cases of sudan and afghanistan, they were not attacks on those nations, but they were attacks on OBL according to information that was indicating his presence and the presence of his organization in those target areas.

In other words, that hardly constitutes a doctrine of pre-emptiveness that is even remotely akin to the attack on Iraq which borders on criminal if not being outright criminal depending on who you are talking to and what laws you are applying.

so w loopholed his way into war with Iraq essentially and has flip flopped on the reasons why the US forces are there with each failing of his original intent and reasons as he had laid out to the rest of us.

the resolution would have been known as 1441-a from what I remember, but I would have to dig a little further to get the exact index number.

[David Jamieson]

I would also add:


"Extending the war into Iraq would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Exceeding the U.N.'s mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

as true today as when W's daddy said it a decade ago.

topping over 100,000 casualties for Iraq, a great deal of whom are innocents.

with almost 10,000 wounded from The US and now more than 1,200 dead. This is a year after W declared the war "over". And it is also after Saddam was removed, no wmds were found etc etc, not to mention...it continues, as we speak.

It is very difficult to be supportive of the US on the issue of Iraq.
Not just for me and peeps like me, but entire nations full of peeps not like me at all. hmmmn.

[Merryprankster]

Chris M, as usual is correct about the facts. Kung Lek, as usual, got them all wrong. I am certain that KL will somehow interpret either Chris M or me shoving the facts of the matter up his nose as a moral failing on our part.

joedoe raises a question that is interesting precisely because it goes to the very heart of use of force. "When is sending soldiers justified?"

Joedoe suggested that if we are not at war than perhaps that is not the place for soldiers. That is actually a very common perspective.

However, I would offer that peackeeping, humanitarian missions and border enforcement, all of which the UN engages in, relies on soldiers.

In my opinion, the watchword for future use of force issues is flexibility and gradation of response. We as a nation and in the international community need to get used to the idea that failed and failing states now represent breeding grounds for threats of many different kinds. Without the galvanizing effect of the Cold War, which really kept a lid on that sort of thing, we're going to find ourselves (the whole world, not just the U.S.) consistently more involved with deployed forces here and there as the situations warrant.

Personally, I believe that our doctrines and national security strategies were defined for so long by what we were against, we failed to define what we were FOR. That has a significant impact on priority setting, defining vital, national interests, use of force, internal and external bureaucratic structure and processes and information gathering.

Oh, and Red5, the Marine did the wrong thing. War is ugly and people do bad things because they are scared. But he absolutely should be held accountable. There are things that are clearly wrong and there is conduct that is clearly correct. Some conduct is in a grey area that's hard to judge. This, however, was not in that grey area, IMO. There are mitigating circumstances, of course, as compared with the Abu Ghraib prison scandal but that does not absolve him.

Justifying his actions erodes U.S. moral authority even further than it already has already been reduced. Soft power is a vital and often overlooked element and we really can't ignore it.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
The following article speaks of the second resolution...

No, the article speaks of the plans for a second resolution. They never developed into action.


Secondly, Clintons actions do not constitute a -pre-emptive striking doctrine

Yes they do: "I ordered our armed forces to strike at terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the imminent threat they presented to our national security." You may happen to agree with Clinton's acts and disagree with Bush's, but the fact remains that Clinton's acts were pre-emptive (he even used this word himself to describe them), and set the precedent. (1 (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1010-05.htm), 2 (http://www.angryharry.com/tgTheDoctrineofPreEmption.htm), 3 (http://www.wpb.be/lalkar/lalkar09/0906.htm), 4 (http://www.progressive.org/mprothschild998.htm) -- there's an awful lot written on this subject for anyone willing to look).


even if they did, doesn't mean it is correct either morally or ideologically.

I never claimed anything was morally or ideologically correct or incorrect -- "or indeed offered any judgement on anything. I'm only clarifying some of the objective facts."

[David Jamieson]

Chris M, as usual is correct about the facts. Kung Lek, as usual, got them all wrong. I am certain that KL will somehow interpret either Chris M or me shoving the facts of the matter up his nose as a moral failing on our part.

so you're saying the cnn article is incorrect?

please rewrite the chain of events for us then.
:rolleyes:

..and the wheels go round and round and round...

I completely disagree with your point of view if your point of view is agreeance with the US aggression in Iraq.

Is that your view? Because that's what I disagree with and that's what I think is wrong. Semantics and sophism do nothing for an argument by the way except to entangle it further and impede and progress in understanding that may be made.

so, you "for" or "against" the war in iraq?

I'm against it. And I am also anti Bush, but not anti American. I don't think those two should be confused, afterall, Bush is King of confusion being a silver spoon new englander pretending to be a texas rancher and all. :p

[Merryprankster]

Chris M quotation:


I haven't called anything warranted or unwarranted, or indeed offered any judgement on anything. I'm only clarifying some of the objective facts.

Kung Lek quotation:


even if they did, doesn't mean it is correct either morally or ideologically.


My prediction:


I am certain that KL will somehow interpret either Chris M or me shoving the facts of the matter up his nose as a moral failing on our part.


Just call me Nostradamus.

[David Jamieson]

Chris, I think Clinton was pretty explicit in his references towards the "terrorist" compounds. Clinton wasn't pre-emtively striking at "nations" and his own words are not indicative of doing so.

do you agree or disagree that Clinton is talking about going after criminals or sovereign nations?

Because it is clear that what Bush is doing isn't by any measure comparable to the actions taken by the Clinton admin.

Do you agree or disagree?

There is a difference afterall between these two things:

a)Terrorist and criminal organizations. (Clintons targets for pre-emptive strikes)

b) sovereign nations (Bushes targets for pre-emptive strikes)

see the difference?

And, btw and fwiw, Afghanistan was justifiable and still is. In my opinion, and apparently the opinions of perhaps billions of people, Iraq was not and it does set a dangerous precedent.

the words used are what are of utmost importance and they can't be shuffled like the deck chairs oin the Titanic like so many Bush apologists tend to do. Some with great zeal, others with wavering hands.

[David Jamieson]

Merry, you and I may never come to an agreeance on these issues and that's ok with me. But let's make a deal and spare the readers any sort of personal attacks or malignment for once. ok?

thanks

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
so you're saying the cnn article is incorrect?

No. Where did you get that idea from?


I completely disagree with your point of view if your point of view is agreeance with the US aggression in Iraq.

I haven't expressed any stance on the issue, I've only clarified some of the objective facts. I feel like I've said this before.


Is that your view?

My view is that being critical of Bush shouldn't require ignoring or manipulating the facts.


Semantics and sophism do nothing for an argument by the way except to entangle it further and impede and progress in understanding that may be made.

Reality is certainly more complicated when you consider all ideas rather than only those which enforce your personal views.

(I noticed your reply was probably meant for MP, but the above probably holds anyway)

[Merryprankster]

LMFAO!

Chris, check your PM in a second.

[Nick Forrer]

IMO the attempt to turn Iraq into a partisan issue is misleading.

Its worth remembering that Clinton supported a policy of sanctions and containment that according to the UN FAO and the WHO led to the deaths of up to half a million Iraqi children from treatable diseases and malnutrition.

When asked about this Clintons secretary of state Madeline Albright didnt deny it: instead she said it was 'an acceptable price to pay'.

Clinton also bombed a plant in Sudan on the pretext that it was manufacturing weapons. In fact it was just what it claimed to be: one of if not the only provider of malaria vaccines/medication in a malaria infested country. Its probable many thousands of people subsequently died from malaria that might otherwise have been treated.

[David Jamieson]

My view is that being critical of Bush shouldn't require ignoring or manipulating the facts

I am not sure where the facts are being manipulated Chris.

The Bush admin did attempt to launch a second resolution.
Resolution 1441 was being adhered to according to the U.N, their main inspector Blix and even theh American inspectors.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720/

Now, having said that, I am not sure how making the statement that Bush wanted to invade Iraq based on the WMDs first and foremost is a manipulation of the facts. Those are the facts. Pretty black and white.

To start downplaying that and making indications of other reasons superceding that is where the manipulation of the facts does begin.

More often than not, although you say you have no stance, you post in the order of support for the Bush admin and it's incursion into Iraq.

I'm just asking you do you agree with it or not?

I'll reiterate - I do not, and for all the unmanipulated reasons I have given. :p

the case for war was not made by the Bush admin. And yet, the Bush admin decided to whip up a group of like minded folks and go and do what they are doing without the support of the UN or many of it's member nations, which is counter to what the ideas behind peacekeeping and police actions are.

Do you support the war Chris? If so, why?

[Merryprankster]

Clinton also bombed a plant in Sudan on the pretext that it was manufacturing weapons. In fact it was just what it claimed to be: one of if not the only provider of malaria vaccines/medication in a malaria infested country. Its probable many thousands of people subsequently died from malaria that might otherwise have been treated.

I don't know enough about this one to comment on it authoritatively, but I do know that many people involved with that whole affair are convinced to this day that it being a drug and vaccine facility was nothing but cover. It looks like the experts disagree with each other on this.

I am NOT saying it was or wasn't, I simply don't know.

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
I don't know enough about this one to comment on it authoritatively, but I do know that many people involved with that whole affair are convinced to this day that it being a drug and vaccine facility was nothing but cover. It looks like the experts disagree with each other on this.

I am NOT saying it was or wasn't, I simply don't know.

Heres an excerpt from an article by Christopher Hitchens.....

'The administration said that no medical or commercial products were made at Al-Shifa. It added that the factory was directly related to bin Laden's occult commercial empire. It further said that the traces of the chemical compound EMPTA had been found in the soil outside the plant. Within days, there was an amazingly swift climb-down from all these claims:

Vials of medicine and other evidence of civilian pharmaceutical manufacture were visible in photographs of the first day's debris. The German ambassador to Sudan, Werner Daum, sent a sarcastic cable to Bonn saying that he knew this all along. The British engineer who built the plant, Tom Carnaffin, attested that the plant had no space for the off-the-record experimental work. Other engineers and architects pointed out that the factory had no air-sealed doors, essential if poison gas is to be on the menu. The Sudanese government called loudly for an international inspection, which the Clinton administration -- once so confident -- declined to endorse. By the first week in September, Defense Secretary William Cohen admitted that he "should have known" that Al-Shifa made medical and agricultural products.

Secretary Cohen also admitted in the same statement that there was no longer any "direct" financial connection to be asserted between bin Laden and the plant. But he was still pretty sure that there were indirect ones. That could be. There are also many straightforward connections between the turbanned one and Saudi Arabia. But does anyone believe that the United States would rocket a Saudi Arabian target and let the monarchs find out about it from CNN, or when the missiles fell?

The presence of EMPTA (O-ethyl methyl phosphonothoic acid) proves nothing on its own, whether found in the soil near a factory or inside the factory itself. I spoke to Professor R.J.P. Williams, who is Professor of Inorganic Chemistry at Oxford and considered something of an authority on biological systems and on EMPTA. It can be an intermediate in the production of VX gas, he told me, but it can be an intermediate for dealing with agricultural pests and for myriad other purposes. "We must be told where the compound was found, and in what quantity it is known to have been produced, and whether there is any ascertainable link to nerve-gas production. 'Trace' elements in adjacent soil are of no use. Either the administration has something to hide, or for some reason is withholding the evidence."
So much for the legitimacy of the "legally accurate" target. But suppose that all these suspicions could be dissolved, and that we knew the factory was run by Doctor No or Herr Blofeld of Fu Manchu. It still could not have been folded like a tent and spirited away in a day or so. And the United States has diplomatic relations with Sudan. (It even used these relations, not long ago, to press successfully for the deportation of bin Laden.) Was there a demarche made between the State Department and the Sudanese regime? (We want to see inside this factory right away and will interpret refusal as a hostile act.) There was not. Even Saddam Hussein was and is given more warning than that.'

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
I am not sure where the facts are being manipulated Chris.

Well, if you'll recall, what I initially replied to was the mistaken impression that the doctrine of pre-emption was a precedent set by Bush Jr.


The Bush admin did attempt to launch a second resolution.

Please provide the index # for this resolution you're referring to so I can look up. (I feel like I've said this before.)


More often than not, although you say you have no stance, you post in the order of support for the Bush admin and it's incursion into Iraq.

Where did I ever claim to support the Bush Admin even once?

[Merryprankster]

Nick,

I am well aware of the evidence that suggests that it was, in fact, a medicine factory. What I am trying to say is that there is disagreement. Also, you have the issue of dual use - that is, just because it was making vaccine and drugs in one part doesn't mean they weren't doing something else on the side.

I would have to sit down and look at all the data to really have a valid opinion. I'm just trying to point out that there is, in fact, disagreement and we likely will never know the full story - as opposed to Iraq, where it's about as clear as it can be that the WMD program was dismantled.

[David Jamieson]

Chris-

do some bagua man, you love to walk in circles it seems.

anyway, I am tired of arguing this with you on a monthly basis.

I'll lay it out straight and leave it at that and if you feel the burning need to get the last word, then by all means feel free and I am also noticing that once again, you duck the straight up questions that I have asked you. That's cool. I guess it must be nice up on your fence, not taking a stand, not having to make a decision, etc etc and playing circular logic games because that is the game you like to play.

anyway.

Bush = Moron

war in Iraq = stupid mistake

American foreign policy = needs serious review

Bush apologist Hubris= nonsense

neo con ditto heads = all too many of them

people who would try to go off in another direction in order to avoid answering a straight question = maybe you should be in the white house .

nuff said.

regards to your moms

out!

[ZIM]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
That's cool. I guess it must be nice up on your fence, not taking a stand, not having to make a decision, etc etc and playing circular logic games because that is the game you like to play.


Originally posted by Merryprankster
I am certain that KL will somehow interpret either Chris M or me shoving the facts of the matter up his nose as a moral failing on our part.

Just call me Nostradamus. "Nostradamus!"
:p :p

This is like a game between you guys, isn't it? You make a prediction of which way KL will huff off to and then you see how few posts it'll take, right?

So what's the pool up to now, anyway?

[diego]

Originally posted by Kung Lek


Let's not kid ourselves here about Bush's motivations. They are as clear as the nose on your face.

paraphrase monkeyboy around when they caught saddam

saddam is part of the axis of evil...he tried to kill my father puts on that evilsmirk of his all giddy that daddy is proud with his hand up goergyboys butt like a kermit puppet...:D

[Radhnoti]

diego - "wtf and this is why bush went into iraq?...i'm lost on this...who exactly gave bush the ok to invade iraq?"

I wasn't giving reasons for invasion. Zim covered that when he mentioned the U.N. resolutions being violated so many times...

My problem is with people complaining about "all the innocent people the U.S. is killing", and trying to claim some sort of moral high ground that, when you look at the facts, doesn't exist.

FuXnDajenariht, I'm only saying that every time I hear Bush's critics talking about the Iraqi body count I consider the alternative...which was/is worse by almost anyone willing to look at things rationally.

I'm not justifying the decision to invade, it's done. History will judge the U.S. administration's decision, and I stand by my assertion that if Iraq (and the Middle East) come out better in the end history books will be kind to President George W. Bush. By the way, the U.N. oil for food program was SUPPOSED to be getting money to the people who needed it in Iraq. Instead, it has brought home with great clarity how pointless it is to try to help the "little guy" with a totally corrupt regime in place. And you can take that to mean Iraq OR the U.N. BTW.

[ZIM]

So.
How come none of you "concerned" individuals [diego & KL, especially] have brought up France's actions in the Ivory Coast? Any thoughts?

French "peacekeepers" launched a pre-emptive* assault against the Ivorian air force. They also interfered with the internal politics of the nation and sought regime change.

They acted without authorization by the United Nations Security Council. They violated both the UN Charter and the terms of the peacekeeping resolution that established their specific mission in the West African nation.

The Security Council did sanction their attacks after the fact. :rolleyes:

Nonetheless, the French acted unilaterally, and only sought and received a UN cover story later. There wasn't even a coalition of the willing. No Brits, Aussies, Poles or Dutch to help out; just French troops, jets, helicopters and armoured personnel carriers.

Then they killed something like 60-plus unarmed civilian protestors [not insurgents] when they opened up machine guns on a crowd of men, women, children. Its on video if you want to see it- although its pretty awful.

Why is it only the US you spew this crap on? Why do they get away with it? Where were the "No blood for chocolate" protests?

====================================
*pre-emption is a right of all nations and has been practised for a long time. I do not argue against it in principle, but since so many do I include it in this description for comparison.

[diego]

Originally posted by ZIM
So.
How come none of you "concerned" individuals [diego & KL, especially] have brought up France's actions in the Ivory Coast? Any thoughts?

French "peacekeepers" launched a pre-emptive* assault against the Ivorian air force. They also interfered with the internal politics of the nation and sought regime change.

They acted without authorization by the United Nations Security Council. They violated both the UN Charter and the terms of the peacekeeping resolution that established their specific mission in the West African nation.

The Security Council did sanction their attacks after the fact. :rolleyes:

Nonetheless, the French acted unilaterally, and only sought and received a UN cover story later. There wasn't even a coalition of the willing. No Brits, Aussies, Poles or Dutch to help out; just French troops, jets, helicopters and armoured personnel carriers.

Then they killed something like 60-plus unarmed civilian protestors [not insurgents] when they opened up machine guns on a crowd of men, women, children. Its on video if you want to see it- although its pretty awful.

Why is it only the US you spew this crap on? Why do they get away with it? Where were the "No blood for chocolate" protests?

====================================
*pre-emption is a right of all nations and has been practised for a long time. I do not argue against it in principle, but since so many do I include it in this description for comparison.

Well noone cares about the french like fuq could they do...americans onsome tears for fears isht is trying to rule the world through christ...

canada said bush don't go so whatever yall are demons according to my limited knowledge on the subject...can't remember why canada said don't go but i sure as fuq know we didn't offer to help but was down with helping in afghanistan...guess our pms thought bush was jumping the gun!??

kung lek or old jong got info on that?

[diego]

Originally posted by Radhnoti
diego - "wtf and this is why bush went into iraq?...i'm lost on this...who exactly gave bush the ok to invade iraq?"

I wasn't giving reasons for invasion. Zim covered that when he mentioned the U.N. resolutions being violated so many times...

My problem is with people complaining about "all the innocent people the U.S. is killing", and trying to claim some sort of moral high ground that, when you look at the facts, doesn't exist.

FuXnDajenariht, I'm only saying that every time I hear Bush's critics talking about the Iraqi body count I consider the alternative...which was/is worse by almost anyone willing to look at things rationally.

I'm not justifying the decision to invade, it's done. History will judge the U.S. administration's decision, and I stand by my assertion that if Iraq (and the Middle East) come out better in the end history books will be kind to President George W. Bush. By the way, the U.N. oil for food program was SUPPOSED to be getting money to the people who needed it in Iraq. Instead, it has brought home with great clarity how pointless it is to try to help the "little guy" with a totally corrupt regime in place. And you can take that to mean Iraq OR the U.N. BTW.

hm on the moral highground issue i now need to know why canada didn't offer to join the iraq coalition forces but went to afghanistan...i remember the un saying we need more time and bush said fuq it we going now and preemptive while the iraqis ain't ready thinking it would be a walk in the park...which was bullshiat...iraq is worse than it was when the un was asking for more time therefore i think bush is a demon as a always did with that geeky lil smirk of his:)

[diego]

holy jahosofat batman we got mad nastradamuses in the hizzouse

Fischer: War could strengthen terrorists
In Berlin, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer warned a meeting of his Green Party that a war to disarm Iraq could strengthen the hand of "international terrorism" and cause Middle East turmoil that could also threaten Europe.

He also called on Saddam to cooperate fully with U.N. arms inspectors. Fischer said Germany remained opposed to a war while the inspectors were making progress toward disarming Iraq.

"The central question is: 'Will international terrorism be weakened or unintentionally strengthened through a military strike?'," Fischer said. (Full story)

Meanwhile, Former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov arrived in Baghdad on an unexpected mission for President Vladimir Putin, a Russian source in Baghdad told Reuters "


Kinda like abu ghraib created more terrorists seeing the devils in marine outfits in they holy land

from that cnn article KL posted

[MoreMisfortune]

Christopher M is a scientologist :o

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
you duck the straight up questions that I have asked you.

For the sake of discussion, I'm always willing to answer, clarify, or backup concerns related to the points I have raised. As for entirely new discussions, I'll join those according to my whim, not yours. This seems to aggravate you. Well, sorry -- but there's no reason why it should.


I am tired of arguing this with you on a monthly basis.

Great: I encourage you not to start arguments you aren't interested in.

[ZIM]

Originally posted by diego
Well noone cares about the french like fuq could they do...americans onsome tears for fears isht is trying to rule the world through christ...

Well, I thought you would, seeing as how Canada is France's beeitch in the UN and all...
...Speaking of which, what the h3ll happened? You guys used to be first rate, now the only post-Brit place of sanity in the world is Australia.

PCer's cut yer sacks off?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by ZIM
now the only post-Brit place of sanity in the world is Australia.

Ireland is the future. Seriously.

Canada is getting surreal these days though. Check this (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e656d72b-f90a-4522-8739-6eef0414a914) out: "New Democratic MP Pat Martin... was afraid to question [Immigration Minister] Sgro's handling of the [recent] controversy after he received calls from Marc Khouri, the director of parliamentary affairs in her office, and another senior aide, Rene Ouellet... [who] read a list of applications for temporary-resident permits from people in his Winnipeg Centre riding and implied they would be denied if he attacked her in the Commons for fast-tracking [a] stripper's application [who had] worked on Ms. Sgro's election campaign... 'if you enjoy being able to achieve ministerial permits, you should stop criticizing this ministerial permit'... His allegations came as Ms. Sgro faced another day of intense questioning in the Commons and told reporters there was 'a labour market need' for importing foreign exotic dancers." :eek: :D

[diego]

Originally posted by ZIM
Well, I thought you would, seeing as how Canada is France's beeitch in the UN and all...
...Speaking of which, what the h3ll happened? You guys used to be first rate, now the only post-Brit place of sanity in the world is Australia.

PCer's cut yer sacks off?

no doubt...politicians fuq can one do:) feel for yall with that guy running your house tho i mean **** dog:D

nah that french shiat is wack if true...all i know is whitey created a fuqt up new world so fuqa politician...i'm just ****ed that no measures have been made to fix this wack modern age...corrupt politicians, murky news sources...rampant consumerism in the ME age etc fuq can you do but make funny posts about current figureheads in power!.1

[ZIM]

Originally posted by diego
no doubt...politicians fuq can one do:) feel for yall with that guy running your house tho i mean **** dog:D
Worry about your own country.

[diego]

KE
Originally posted by ZIM
Worry about your own country.

oh i am...we would have legal weed if yall christians would stop crying and strengthen yall borders!

just think how big my stash would be...i put the blame on you because your tax dollars funded that azzhole and friends:mad:

KEEP YOUR HAND OUT MY POCKET MANG

[ZIM]

Originally posted by Christopher M
Ireland is the future. Seriously.

Canada is getting surreal these days though. Check this (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e656d72b-f90a-4522-8739-6eef0414a914) out: "New Democratic MP Pat Martin... was afraid to question [Immigration Minister] Sgro's handling of the [recent] controversy after he received calls from Marc Khouri, the director of parliamentary affairs in her office, and another senior aide, Rene Ouellet... [who] read a list of applications for temporary-resident permits from people in his Winnipeg Centre riding and implied they would be denied if he attacked her in the Commons for fast-tracking [a] stripper's application [who had] worked on Ms. Sgro's election campaign... 'if you enjoy being able to achieve ministerial permits, you should stop criticizing this ministerial permit'... His allegations came as Ms. Sgro faced another day of intense questioning in the Commons and told reporters there was 'a labour market need' for importing foreign exotic dancers." :eek: :D That's unbelievable. Are they.... Muslim strippers?

"Look, Mahoud! She shows her ankles!"

"And now she raises her veil!"

"ululululululululululu!!!!!!"

brandishes AK-47
Powpowpowkapowpowpopopop

Everybody blows up

:p

[David Jamieson]

Chris-

You still didn't answer the question.

zim-

I get frustrated because they won't answer simple questions. And insted insist on obfuscation, misdirection and general cajoling that serves no purpose other than to in a weird way allbeit, be trolls. But that's cool, it's not the first time Merry and Chris have played and played tiny word games with their new found uni-brains.:rolleyes:

also:


So.
How come none of you "concerned" individuals [diego & KL, especially] have brought up France's actions in the Ivory Coast? Any thoughts?
Here's ther answer, First, we aren't talking about France, but if you want to, then start a thread or continue with your line of reason and lets discuss.:rolleyes:

While we're at it, let's talk about everything in the same subject shall we?:rolleyes: L:ike in how we are talking about Bush and Iraq and then someone comes in a complains about something Clinton did to vere the discussion in another direction. It's like it wasn't even a comparison it was more of an "I know you are so what am I" kind of tactic.

also known as baiting.

anyway, anytime you feel like answering Chris, you find that index number yet or have you come to realize what I actually wrote on the matter?

Or are you acting in such a way not unlike the Bush admin itself in they hope that people have deadly short memories.

I'll ask the most basic question:

Are you for Bush and current american foreign policy in regards to Iraq?

Are you against him and it?

not too hard.

[David Jamieson]

zim-

just for the hell of it, according to the bbc, it seems the french were retaliating for a strike from teh ivorans that took the lives of french soldiers.

heres more:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3988769.stm



I would imagine there is more to it, but let's talk about the Monroe doctrine next instead and why did President Monroe wanna ship all the black people in teh US back to Africa so badly he went so far as to make a country for them!

And seeing as that country was long established before Malcolm X, why were Malcolms ideas taken to so poorly, I mean shyte, Liberias right there man! wtf is wrong with those people in washington 40 years ago anyway?
:rolleyes:

[Becca]

Originally posted by CaptinPickAxe
Unarmed...you said it, not I. Shooting an unarmed man is like beating up a retard. Unfair and dispicable.

Kill the ones who are still shooting, not the ones who have given up. How ****ed would you be about an UNARMED American soldier being slaughtered? There's a difference between un-armed and having given up, Cappie. And in a life-and-death situation, what's the difference betweem un-armed and seemed un-armed right before he pulled out the remote detinator that just blew up 18 school kids?

I see were you are comming from. I do. But, if you don't mind me saying so, your only experience of this type of thing is from news reports read with rose-colored glasses. I'm not saying you have to go out and join the military to get it. You can get the same feeling from voluntiering at a homeless shelter.

You see all this stuff that could be so much better if people just followed "the rules." You can't make the mentally imparred wino quit drinking. And while it really isn't his fault he assalted someone, you still have to put him behind bars for it. And you also can't blame the victom for freaking out the next time a drunk old homeless person aproaches him. He has a very good reason for freaking out. It don't make his punching the guy any better, but it does shed new light on the situation.

Say he gets on the bus one night and punches the driver in the face for no reason. A few weeks later, the driver sees another person acting exactly the same way. He picks the guy up. This guy pulls a knife on another passenger.

How many times before he stopps letting the very drunk homless people who are acting odd on the bus? Is it ok to refuse service for over-all passenger safty? You'd be suprized at the true answere...:(

[Merryprankster]

Merry, you and I may never come to an agreeance on these issues and that's ok with me.

On some of these issues, we're closer in opinion, I suspect, than you believe we are. However, my perpetual problem with the way you argue is that you consistently get the facts wrong, ignore facts that don't support your worldview, rather than accounting for them, and, as you've so amply demonstrated with Chris, immediately jump to conclusions about what a person does or doesn't think even when they've made it quite clear that that is a discussion separate from the one they are engaged in.

Then, when you're called out on any of the above, instead of going "Oh, that's interesting, I didn't know/realize that was out there too," you are so personally wedded to your point of view you try to justify your position irrespective of the facts and the scope of the conversation at hand, clearly getting more and more annoyed as it goes on.

I've had serious discussions and disagreements with Chris M, Nick Forrer and other people on this forum, without it getting personal or sarcastic, even Red5, and he'll admit to being a hothead. But you can't seem to put pen to paper without ****ing off anybody who disagrees with you. Maybe it's NOT them?

Here are some tips:

1. When somebody presents evidence that the facts are more complicated/different than you say they are, don't ignore, discount them, or start implying they are neo-Nazis.

2. The facts are your friend, not your enemy. Instead of inventing stuff or ignoring them, figure out how they fit into your argument or are trumped by other facts that are also part of the truth.

3. Learn to differentiate between portions of an argument. For instance, Chris providing the facts and arguing about them is separate from what he may personally think about something. And that is separate from his political leanings. They are interrelated, but they are not If-Then, type arguments. I mean, I know pro-life Democrats.

4. Stop being a dillhole when the weight of the evidence starts burying your position. "It aint what a man doesn't know that makes him a fool, it's what a man knows that ain't so."



But let's make a deal and spare the readers any sort of personal attacks or malignment for once. ok?

You know that old saying about given an infinite amount of time, a hundred monkeys with typewriters would produce the complete works of Shakespeare?

Your posts - one monkey, ten minutes.

You made your bed a long time ago and you know it.

[David Jamieson]

merry-

it is not "evidence" that gets presented. More often than not it is opposing views or opinions.

I really am not so hard wired to my world view that my view cannot change. It can, and it has on more than several issues of late.

What frustrates me is when people are asked a point blank question and refuse to answer it and instead take off on a tangent for whatever reasons.

I haven't accused anyone of being a neo-nazi ever in this forum or elsewhere.

I have clearly stated my opinion and views several times, even in this thread and have asked for position rather than someone else argument but i keep getting someone else argument!

Of course we likely share views on some subjects. It probably has a lot to do with the common ground of being North Americans.

It is not my agenda to pizz people off either, but when someone starts a thread supporting a view I disagree with, I don't think it is wrong to state my position, then defend it. I don't see how I am sluffing off any "facts" as you say. I am countering arguments and in regards to the clinton materials that Chris refered to as a doctrine of pre-emptive striking, I stated I disagree with that viewpoint and gave my reasons why.

Does this mean I'm right? Does it mean Chris is right? I personally don't see it as being right or wrong, I see it as this is my view and that is your view.

To just wander in, plop a bunch of stuff on the table and proceed to sit on the fence especially on a topic such as this is indeed bad form.

state yer case, make yer argument and defend your point of view, that's all there is to it.

so, back to the question at hand.

red5 wanted to know some stuff and how people viewed it. My first post was a reply, the following posts were in regards to my views on the state of things in Iraq.

Somehow that turned into lets blame Clinton for George Bushes mistakes. This new angle was courtesy of Chris M. Who has yet to answer the questions I put to him in regards to this and does indeed in my view come off more strongly as supporting the Neo cons with what he purts down in these threads and will constantly refer to other peoples thoughts on the matter as opposed to expressing his own.

I can only use materials from elsewhere to support or change my views, not to govern them.

[MoreMisfortune]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
2. The facts are your friend, not your enemy. Instead of inventing stuff or ignoring them, figure out how they fit into your argument or are trumped by other facts that are also part of the truth.

yeah... ok

you scientologist :o

[ZIM]

"Instead of inventing stuff "

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
You still didn't answer the question... insted insist on obfuscation, misdirection and general cajoling

You're right, I didn't. But there's no obfuscation, misdirection, or cajoling involved. I just plain didn't answer it. As I said: "As for entirely new discussions, I'll join those according to my whim, not yours."


Chris, you find that index number yet

No, there is no index number to find because there is no resolution, of course, it's a point you're confused (or wrong, or lying) about.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
Somehow that turned into lets blame Clinton for George Bushes mistakes. This new angle was courtesy of Chris M.

No, I never made this claim. I claimed that the doctrine of pre-emption was written by Clinton. I didn't claim that this was Bushs only mistake, or even that it was a mistake at all -- both things you'd have to accept before imagining that I had advocated 'blaming Clinton for Bushes mistakes'. And this wasn't at all "baiting" -- the issue of pre-emption was brought up by someone else.

This is a factual remark -- an objective clarification about the external world which we all ought to be able to agree on, and then base our various positions from that foundation. If you feel that forcing people to account for the facts is equivalent to supporting the neoconservatives, that's your bias, not mine. I certainly don't agree with it in the slightest.

[CaptinPickAxe]

filthy reds...

I've noticed something about Republicans (a.k.a. the reds). Whenever someone tries to talk politics with them, and we bring up a good point, the resort to gang mentality. It happens with my own family. Republicans seek power in numbers. Instead of presenting facts, they bully and overpower the opposition.

Fact is, republicans are trash. Worried only about lining their own pockets with the silver we work hard to get. You and your gang of reds can go ahead and prove me right by shifting your attention my way. Gang up on me and kick me off the thread, but know this, just because you drive the opposition away doesn't make you right...

[CaptinPickAxe]

And, Becca, let me tell you something. I would be the guy who died in battle without even pulling the trigger. Do you know why? Because I AM NOT THEIR JUDGE, niether are you, niether is bush. I'd be ridiculed as a coward and cannon fodder, but me sticking with my belifes and dying for what I belive in shows more courage than meets the eye. I've never been to war, and if I go, I'll be the first tod die...because I stick by what I belive. Blood in, Blood out.

Ponder this, Becca. How would you feel if it was a marine in that situation? I'm sure it would boost your anti-muslim sentiment tenfold. Now, now, I'm not saying you, but Americans in general. "Kill those towelheads," ,"Stupid sandn!gg@rs!" is all I hear day in and day out. It sickens me to no end. America makes villians out every single opponent we have. Portraying them as screaming neanderthals that thrive on the destruction of western civilization( japs, charlie,ragheads, reds, etc.). Wrong, they are like our soldiers. Fighting for the lies they've been told and they belive to be true. If they are guilty of this, then so are our troops and deserve the same treatment (which niether do).

God help this racist country...

[ZIM]

Originally posted by CaptinPickAxe
filthy reds...

I've noticed something about Republicans (a.k.a. the reds). Whenever someone tries to talk politics with them, and we bring up a good point, the resort to gang mentality. It happens with my own family. Republicans seek power in numbers. Instead of presenting facts, they bully and overpower the opposition.

Fact is, republicans are trash. Worried only about lining their own pockets with the silver we work hard to get. You and your gang of reds can go ahead and prove me right by shifting your attention my way. Gang up on me and kick me off the thread, but know this, just because you drive the opposition away doesn't make you right... This is hysterical. As in: You're engaging in hysterics. Its as if I had said to you that something was bad for you, so you knocked over the table and screamed bloody murder. Grow up.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by ZIM
This is hysterical. As in: You're engaging in hysterics.

He's subjectified himself as object to the Other's desire? :confused:

:p I figured he was talking to Becca, so ignored him.

[CaptinPickAxe]

I'm not engaging in hysterics. I'm explaining my stand, and my past experiences in dealing with a family full of Republicans. Thanks for playing though;)

[CaptinPickAxe]

This is hysterics:

"Republicans are trying to destroy the world! They ate my baby! When I talk politics with Republicans they beat me up and steal my campaigne money! OH MY GOD! OH MY GOD!"

check your definition, asshat.

[rogue]

The UN and many of it's member nations do not support the US in their aggression towards Iraq.

Kung Lek, I'm LMAO at that one. Kofi Anan has blood on his hands from when he was in charge of UN peacekeeping. Argue what you will but please don't use the UN as some kind of standard for when we should go to war.

[CaptinPickAxe]

These guys can say it worlds better than I can:

http://www.ninjatune.net/videos/video.php?type=qt&id=72
Bigg Jus "Silver Back Moutain King"

http://www.ninjatune.net/videos/video.php?type=qt&id=46
Saul Williams "Not in my name"

http://www.definitivejux.net/av/the_perceptionists/player.php?id=514&filetype=song
The Perceptionist "What Have we got to Lose"

http://www.definitivejux.net/av/the_perceptionists/player.php?id=514&filetype=song
The Perceptionist "Memorial Day (live)"

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/c/company-flow/33004.html
Company Flow "Patriotism"

http://www.purelyrics.com/index.php?lyrics=olyhqmyb
Rage Against the Machine "Guerrilla Radio"

http://www.marchofdeath.com/
DJ Shadow and Zach De la Rocha "March of Death"

http://karma.ljuhome.com/music.html
NOFX "Franco-UnAmerican"

http://www.politicalsongs.net/
A stupid song, but the lyrics are good

http://fileserv5.soundclick.com/fastk9/HiG/sifubeats+openyoureyes.mp3
Empathy and SifuBeats "Open Your Eyes"
(Yes, we did our part to get the message out)

http://www.findlars.com/radio.html
A list of outspoken anti-Bush musicians

[CaptinPickAxe]

By Shepard Fairly
creator of OBEY GIANT

[Christopher M]

Are you being facetious? Surely you recognize the difference between songs and art you personally like and the criticial engagement of serious political issues.

[CaptinPickAxe]

If you read the very first thing I said on that list, you'll realize why I posted that.

Those guys put up very good points...how do you retort?

Surely, your massive Republican mind can respond to that. Or will you resort to dodging the questions?

[diego]

i had a bugged out stream of thought this morning...okay uno those abu ghraib pic's and some peeps said hey we may get info

how is this so?

how does one torture an extremist muslem during jihad when said muslem will happily commit suicide for said jihad...anyone else notice how bugged that is?

well from a redneck perspect i'm thinking hey let's torture innocent people who may have heard about al qaeda cells in they community and were too fearful to speak up fearing for they loved ones and they own safety so they don't rat out...how much info did the yanks get from doing tortures?...

[Merryprankster]

how much info did the yanks get from doing tortures?...

None probably. At least nothing useful. Torture is a notoriously bad way of obtaining reliable information. This is why the practice is actively discouraged (illegal with consequences) in the United States.

Yes, I know that it took place. If you will note, the people responsible are also being held accountable. Yes, I know that Bush and Rumsfeld aren't on they list, but the General in charge of the unit is being held accountable - and that's just about the right level of accountability. Moral responsibility for something decreases with administrative distance. Otherwise, we'd be throwing unit commanders in jail every time some ******* E-2 decided to murder somebody or beat their wife.

There is also the possibility that somebody might try to cover it up. But it is neither policy, nor acceptable to the vast majority of Americans. If it WERE, it would be both acceptable and policy.


As far as "racist country," which CaptainPickAxe remarked on. If you think the U.S. is more racist than other places on the planet, you're simply wrong. Note that I'm not condoning the practice, I just think we need to recognize that this tends to be part of the human condition, not the U.S. condition.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by CaptinPickAxe
If you read the very first thing I said on that list, you'll realize why I posted that.

That they can say it worlds better than you can? But they're not offering any 'critical engagement of serious political issue', nevermind one being assessed as better or worse than yours. Or do you mean that they make better art than you do?


Surely, your massive Republican mind can respond to that.

I'm not Republican, but if you would like to raise some point related to the discussion here, I'll gladly respond to it.

[diego]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
None probably. At least nothing useful.

:D that's great:cool: :p

ieahrd tho that they was doing tortures in afghanistan to...but i heard all i know from internet sources so...didn't the cia order the tortures, etc?...i don't know if i buy the it was an isolated incident-frat boys theorys

i heard there was the baffoons in the photos all drunk beating on the lessers in the compound and i understand that...i used to be a bully in school till i wised up and joined the good fight

i heard that medical doctors aided the tortures and cia ordered them...bush couldn't tie up his shoes if he tried is about the level of self worth i put on the guy...but i'm sure his boys could do some shiat!! so med-docs and cia higherups involved leads me to beleive that this is a common tactic in the coalitions fight against terror....remember didn't they round up like a thousand muslems just because after 911 and many sat in jail for a year before being released without charge....who is running the show here, and are they completely disorganized or do they not give a fuq

either way they evil and not a good look for america, i mean one is fighting a war on terror and one can't even keep his boys inline...WTF

peace

[Merryprankster]

Diego,

The situation you are describing is highly improbable. It is far more likely that the U.S. operatives in Afghanistan turned any captured persons they thought torture might work on over to the Pakistanis, who have no such compunctions against it. That's really where people who are very interested in human rights should focus their attention - on this practice, not on "CIA torture."

The CIA being involved in torture is really rather silly from an institutional perspective. The thing that people who theorize these things seem to forget is that the folks who work for and in the CIA are normal citizens who draw a normal salary. They don't have any special rights, no special treatment, and are certainly not members of any sort of social elite.

Just as with any organization, you are going to have people who abuse their power. It happens with the police, but most police organizations are not rife with corruption.

The measure of an organization is not "Does this stuff happen at all," because it is bound to. Rather, the questions should be:

1. Is this condoned actively or tacitly?
2. Is it rampant, suggesting lack of oversight or intentional blindness?
3. Are perpetrators held accountable?

If the answer is yes to any of the above, then you've got problems. I don't think you can honestly answer yes to the above three questions after reviewing the evidence. Of course, the cognitively impaired will reach all kinds of conclusions.

[FuXnDajenariht]

"India Mulls 'Pre-Emptive' Pakistan Strike, Cites U.S. Iraq War Precedent

04/11/03

JODHPUR, India (AFP) - Defence Minister George Fernandes reiterated Indian warnings that Pakistan was a prime case for pre-emptive strikes.

"There are enough reasons to launch such strikes against Pakistan, but I cannot make public statements on whatever action that may be taken," Fernandes told a meeting of ex-soldiers in this northern Indian desert city on Friday.

The renewed warning came just hours after US Secretary of State Colin Powell said Washington would strive to cool tensions between nuclear enemies Pakistan and India, who have fought three wars since 1947.

Fernandes said he endorsed Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha's recent comments that India had "a much better case to go for pre-emptive action against Pakistan than the United States has in Iraq."

Sinha also argued that Pakistan was "a fit case" for US military action, because it had weapons of mass destruction and terrorists.

Fernandes also rejected Pakistani allegations that India had breached United Nations Security Council resolutions from 1948 to 1957 which call for a plebiscite among Kashmiris to choose rule by India or Pakistan.

"Pakistan has a habit of lying and the issue of cross-border terrorism is a serious issue," Fernandes said.

India accuses Pakistan of arming and training Muslim militants in Kashmir. Islamabad denies the charge but says it offers moral and political support to what it describes as Kashmiris' legitimate struggle for self-expression.

Around 38,000 people have died in Kashmir, India's only Muslim-majority state, since the launch of the armed insurgency by Islamic guerrillas in 1989 in the Himalayan territory.

Pakistan and India both claim the scenic region, which is divided between them by a ceasefire line known as the Line of Control, with Pakistan controlling the northern part and India the south. "

[FuXnDajenariht]

see what i mean....i didn't even know about that.

the whole case for war was a pre-emptive strike period. in new york before it all kicked all off, thats all you read about in the paper. pre-emptive was like the word of the month. there was no other reason before the flip floppin. WMD's, breaking cease fire agreements, ties to Al Qaeda, blah blah blah. its all the same garbage....excuses... basically shortsighted....not to mention illegal.

president karl ro... i mean bush was smart about it tho. republicans have timing if anything..... i give em credit. even i was for the war right after 9/11 for a split second. your blood is boiling, everyone wants revenge, war drums beating, nonstop footage of the planes flying in the trade centers...... human nature. the real test is seeing through the bs. kinda piece of **** takes advantage of 3000 lost lives? all for a neo-con agenda..... talk about bad karma...

[FuXnDajenariht]

The official line from the White House is that President Bush has made no decision about whether to attack Iraq. Indeed, the President says that he does not even have a timetable for deciding. However, the possibility of an attack has been under debate for so long, and so openly, that most observers take it for granted that the administration intends to strike against Saddam Hussein’s regime within the next six months. The prospect has provoked unease among some US politicians, and outright protests from many European allies.

Some of the misgivings relate to practical or strategic questions: How difficult would it be to win? What kind of regime would replace Saddam Hussein? What would be the wider consequences for the Middle East? Alongside these questions, however, there has been increasing debate about the legal authority under which an attack would be carried out. After all, the kind of operation that seems to be under consideration would mark a major departure from accepted international practice: an attack against a sovereign state, aimed explicitly at removing its internationally recognised government, without specific authorization from the United Nations Security Council, not in response to a prior act of aggression, and carried out not by a multilateral organization but by the world’s greatest military power, acting alone or with the backing only of a few loyal allies.

It is sometimes said that an attack would be justified because of Iraq’s refusal to allow weapons inspections in line with Security Council Resolution 687, which established a ceasefire at the end of the Gulf War in 1991. However the resolution did not make the ceasefire conditional on Iraq’s future cooperation with inspections; instead it said that the Security Council "decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area". This seems to imply that another Security Council resolution would be needed to authorize further military action, and that has been the position taken by most international statesmen. For instance, French President Jacques Chirac said on July 30 that an attack "could only be justified if it were decided on by the Security Council," and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder said there would be no support in Germany for a strike "without approval of the United Nations".

In any case, the Bush administration has prepared the ground for an attack by developing a different justification: that an attack against Iraq would be an act of self-defence. Because of the new threats that the United States faces, it is claimed, a proper understanding of the right of self-defence should now extend to authorizing pre-emptive attacks against potential aggressors, cutting them off before they are able to launch strikes against the US that might be devastating in their scale and scope.

This guiding principle is being worked up as a central tenet of the United States’ strategic posture – as a "Bush doctrine". The fullest exposition was given by the President in a speech at West Point on June 1. Warning that the United States faced "a threat with no precedent" through the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the emergence of global terrorism, Bush said that the traditional strategies of deterrence and containment were no longer sufficient. Deterrence meant nothing "against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend" and containment could not work "when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies." Under these circumstances, he concluded, "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long."

Administration officials have stressed that the kind of pre-emptive actions that are envisaged by this doctrine are not exclusively military; nevertheless it clearly allows for armed strikes as a last resort. Although Iraq is the most obvious case in which a policy of pre-emptive self-defence might be invoked, the doctrine is intended to have wider application. Officials have spoken of a hypothetical case in which Islamic militants in Pakistan gain control of a nuclear weapon. According to newspaper reports, some in the administration have raised the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran, which is likely to become active in the next couple of years.

What is the status of pre-emptive self-defence in international law, and how does it apply to US policy toward Iraq in particular? The Crimes of War Project asked five prominent international experts for their views. Although their opinions were divided, they all recognized that the Bush administration’s proposals raise fundamental questions about the nature and scope of international law.

[FuXnDajenariht]

i seriously am not copying and pasting the rest of that but u can read it at the site.

http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/bush-intro.html

all you ever wanted to know about preemptive striking... hehe

[Ray Pina]

Why were those men in that mosk? Because they were firing on American soldiers.

I do not think the soldier should have shot the unarmed man. But being that Americans were being killed the next block over by dead bodies rigged with explosives, I can understand. As soon as the enemy starts fighting unconventionally, the gloves must come off. You fire on us, we call in air strikes.

I am a pacifist, but when you have to fight I don't believe in this PR, cutesy type of thing. Let the civilians know their homes are gone because the insurgents they protect have fired from that position.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

EF is correct.. the rules are fairly clear.. there insurgents protected by the populace.. the US has repeatedly told them to cease and desist or be destroyed.. now, they are being destroyed and crying foul.. i don't support the current administration, its actions of war and "pre-emptive" strikes, and i am an avowed liberal.. but, when someone tells me not to touch the stove 'cause it's hot, and i touch it and get burned, whose fault is that? Iraq may be a pointless engagement, but now that we are there it would serve the Iraqis well to pay attention.. turn in the insurgents and save your cities, save possibly your lives.. after they get free elections they can do as they wish within the sanctions of common decency and govern "themselves" as they choose.. until then, they really should pay attention..

Be well..

[FuXnDajenariht]

well if you feel ur fighting a justified rebellion against an unjustified war what would you do? of course they have to fight unconventionally, its common sense. they have no chance of matching our military strength....its the price we pay for going to war. war has no rules.. yet as a decent 'human being' standards have to be kept. whether your enemy chooses those standards is not up to you. would the same tactics in WW2 by the European rebels against Germany have been hailed as ingenious or cowardly? dont think im trying to compare the 2 but think about it. you choose to either kill the supsicious looking kid or risk facing death. in the end its a decision between you and god. things especially in the heat of battle are never black or white. and the stove shouldn't of been in the house in the first place. ;)

[Becca]

Originally posted by CaptinPickAxe
... I would be the guy who died in battle without even pulling the trigger. Do you know why? Because I AM NOT THEIR JUDGE, niether are you, niether is bush....
No, you are judging them... and everyone else. This is human nature. To denie this basic truth is to lie to yourself. You are also forgetting the I 100% support your decision to be a non-combatant. I do not thinnk you a a pasifist, I doubt anyone truly is. Just as the are no true athiests. I also don't think you would just stand there and let them raid your home any more than they "let" us. You'd fight back. And even if you didn't, your niebor probably would, and after being shot at for weeks, they would start assuming everyone is going to shoot.

I never said this was accepable. Only that it was understandable if you take the time to look at thing a bit more realistacly...


Ponder this, Becca. How would you feel if it was a marine in that situation? I'm sure it would boost your anti-muslim sentiment tenfold. God help this racist country...
Cappie, I was a Marine. I have been there. To call me a rasist because I can see things from that point of veiw is ingorant. To call all middle-easterners "muslam" is also ignorant. Ant to assume you are above such things when you are just as human as everyone else and therefore just as prone to make a mistake, big or little, under stress is, well.... ignorant.

[MoreMisfortune]

lol @ the people that really think torture by military are isolated cases

[David Jamieson]

I don't see what is so hard to understand about Iraqi nationals fighting against foreign soldiers on their land.

If soldiers took over my country, wrecked the place and killed 100k of my countrymen I would find a way to kill as many of them as possible or keep killing them until they were dead or I was. I would join the underground and I would try to get these foreigners out of the streets of my country and I would try to destroy any of them.

These are emotional responses sure, but we can't deny the Iraqis the emotions they are going through and I would defy any of you to say that if the Artab world disagreed with the Great satan and the perversities of the US culture and decided to send a pre-emptive strike force to america before the poison of their culture invaded their own, that you wouldn't do anything within your power to stop it.

Why is this such a strange concept to people? Many of you would do the same. Shoe on other foot works really well to get understanding of others. Even enemies.

[MoreMisfortune]

oh yeah

you americans have such bad weapons of mass destruction under your posession and under construction
your leader is a insane mass murderer
you want to rule/control the world
you have betrayed nations and/or friends you previously were allied to
i dont see why anyone should trust america

you deserve a pre-emptive attack
thats right

[MoreMisfortune]

i say we get rid of those americans before they start bombing us

some say in some decades we wont have much drinkable water avalible on the world (unless new/better technologies be more developed). but my country (and argentina) have the biggest underground water reverves in da world.
sure you americans might decide to invade and take it to yourself
we never know
or they could just help out some crazy people to install a military dictatorship here - like they were gonna do in the psat - you know they just didnt cos it wasnt necessary - but the resources were avalible and prepared to do so just in case (This is proven fact, not conspiracy theory).

so i think its wise we blow america, just in case, cos you never know what the greedy fat yankees are up to

[MoreMisfortune]

hmm america looks rather interested in amazon dont they?
the idea of making it into "international area" or whatever they call it?
hmm... amazon... biodiversity...
biotechnology
anybody wanna make some dollar?

never know when those nasty greedy whiteys might wanna steal our amazon for their profit after having completely trashed the green areas of their own

best we burn them fat northern whitey all down before they try to take our territory

[MoreMisfortune]

most of americans males are cicumsized (while most of the rest of the world is not)
that is so nasty
what kind of crazy people cut pieces of their genital organs out
you can never trust people with insane habits like that, you just never know

those americans are mostly protestant
how dare them question the truth of the CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC ROMAN CHURCH?
you nasty untrustable (religion) LEFTIES
you go against all that is GOOD and RIGHT, set by the ALLMIGHTY GOD thousands of years ago
da.mn right you protestants, all you ever do is protest, you left (religion) wingers

lets eliminate them

[MoreMisfortune]

everyone remembers you leader saying something like:
"You are either with us or against us"
or the like "You are eihter our friends or our enemies"
That is a direct thread to all the politically neutral countries in the world!
We cannot let this continue

We must destroy america before they consider us a potential enemy to us due to our neutrality!!

[MoreMisfortune]

ooh perhaps the american public dont fully agree with everything their leader does maybe?
oh pitty
guess not every iraq is evil either, right?
but you sure didnt give a shyt about killing thousands of them did you?
"it had to be done"
how about it now lets get it done on YOUR ASS
what? your little kid has nothing to do with this? neither your grandma (that poor ol lady)?
sorry, there was a "chemical weapons factory" just next to her house... on that super-market you know... and we had to bomb it... nasty super-markets
ooops, we missed the target and hit the chinese embassy... SOOOOORRY! :D

[Ray Pina]

Fux, certainly I understand the need for them to fight unconventionally, I even understand the need for them to use terrorism.

What I don't understand is why, if we're takingcertain rights away while fighting this war on terrorism, than we need to have a CNN camera on every patrol? Why don't we invite peace wanting Iraqis to a little camp out in the dessert and treat them to a nice meal and entertainment for a few days and shoot anyone else deciding to remian behind and fight.

I don't like war. But we shouldn't be fighting a war while fearing to get a time out if we offend someone. Let's make it clear, no one wants to be occupied. But the fanaticism in these Islamic countries is rampant and becoming dangerous. Its not like Christianity and the religions we have here, where you work with religious people but they're no different than you. To these Islamic people, if Islam is being attacked they MUST fight. And its easy for Al Queda to paint the picture that Islam and its sights are under attack. When in reality, these governments just want to get richer and make a handful of American's richer too.

It's beyond that now. So if we're going to kill lets start killing and get it over with. We could easily clear out that entire area. Why isn't that option even brought up as a physcological weapon? Let these people know they're F-ing with the only nation to drop The Bomb.

I know that's a little over the top, but I'm a Machievellian when it comes to this. Don't kill 10 today, 150 tomorrow, and 30 next week. Kill 20,000 today, have it be in the headlines for two or three days and life goes on. You'll see. Most have already forgotton 9/11.

[David Jamieson]

Most have already forgotton 9/11

I doubt that.

Many people believe that Iraq was somehow tied to 911 and that is their justification for making war on Iraq.

I do not understand how this idea was perpetuated except through the white house.

Iraq had nothing to do with 911.

[Ray Pina]

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 much the same way Germany had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. Seperate issue but related, in the general world instability, particulalrly the Mid East.

Let's not BS. Saddam was no friend of the U.S. He DID have weapons of mass destruction. Not nukes, but several deadly gasses. How long before they spilled out? If not to the US, to Isreal?

Listen, if the guy around the corner has made is very clear he and five of his friends are out to jump me, I make it a point to get him first, when he's alone. You cut the snake's head off in the field BEFORE he bites you. Afterwards its too late..... this is the practical mind of MA, not the philosocal .... this is the year now, not the way it could or should.

As far as forgetting 9/11. If you grew up using those towers as a reference point, drunk as a kid at night and knowing "the Path train is that way" because you could see the towers, if you were here that day, the chaos, if you lost civilian friends that day, you'd realise how rediculous this discussion is, that the US is at WAR, and that many, many people have forgotten or had no clue in the first place.

[Merryprankster]

lol @ the people that really think torture by military are isolated cases

Since you are from a part of the world where militaries have traditionally been "above" the rest of society, and have had serious roles in human rights violations on an ongoing basis, I can appreciate your skepticism.

But, in the U.S. this has not been our tradition. Torture and such human rights violations by our troops make the news precisely because they are the exception, rather than the norm. If it was de riguer, we'd never see it.

MOST of the U.S. military obeys their orders and follows the rules. As always, there will be cases of abuse. The question is not IF they occur, which is an impossible standard. The question, rather is WHEN they occur, what is the response?

[rogue]

If soldiers took over my country, wrecked the place and killed 100k of my countrymen I would find a way to kill as many of them as possible or keep killing them until they were dead or I was. I would join the underground and I would try to get these foreigners out of the streets of my country and I would try to destroy any of them. Wow, KL as a badass. Then maybe he would just ***** to the UN about it.:D

Cr@p, MoreMisfortune is trying to take my title of forum idiot away from me.

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by Merryprankster

MOST of the U.S. military obeys their orders and follows the rules. As always, there will be cases of abuse. The question is not IF they occur, which is an impossible standard. The question, rather is WHEN they occur, what is the response?

I concur, and unfortunately, this seems to be ground not well travelled - most people seem to fall instantly into either OMG BUSH PERSONALLY SODOMIZED IRAQIS AT ABU GRAIB BECAUSE HE IS TEH EVOL!!!!111!! or OMG TORTURE IS FINE IF THEIR TERRORISTS WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?!?!?!?!?!11one!!?!?

That's a point, though - what /has/ the response been? Last I heard, one of the soldiers involved was getting a year's suspended sentence... I haven't heard much else since then. How far up the chain of command has disciplinary action gone? How severe has that action been?

[Becca]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
I doubt that.

Many people believe that Iraq was somehow tied to 911 and that is their justification for making war on Iraq.

I do not understand how this idea was perpetuated except through the white house.

Iraq had nothing to do with 911.
Most people I know of, even Dubya supporters, are well aware that Iraq had more to do with Daddy Dubya not getting So**** Insaine durring his 4 years... and no ties to 911 other than our military might was in that region because of it. Ooooo, buy one war, get the other 1/2 off!

But the fact is, we are there now, regardless of the reason and if we pull out now, the mess we leave behind will be 10 times worse than the one we caused in Afghanistan when we pulled out before we should have. This is prooven history in that region, and in the over-all history of man kind. You just don't walk away from mistakes of that magnitude. You have to finnish what you started.

[MoreMisfortune]

"When rape is inevitable, relax and cum"
:confused:

[MoreMisfortune]

Originally posted by rogue
Cr@p, MoreMisfortune is trying to take my title of forum idiot away from me.

i only reflect what people do

[David Jamieson]

Becca-

The white house is blocking plays on the reconstruction and the participation of other countries in doing so. So, yeah, pulling out is hard to do when the profits to be made can only be made by the states and it's corporations.

Yes the US is there now and the US is still making mistakes all along the garden path.

Let's hope that perhaps this can be rectified, the whole world that is capable of contributing to the restructuring can get involved and Iraq can go back to being Iraq as opposed to occupied Iraq.

[FuXnDajenariht]

139 marines killed in November. the worst month of fighting so far according to the news. I think the newly minted free nation of Iraq has made their first collective democratic decision.....kick Americas ass.... :o

[Ray Pina]

"Yes the US is there now and the US is still making mistakes all along the garden path."

Then why doesn't Canada and France show us how to do it?

On one hand everyone bashes the states and points out how poorly we do things, but then says we don't allow this or that. I don't know about you, but I don't let the retarted kid up the block prevent me from doing what I want or going where I want.

If you and France have a bunch of troops willing to get dirty (which I doubt, because they turned tail when it came to defending themselves) then just fly over there and make yourself involved. Do something.

[Merryprankster]

How far up the chain of command has disciplinary action gone? How severe has that action been?

Two Sergeants and 4 junior enlisted were court-martialed.

The Battalion commander and the Battalion chief of operations received general letters of reprimand and were relieved immediately. I believe the Battalion commander also received Non-judicial punishment of some sort.

Four others received letters of reprimand, and the Brigadier General also received a letter of reprimand.


Some people may find that unacceptable as far as level of response, but it is quite consistent with our legal system.

First, the six court-martialed were the six who either did the activities or actively conspired to do them.

This is distinct from the Chain of Command, which was PROFESSIONALLY responsible for what took place, but they were not personally responsible. That is, while they created an environment (according to the Teguba report) that allowed the abuses to take place, they neither encouraged the activities, ordered them, or took part in them. Consequently, they have received professional vs. criminal punishment. Each person who received those letters is done. They have no career. They will not promote and will be kicked out. Those letters will also be noted in their record and may alter their discharge status.

They are guilty of bad judgment and command failings, but they are not guilty of abuse. If that's the standard somebody wants to try and use, then I first suggest they are idiots, and secondly would like to point out that if that's the case, then we'd be courtmartialing officers left and right every time one of his/her subordinates decided to beat their wife or start a barfight.

Secondly, remember that our system is built on what you can prove. There may be evidence that, say, the chief of operations (a master sergeant), was somehow involved, but if it's not strong enough they won't go to court with it. Curse of innocent until proven guilty.

I know a lot of people don't think this is harsh enough...and I say those people are ruled by their emotions and desire for retribution just as much as the *******s who committed abuse at Abu Ghraib. You have to take a step back and look and see who was responsible for what and in what way. Only then can you get a legitimate answer.

[FatherDog]

Thanks for the info. I haven't read anything about it in the news the last few months - probably drowned out in the election coverage.

[diego]

Originally posted by Merryprankster


They are guilty of bad judgment and command failings, but they are not guilty of abuse. If that's the standard somebody wants to try and use, then I first suggest they are idiots, and secondly would like to point out that if that's the case, then we'd be courtmartialing officers left and right every time one of his/her subordinates decided to beat their wife or start a barfight.



if they start a barfight while in iraq then yes they should be charged

call me idealistic but when america is strictly defending its interests by bringing democracy to the mid-east...imho they better run a tight ship...how wack that wmd info was i can see that they ship is full of sh-it to be blunt

anyway i'm watching the prez and prime minister newscasts this morning and i'm all uno our pm is a fat fuq...but bush makes him look like a genius:D the guy is flipping through english and french and actually got me emotional talking about pier 21 and how all the immigrants come there and all the ww2 warkids left from there so its got mad aura and history and i could feel that...bush gets on the mic and i'm just all **** man even if i try this guys is such a dunce it's impossibble to feel him....horribble horrible speaker

he drops subtle little jokes that shows where he is coming from as a redneck in america...he all yeah canada yall didn't seperate from the crown but we americans are still cousins and love you and the crowd cracks up...so this is canada and america to these crackkka yanks? it's all white man history or what? i know it was just a joke but i didn't laugh cuz i mean what does anyone besides white people have to do with the fight with the crown...i hate the governments history of america! it's pathetic and thoroughly disrespectfull to the natives history of america etc.
anywho

[diego]

Originally posted by Becca
Most people I know of, even Dubya supporters, are well aware that Iraq had more to do with Daddy Dubya not getting So**** Insaine durring his 4 years... and no ties to 911 other than our military might was in that region because of it. Ooooo, buy one war, get the other 1/2 off!

But the fact is, we are there now, regardless of the reason and if we pull out now, the mess we leave behind will be 10 times worse than the one we caused in Afghanistan when we pulled out before we should have. This is prooven history in that region, and in the over-all history of man kind. You just don't walk away from mistakes of that magnitude. You have to finnish what you started. and now like was implied in bushs speach to canada this morning bush and his dummies will do what they shoulda done in the first...get international support to help aid the restructuring of iraq

fuqers shoulda gave the un more time and we wouldn't be in this mess...it's not like saddam in jail has changed much...coulda been another way to do this uno...

[rogue]

Personally I'm more offended by what happened to Daniel Berg and the other kidnap/murder victems than some guys in a dog pile. Hope both groups get what's coming to them in amounts that fit the crimes.

[diego]

Originally posted by rogue
Personally I'm more offended by what happened to Daniel Berg and the other kidnap/murder victems than some guys in a dog pile. Hope both groups get what's coming to them in amounts that fit the crimes.

possible innocent vic's vs berg...shouldn't have been there in the first

rip to all those innocent caught up in americas interests!.

[diego]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Diego,



The CIA being involved in torture is really rather silly from an institutional perspective. The thing that people who theorize these things seem to forget is that the folks who work for and in the CIA are normal citizens who draw a normal salary. They don't have any special rights, no special treatment, and are certainly not members of any sort of social elite.

Just as with any organization, you are going to have people who abuse their power. It happens with the police, but most police organizations are not rife with corruption.

The measure of an organization is not "Does this stuff happen at all," because it is bound to. Rather, the questions should be:

1. Is this condoned actively or tacitly?
2. Is it rampant, suggesting lack of oversight or intentional blindness?
3. Are perpetrators held accountable?

If the answer is yes to any of the above, then you've got problems. I don't think you can honestly answer yes to the above three questions after reviewing the evidence. Of course, the cognitively impaired will reach all kinds of conclusions.

yeah but i don't think you can just disregard conspiracy theorys by saying the cia is just simple joes getting a paycheck

from a tinfoil heads perspective scared of the nwo etc he would think well hm...bush said fuq the un we going to defend our interests...and then when theyousted saddam they all fuq yall who didn't help US we are gonna get paid to restructure iraq how we see fit etc...now that has changed and the yanks want our help...but when he said the war was over he was all fuq yall we getting paid off this

so a tinfoil head would think hm...bush fam is friends with bin laden fam...there is tons of martha stewart corrupt big business peeps backing bush most likely gauranteed...so bush is defending they interests he doesn't care about iraqi citizens as he is a rascist redneck and woulda ran a tighter ship if he was really about doing god's work bringing justice to the world not just to his corporate sponsors bank statements...:)

so it's not like american history doesn't have many instances where big business manuevared the chess pieces of the american government so how do you know that cia higherups are not on bushs buddies payrolls...how do you know this isn't all just about oil and defending they lovers the zionist guvment?

conspiracy theorys aside that white godlover bush and his peeps is a wrong representative against the worldwide war against terrorists as showcased nightly on cnn by they poor military judgment...i mean at least yall coulda found someone who actually understands the muslems plight not one who only understands that they hated his father etc cuz bush has only created more hate but what can you expect from a puppet that gets all of his info from cue cards

good fight but from the wrong perspective is basically what i am saying....couldn't yall have found someone more scientific than that fake christian idiot bush?

i mean really:)

anyway enough of the conspiracy theorys on a kungfu forum..it only creates beef

i don't trust yall guvment nor mine they all corrupt elite fuqwads

i think yall need to reorganize ya shiat if yall are gonna be telling the world how to act etc.
peace

[rogue]

possible innocent vic's vs berg...shouldn't have been there in the first So if an American did that to an Arab here in the states would you feel the same way?

[diego]

Originally posted by rogue
So if an American did that to an Arab here in the states would you feel the same way?

? did what they did to berg or tortured them in the states?

another stream of thought...uno if it was bhuddists who did 911 i prolly wouldn't be upset...the only reason i hate al qaeda is cuz of what they do to women...but that is they culture...the extremists ones anyway...imo they have every right to not want american capitalists in their lands...white peeps are not from the desert right

so what osama said about why he did 911 i can't fault the guy for thinking the yanks are devils...it's just too bad that he reps devils...if osama was a bhuddist i would prolly like the guy and see him as a freedom fighter but since he isn't i see him as just another twisted man who only beleives in survival of the fittest like the great white tradition of conquering the world...except china and the mideast...oh wait that fight is still ongoing....:)

he said he has been plotting attacks on the us since like 81 orwhatever when the states attacked one of his peeps...he only attacked the american power structure not the people...unfortunatly he killed innocents to get the job done but hey that's how america fights right so i don't see any issue with that...it's just too bad all we know about those guys from the press is that they are abusive husbands and from the old school when stoning was allowed etc

somehow we gotta teach they kids to get rid of the old school, but if they don't want us there they have every right to keep our interests far away...but we have a moral duty to save they kids from the old school ways but we can't force our duty on to them

a part of me says osama is crazy in his fight for god just like bush is stupid in his fight for god...another part says osama and bush give eachother head while they business peeps burn hundered dollar bills on ciggarrettes only to taste wealth....

i don't know, it's a weird fight the whole issue
1

[FuXnDajenariht]

dude....it was abuse. dont try to change what it is. and dont forget that this wasn't an isolated incident. thats why its getting pushed out of the national news. its an embarassment. things like that aren't supposed to be happning in 'our' military. rumsfeld should of had the balls to resign...

[diego]

Originally posted by diego
a part of me says osama is crazy in his fight for god just like bush is stupid in his fight for god...another part says osama and bush give eachother head while they business peeps burn hundered dollar bills on ciggarrettes only to taste wealth....

been reading this economics book from the 60's and it talks about the robber barons of old america...anyone got info on when america became for the people

i know Ford changed a lot of how the higherups ran they corporations, but i'm looking for a timeline of when the peeps actually got some say

you watch gangs of new york and the peeps have no say...when did the commen man get his foot in the door of business america?

[FuXnDajenariht]

i'd say during the labor reform movement. democracy at work. the workers changed their own working conditions. corporation heads and the government would of turned us into present day China if they had their way. sweat shops and no employee rights. we're still fighting to increase the minimum and get a living wage here in new york. workers have to take control of production or we're always gonna be screwed over by greedy businesses. they didn't give us anything. people finally put their foot down, unified and formed labor parties. when production stops so does the economy, and thats all the government really cares about.......you can tell ima bit of an anarchist...

:)

[Merryprankster]

yeah but i don't think you can just disregard conspiracy theorys by saying the cia is just simple joes getting a paycheck

Actually, yeah, I can. They are on the same pay scale as people who crunch numbers at the IRS, security guards at our federal institutions and the national park police. They have an unusual job, but most of them are anywhere between the GS-9 to GS-15 level. That's squarely middle class, although you might make the case that a GS-14 and a GS-15 are approaching upper middle class.


if they start a barfight while in iraq then yes they should be charged

First, if they find a bar in Iraq, they deserve a medal, not a court-martial.

Secondly, if you are, in fact, suggesting that the Chain of Command should be charged, in such an incident I'm not going to call you idealistic. I'm simply going to say that as smart as you may personally be, you need to seriously rethink this because it's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. The chain of command is not criminally liable for the individual actions of its subordinates, provided they did not order the action or engage in what amounts to "willful blindness." A tight ship means you run it with full respect for the law, not absurdity.

Shall we begin charging parents for the decision of their 17 year old child to murder a classmate? Heck, it's in the best interest of society, right? Now that's a tight ship! Maybe we should do that.


call me idealistic but when america is strictly defending its interests by bringing democracy to the mid-east...imho they better run a tight ship...how wack that wmd info was i can see that they ship is full of sh-it to be blunt

Completely unrelated to the matter at hand. The military is a policy tool. The civilian policy makers, not the people in uniform, control when they are employed. The justification for the war in Iraq has zero relationship to the "tightness" of the military "ship."


and dont forget that this wasn't an isolated incident.

Proof? BTW, the plural of anecdote isn't proof.


thats why its getting pushed out of the national news.

It made it into the national news in the first place precisely BECAUSE it's an unusual event. If it were commonplace, we wouldn't be seeing it on the 7:00.


its an embarassment.

Yup. Which tells you a lot about what we expect from our military...and the military going after themselves tells you a lot about what THEY expect from their members.



rumsfeld should of had the balls to resign...

Why? I'm asking specifically in relationship to this. What responsibility does he have for this - actions on a junior and noncommissioned officer level - that leads you to believe that he should have resigned? Did he order it? Condone it? Encourage it? Direct it? Support it?

[Radhnoti]

diego - "...get international support to help aid the restructuring of iraq

fuqers shoulda gave the un more time and we wouldn't be in this mess..."


Have you been following what is being called, "The U.N. Oil for Food Scandal"?

From abc.net:
"...The Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has been forced to distance himself from the business dealings of his son Kojo. The reason - revelations that Kojo was paid by a company involved in the oil for food program as recently as February this year...Late last week, a spokesman for Kofi Annan was forced to admit that the monthly payments continued up until February this year, six years later than previously reported."

From articles at washingtontimes.com:

"... the mounting evidence of scandal that has been uncovered in the U.N. Oil For Food program suggests that there was never a serious possibility of getting Security Council support for military action because influential people in Russia and France were getting paid off by Saddam.
...French and Russian companies received $11 billion worth of business from Oil for Food between 1996 and 2003.
Benon Sevan, the executive director of the Oil for Food office, received a voucher for 11.5 million barrels of oil from Saddam's manipulation of the program — enough to yield a profit of between $575,000 and $3.5 million.
...The beneficiary list (found in the archives of the Iraqi Oil Ministry and translated into English by the Middle East Media Research Institute) should be deeply embarrassing to many prominent people. In the United States, those listed include Iraqi American businessman Shaker Al-Khaffaji, who put up $400,000 to produce a film by ex-U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, which aimed to discredit weapons inspections in Iraq. Also, British Labor MP George Galloway, a strident foe of taking action against Saddam, is listed as a recipient or co-recipient of 19.5 million barrels.
Other recipients include: former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua (12 million barrels); Patrick Maugein, CEO of the oil company Soco International and financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac (25 million); former French Ambassador to the United Nations Jean-Bernard Merimee (11 million); Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri (10 million); and Syrian businessman Farras Mustafa Tlass, the son of longtime Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass (6 million). Leith Shbeilat, chairman of the anti-corruption committee of the Jordanian Parliament, received 15.5 million.
...U.S. lawmakers repeatedly have accused the United Nations of "obstructing" their investigations by refusing to share internal documents, lift gag orders on contractors and make staff available for questioning....U.N. officials have been urging the media, U.S. politicians and others to withhold judgment about the unfolding saga until the organization's own investigation has concluded....The full report could take another year, and cost as much as $30 million — to be funded with leftover cash in the oil-for-food program. "

Foxnews.com:

"...Rep. Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican who is heading up an Oil-for-Food investigation in the House... added that there is a chance some of the insurgents now operating against the United States and the new Iraqi government are using Oil-for-Food money in their terror campaign.

“I think it's not only possible that insurgents are using Oil-for-Food money -- I think it's very likely,” Shays said."

No link between Saddam and Bin Laden you say?

nationalreview.com:

"...There are at least two links documented already. Both involve oil buyers picked by Saddam and approved by the U.N. One was a firm with close ties to a Liechtenstein trust that has since been designated by the U.N. itself as "belonging to or affiliated with Al Qaeda." The other was a Swiss-registered subsidiary of a Saudi oil firm that had close dealings with the Taliban during Osama bin Laden's 1990's heyday in Afghanistan."


How can anyone still think the U.N. was doing the right thing in Iraq? Who can, in good conscience, claim that the U.N. would have EVER declared Iraq in breach of the agreed upon restrictions? The U.N. corruption on this issue is sickening, to see that "coincidentally" the people who raised the loudest stink about the U.S. led invasion are the ones who were profitting the most shouldn't be surprising.

To wrap it up, an editor at the Wall Street Journal Europe:

"...A monstrous dictator was able to turn the Oil-for-Food program into a cash cow for himself and his inner circle, leaving Iraqis further deprived as he bought influence abroad and acquired the arms and munitions that coalition forces discovered when they invaded Iraq last spring.
A U.N. culture of unaccountability is certainly also to blame."

[David Jamieson]

rad, I don't see how you can justify the war in Iraq based on a scandal dealing with corruption in the ranks of not only the UN but many others.

This incident is not a reason for writing off the UN so much as it is a clarion call.

But nevertheless, the food for oil scandal involving the chairmans son is not related to the invasion of Iraq.

As for interests in teh region, well keerist mang! everyone and their pink poodle is interested in Iraq. It's a pretty large reserve of oil after all.

all this "liberty, and freedom" crap is a friggin propoganda nightmare.

someone gets caught in a scandal? then give em what they're due. Speaking of which, maybe don rumsfeld will grow a pair and resign for teh abu graib incident, but I doubt it, the only one's growing a pair in the white house now seem to be leaving....in droves! Guess teh better part of their concionsciences couldn't carry them for another 4 more lie filled years of tyranny and personal crusades.

It's a real good attempt at a distraction though. I really enjoy how when things are brought to point, pre-emptive striking is decried as wrong, the war in Iraq is a quagmire and a mistake etc etc and then someone will bring up some thing completely unrelated to get away from having to answer those question.

would you rather talk about some black guy taking bribes at the UN or would you rather talk about 1000+ american soldiers dead at your tax dollars expense. Or maybe the 9500+ wounded for your same american dollars or maybe the value of 100,000 dead Iraqis for your american dollars.

gimme a break. Your war is wrong, your attack was wrong, Bush was wrong and still is. The people that follow Bush do not seem to be very well educated or understanding. THey also do not really seem to reflect much in teh way of Christian values despite the fact they go on and on about them all day.

It is too weird and frankly I'm glad it's his last term and I don't have to live with the deaths of thousands on my head. I also don't have to worry about the thousands of hateful and bitter terrorists that W has created with his war and all the new and exciting attacks in the US that his actions have brought upon you and again on you tax dollar!

Your rational escapes me.:rolleyes:

[Merryprankster]

Rahdnoti,

Good points, all, except for the Al Qaida and Saddam thing. While I don't buy it personally, it lends the lie to people who try to say the war was all about oil...well, if that's true, then by that logic, the UN - the authority those same people making the oil argument appeal to - could never render an appropriate decision on this issue.

On the Saddam/AQ thing - that's a serious stretch...to the point of being untenable. There is no evidence that ever suggests Saddam was in league with AQ, or that Bin Ladin and Saddam ever had any sort of...anything...that could be classified as a relationship.

[norther practitioner]

Bin Laden asked Saddam for money.. Saddam said no..

[norther practitioner]

Or so there have been reports.. I don't know what to believe now though.

[David Jamieson]

lol.

THere is soooooo much propaganda I am not sure that anything is really 100% factual or believeable. Especially what comes out of teh white house press corps. lol Or any government officials mouth anywhere in the world.

Liars and theives. There aren't any decent people in politics. There are darn few journalists working for companies that have any integrity.

they just wanna sell adspace for viagra and allesse to the companies who keep their news stations running.

The news isn't the news, it's a fabrication based upon events that may or may not have occured depending on teh political agenda of those who control the press.

by the way, in the US, the media is rigidly controlled by the FCC and have been for years and years. Currently teh FCC serves the agenda of teh Bush white house, so don't expect too much "truth" to get to you through your regular news sources.

anything even remotely bad for the gov will be spun into pink poodles for your pleasure before it gets to air.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Well.. it seems that there are many perspectives of a complex issue regarding the hows and whys of the current state of affairs in the middle east.. most of the opinions on this forum find disfavor with the motives and evidence leading up and including the war and occupation of Iraq.. so be it.. given that it is what it is, i suggest we begin to formulate possibilities for stabilizing the region, for controlling terrorism and for unifying (as much as possible) civilization..

Now, we can continue to theorize, speculate, and wonder about how or why we are in this mess.. or, we can begin looking for a way out.. Heck, there are some good minds dialoguing here, we may have insights that could be helpful.. but, it has reached the point of counter-productive redundancy to keep restating the same perspectives.. and challenging those we disagree with.. aside from the nuclear option or scorched earth approach, how does civilization correct its path?

Be well..

[David Jamieson]

How to do it:

step 1: put 138,000 american solders onto planes and boats and send them back to the USA.

step 2: Bring in military police force comprised of UN member nations and Iraqi peoples.

step3: Give Iraq back complete contreol of it's government and natural resources.

step 4: remove police force and maintain support to Iraqi only police force.

step 5: Let Iraq rebuild from within or contract whoever it likes to fix the destruction left behind by the US bombs.

step 6: have USA and GB make reparations for any and all damage they caused to infrastructure and have them make reparations to the families of those innocentsthey killed as collateral damage in tehir attacks. For soldiers, well, let them argue in court at the hague over whether or not they should be compensated.

OUtside of teh details, that's pretty much how to get Iraq back uyp and running. the big one being get the Fug out if you ain't from there of course. :p

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Kung Lek: Philosophically, i don't disagree with you.. but, i am concerned with the lack of internal controls currently in place in Iraq.. i don't see it as the US's responsibility to create a democratic society in Iraq, but i do feel that since it trashed the place it should establish local civilian command and control structures to regulate daily affairs and commerce..

Originally, i hoped we would invade them with the Peace Corps.. but, a secondary mop-up operation by the Peace Corps might prove more receptive.. perhaps the PC could at least imply sincerity.. of course, there is the problem of people losing their heads, literally..

Be well..

[FuXnDajenariht]

one of the reasons i and im sure millions of other voters wanted John Kerry elected was that he presented a better opportunity to get Iraq back on track. I dont think the international community wants anything to do with George Bush let alone pledge their own people to his non existant plan. we can't even prevent american troops from being killed, why would they have any faith that we keep their own secure in the rebuild process? its sad to say but we might be in the same quagmire for the next 4 years until his term is done.

the UN is needed more than ever im thinking. as long as countries looking from the outside in scream "illegal war" the Iraqis have reason to fight on. Now if we had a true coalition comprised of say a dozen UN nations with some actual authority, and it looked like the rest of the world had some stock in their well being, it would be up to the Iraqis to show some maturity on their end. maybe it would lead to a cease fire.... they might think twice about offending half of the free world by planting that roadside bomb. we need more troops not less and even with a great number of international troops, maybe 50,000, we would still have to leave our men there. it our mess, we hafta make the biggest sacrifice. fit the biggest bills..... it would be unfair to the rest of the world if we turned tail and left them to handle our mess.

with more troops tho we might be able to secure Iraq and Americans would be able to actually peace keep instead of fighting for territory. beyond that i dont even wanna think about the reconstruction. our biggest battle is winning Iraqi support. even if 90% of the Iraqi people supported us that 10% comprised of ****ed off insurgents and terrorists are making our lives hell over there. no real reconstruction has started....maybe cosmetic but no real infrastructure. its impossible with gun battles everywhere.

it also bothers me that 20 percent of groundforces are supposedly soldiers of fortune with no military training or discipline. no real interest in Iraq beyond making money. from the reports ive read of illegal behavior and wrongful deaths, if its true and if thats the norm im sure they've done their fair share to **** off insurgents. this needs to be changed. if our military is capable of abu ghraib then imagine sum tattoo covered wanna be who goes over there when his bodybuilding career falls through. he has no one to answer to but sum greedy corporate head. ive heard they'll hire anyone willing to carry a gun.

how exactly are we gonna pay for rebuilding Iraq? billions spent and no real progress made.

[red5angel]

I heard we invaded cause NP's mom wasn't putting out enough. The soldeirs were getting cranky there in Colorado Springs....

[diego]

Originally posted by Radhnoti
diego - "...get international support to help aid the restructuring of iraq

fuqers shoulda gave the un more time and we wouldn't be in this mess..."


Have you been following what is being called, "The U.N. Oil for Food Scandal"?

From abc.net:
"...The Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has been forced to distance himself from the business dealings of his son Kojo. The reason - revelations that Kojo was paid by a company involved in the oil for food program as recently as February this year...Late last week, a spokesman for Kofi Annan was forced to admit that the monthly payments continued up until February this year, six years later than previously reported."

From articles at washingtontimes.com:

"... the mounting evidence of scandal that has been uncovered in the U.N. Oil For Food program suggests that there was never a serious possibility of getting Security Council support for military action because influential people in Russia and France were getting paid off by Saddam.
...French and Russian companies received $11 billion worth of business from Oil for Food between 1996 and 2003.
Benon Sevan, the executive director of the Oil for Food office, received a voucher for 11.5 million barrels of oil from Saddam's manipulation of the program — enough to yield a profit of between $575,000 and $3.5 million.
...The beneficiary list (found in the archives of the Iraqi Oil Ministry and translated into English by the Middle East Media Research Institute) should be deeply embarrassing to many prominent people. In the United States, those listed include Iraqi American businessman Shaker Al-Khaffaji, who put up $400,000 to produce a film by ex-U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, which aimed to discredit weapons inspections in Iraq. Also, British Labor MP George Galloway, a strident foe of taking action against Saddam, is listed as a recipient or co-recipient of 19.5 million barrels.
Other recipients include: former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua (12 million barrels); Patrick Maugein, CEO of the oil company Soco International and financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac (25 million); former French Ambassador to the United Nations Jean-Bernard Merimee (11 million); Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri (10 million); and Syrian businessman Farras Mustafa Tlass, the son of longtime Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass (6 million). Leith Shbeilat, chairman of the anti-corruption committee of the Jordanian Parliament, received 15.5 million.
...U.S. lawmakers repeatedly have accused the United Nations of "obstructing" their investigations by refusing to share internal documents, lift gag orders on contractors and make staff available for questioning....U.N. officials have been urging the media, U.S. politicians and others to withhold judgment about the unfolding saga until the organization's own investigation has concluded....The full report could take another year, and cost as much as $30 million — to be funded with leftover cash in the oil-for-food program. "

Foxnews.com:

"...Rep. Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican who is heading up an Oil-for-Food investigation in the House... added that there is a chance some of the insurgents now operating against the United States and the new Iraqi government are using Oil-for-Food money in their terror campaign.

“I think it's not only possible that insurgents are using Oil-for-Food money -- I think it's very likely,” Shays said."

No link between Saddam and Bin Laden you say?

nationalreview.com:

"...There are at least two links documented already. Both involve oil buyers picked by Saddam and approved by the U.N. One was a firm with close ties to a Liechtenstein trust that has since been designated by the U.N. itself as "belonging to or affiliated with Al Qaeda." The other was a Swiss-registered subsidiary of a Saudi oil firm that had close dealings with the Taliban during Osama bin Laden's 1990's heyday in Afghanistan."


How can anyone still think the U.N. was doing the right thing in Iraq? Who can, in good conscience, claim that the U.N. would have EVER declared Iraq in breach of the agreed upon restrictions? The U.N. corruption on this issue is sickening, to see that "coincidentally" the people who raised the loudest stink about the U.S. led invasion are the ones who were profitting the most shouldn't be surprising.

To wrap it up, an editor at the Wall Street Journal Europe:

"...A monstrous dictator was able to turn the Oil-for-Food program into a cash cow for himself and his inner circle, leaving Iraqis further deprived as he bought influence abroad and acquired the arms and munitions that coalition forces discovered when they invaded Iraq last spring.
A U.N. culture of unaccountability is certainly also to blame."

i read a piece in a colleg newspaper saying something before 911 or at least before the us attacked iraq that iraq was trying to cut the us out of the oil market by becoming partners with certain euro nations which i can't remember which ones...the iraqi who wanted saddam out saw this and decided they would use this to get the us to oust saddam...they hated the us but saw this as a great strategic motion to meet their goals...it said something about the only reason the us took bhagdad is cuz the iraqis let them...but they don't want to do business with them they just wanted to use them to get rid of saddam...and now they want the us to leave

what you posted reminded me of this and their may be a link between the two...have you heard anything about this?. I can't remember the full details but could check the article when i get home.

[diego]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Actually, yeah, I can. They are on the same pay scale as people who crunch numbers at the IRS, security guards at our federal institutions and the national park police. They have an unusual job, but most of them are anywhere between the GS-9 to GS-15 level. That's squarely middle class, although you might make the case that a GS-14 and a GS-15 are approaching upper middle class.



First, if they find a bar in Iraq, they deserve a medal, not a court-martial.

Secondly, if you are, in fact, suggesting that the Chain of Command should be charged, in such an incident I'm not going to call you idealistic. I'm simply going to say that as smart as you may personally be, you need to seriously rethink this because it's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. The chain of command is not criminally liable for the individual actions of its subordinates, provided they did not order the action or engage in what amounts to "willful blindness." A tight ship means you run it with full respect for the law, not absurdity.

Shall we begin charging parents for the decision of their 17 year old child to murder a classmate? Heck, it's in the best interest of society, right? Now that's a tight ship! Maybe we should do that.



Completely unrelated to the matter at hand. The military is a policy tool. The civilian policy makers, not the people in uniform, control when they are employed. The justification for the war in Iraq has zero relationship to the "tightness" of the military "ship."



well in my eyes their is a high relationship between the justification and the fact that the ship is sinking...everyone besides the peeps who got oil from saddam said bush hold up let's rethink this you are an idiot we need a bigger team then the gilligan island fairyboat yall running...the proof is in the pudding it's too bad bush was selling peeps candied shiat and calling it jello snacks

gotta run

[FuXnDajenariht]

Originally posted by Merryprankster


Proof? BTW, the plural of anecdote isn't proof.



and just so you dont think im avoiding the question MerryPrankster.....

i wonder who would have more to gain from denying that it wasn't an isolated incident. independent reporters or the military and the presidents administration?

from: http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/050804-abuse_and_torture_i.php:

"It seems that with each day the scope of the abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib prison expands. This leads to the perception that there is "new" information, and that investigators are "on the job." The reality is that there is a very judicious release of selected information from Taguba's investigation. The news reports would lead one to believe that only Abu Ghraib was investigated, and that is the only site of abuse and torture. The reality is that Taguba did not confine his investigation to Abu Ghraib Prison, and that there was abuse, torture and deaths of detainees in custody across Iraq's US prison and detention facilities. I would strongly urge everyone to read MG Taguba's report - Article 15-6 Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade.

There is spinning and twisting going on the create a certain picture and legitimate that picture. There is the attempt to label Abu Ghraib as an isolated incident, where abuse, torture, and murder of detainees was perhaps a justifiable event. There is every effort to keep the blame as low in the chain of command as possible - certainly not above the MP command directly present in Tier 1A of Abu Ghraib.

Meanwhile an interesting twist is happening in the news. The killing and mutilation of four US contractors in Falluja is starting to consistently be mentioned within discussions of the events of Abu Ghraib. The death and mutilation of these contractors is also cited as the justification for the retaliation of US forces in the "Siege of Falluja." What is bizarre, is that increasingly (since the release of the photos) I am hearing these contractors referred to as "serviceman." In other words, they are shifting from being private contractors to US troops. Second, the riot in Falluja came well after the events at Abu Ghraib. It seems difficult to not assume that there is a process of obfuscation and legitimation occurring - not just from the military and administration, but with the unquestioning collusion of the US corporate press. Not once have I heard a interviewer or host challenge either the calling of contractors "servicemen", nor what that has to do with the abuse and torture of detainees. In fact, increasingly it is the interviewers who are making these statements and arguments.

There are many unanswered questions, and increasing amounts of evidence, that the use of abuse and torture is common and approved - not isolated and depraved. Let's start with the chain of command.

Chain of Command

There are attempts from the military and the media to paint the incidences at Abu Ghraib as confined to a few soldiers who acted "badly" under poor conditions, under-staffing, and lack of command oversight and training. While the conditions are likely accurate, that distracts from the larger picture, and does not place those actions within the framework of the broader conditions - the direct effect of decisions and policies from (at least) Rumsfeld down. We are told that these handful are likely to be punished under military law and that justice will prevail. In a similar high profile incident from Vietnam - My Lai - was laid at the feet of Lieutenant William Calley. That is where the responsibility stopped. Calley was sentenced to serve 20 years in prison. He eventually served three and half years and then was parolled and pardoned in 1975 by NIxon (The My Lai Courts-Martial - 1970). Likewise, every effort seems to stop the investigation of abuse and torture with 6 - 13 soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison. As with My Lai, this is much bigger than that. Likewise, if court martialed, they may see themselves parolled in a relatively short time. Those in command up to the level of Karpiski will likely recieve a reprimand, and those above her will not even be mentioned. Regardless, none of these addresses the broader issue of authority and creation of climate for such atrocities to occur.

With Rumsfeld running from committee hearing to committee hearing, one is hearing the question of what is the chain of command in relationship to the events at Abu Ghraib. While that would seem to be a straightforward question, it has yet to receive an answer. At least part of that information is very easy to get to. According to the Taguba report, BG Karpinski was in charge of the 800th MP Brigade. The orders for at least one "Assessment" and two investigations were ordered by Lt, General Sanchez (commander of Joint Task Force 7), and that request went to the Commander of US Central Command. That would be General John Abizaid. According to About CENTCOM - United States Central Command, General John Abizaid is the Commander, US Central Command "USCENTCOM's Commander, Gen. John Abizaid, reports directly to the Secretary of Defense, who in turn, reports to the President of the United States." So in terms of top chain of command we have the following line:

Karpinski ---> Sanchez ----> Abizaid -----> Rumsfeld -----> President Bush
While Rumsfeld claims to not have read Taguba's report, he had heard about the problems. President Bush claims to have never gotten any information at all until he saw it on TV.
Meanwhile, General Myers is the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and serves as a direct military adviser to Rumsfeld, Bush, and the National Security Council (U.S. Military Chain of Command). General Myers specifically requested that CBS delay releasing its report and pictures on 60 Minutes II. One assumes that he advised Rumsfeld of this. Unless this is just a common thing that happens (a claim denied by both Myers and Rumsfeld in their responses to both House and Senate Committees) it seems that this would also have been reported (and discussed) in the National Security Council. The National Security Council consists of the following members:

President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, CIA, Secretary of the Treasury, U.S. representative to the United Nations, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the President's Chief of Staff. Further, the Attorney General and the Director of the Office of National Drug Control policy attend meetings pertaining to their jurisdiction. If appropriate, other officials are invited.

The question of the Military Intelligence chain of command is more difficult to get a handle on, as is the command structure for the CIA in this situation.

All of this is pertinent because one MP from the accused group reported "members of her military police unit took direction from Army military intelligence officers, from CIA operatives and from civilian contractors who conducted interrogations." (5/08/04 Spinner, Wa. Post). This is supported by Taguba's report.

These contractors were under a contract issued by the Department of Defense (Private Contractors and Torture at Abu Ghraib, Iraq).

Abu Ghraib and Where else?
All the information and reports currently coming to public attention point to a broad and systemic use (and approval) of abuse and torture of those held in US custody. According to Taguba, his investigation focused on the 800th, and in Iraq they were responsible for Camp Bucca, Camp Ashraf, Abu Ghraib, and the High Value Detainee (HVD) Complex/Camp Cropper. There were concerns about all of the facilities, and Taguba notes that "In May 2003 four soldiers from the brigade had been formally charged with detainee abuse at Camp Bucca." The Red Cross Saw 'Widespread Abuse' in Iraq - WSJ ( this report has not yet been made public). The former Iraqi Coalition Provisonal AuthorityHuman Rights Secretary raised wide concerns with Bremmer in November of 2003, but there was no response (Bremer 'knew of abuse in November'). Returning soldiers claim that "it is a common thing to abuse prisoners," and that troops were forewarned of investigations so they could hide or destroy and contraband (5/07/04 Tanner, Reuters, Soldiers Back in U.S. Tell of More Iraqi Abuses).

So as Rumsfeld claims that there is "more to come," reports from Taguba, to the Red Cross, to the Iraqi head of Human Rights, to soldier reports,the above reports seem to indicate a widespread pattern that might border on common practice.

These reports raise questions about detainees being held at Guantanamo as MG Miller (Commander, Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) did a formal assessment ("Assessment of DoD Counter-Terrorism Interrogation and Detention Operations in Iraq") which covered the period from 8/31 to 9/9/03. Taguba's report notes that Miller specifically recommended putting the MPs under Military Intelligence command and having their active participation in preparing detainees for interrogation. He also condemns this practice as " not doctrinally sound due to the different missions and agendas assigned to each of these respective specialties."

MG Miller, who came from assignment in Guantanamo, stated in his Assessment; the guard force be placed under the Intelligence command, and that ?it is essential that the guard force be actively engaged in setting the conditions for successful exploitation of the internees.? (Taguba). As noted above, Taguba clearly feels that this is not "doctrinally sound," as it makes MPs responsible for conflicting duties in relationships to those under their control. One can assume, that a similar practice is used at Guantanamo."

[FuXnDajenariht]

cont'd....

"A BIG Red Flag

Taguba reports "ghost detainees." These are detainees that are not registered into the system. These "ghost detainees" were moved around to hide them from investigators.

When I read this phrase, the hairs on the back of my neck went up. The possibility for abuse is huge, and the fact they were hidden from investigators makes that abuse a significant likelihood.

While the military, did not release lists (as they promised they would) of who was held in detention at various facilities, there is at least internal documentation of them. The "ghost detainees" have no such documentation. These are individuals held and interrogated "off the books." While from the public's perspective (Iraqi, US, and global) most of those held were "disappeared," the "ghost detainees" were truly disappeared. I am sure that there are secret records of these people. In my opinion, finding out who they are and what happened to them is one of the most important areas that any investigation should explore. It is among these individuals that the most significant damages are likely to have occurred. Also, since these detainees were part of the activities of the MPs, they link closely to the heart of the problem.

Accountability
There are significant questions about accountability for the systematic abuse and torture of people held by US forces and agencies. The administration took a clear stand that the "detainees" from Afghanistan being held at Guantanamo and elsewhere are not subject to the Geneva Convention. It seems not coincidental that the people held in Iraq (and other US facilities in the region) are called "detainees." The terminology is carefully crafted to fit legal requirements. The US also withdrew itself from its agreement to abide by the International War Crimes Tribunal, and has actively pressured for exemptions from human rights violations covered under international (and US) law.

The use of private contractors who are not subject to military, civilian, or US law raises the question of whether they were specifically chosen for this reason.

All of the claims of horror and justice aside, the US has placed those in its control beyond the pale of most prosecution. The claims of soldiers not being instructed in the Geneva Convention are a smoke screen when the administration and the Secretary of Defense have made their postures clear in this regard - the rules do not apply.

Conclusion
Taguba found:

"That between October and December 2003, at the Abu Ghraib Confinement Facility (BCCF), numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees. This systemic and illegal abuse of detainees was intentionally perpetrated by several members of the military police guard force (372nd Military Police Company, 320thMilitary Police Battalion, 800th MP Brigade), in Tier (section) 1-A of the Abu Ghraib Prison (BCCF)."
Are we to presume that the interrogations themselves were any less brutal than the "softening up?"

Given the conditions established, the chain of command, the actions of the US in relationship to seeking protection and exemption from prosecution, it seems much more likely that abuse and torture is a standard procedure not limited to a "few bad eggs."

This is reinforced by the chain of command and their responses to the various reports and investigations - they were let slide. While every indication is of widespread problems, little if anything was done to change the situation - at Abu Ghraib or any place else. Further, if testimony is to be believed, did it occur to either General Myers or Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, to advise either the COngressional Committees with oversight, nor the President, the NSC, or anyone else. One has to assume that they didn't think these issues were a "problem." Even when they knew that 60 Minutes II was going to release the images and report on Abu Ghraib, they did not mention this problem to those with oversight or to the President. This indicates to me, that they didn't classify abuse and torture as a "big deal." If they don't, what message does that send to those below them?

It appears that the US public is being "softened up" to see abuse and torture as a natural consequence of conditions in US combat theaters, and that it is legitimate retaliation for the control of "hostile" populations (anyone the US claims as an "enemy").

How wide does the US use of abuse and torture go? From all the evidence I see at this point, it is endemic. "More to come" is an understatement.

[FuXnDajenariht]

Published on Friday, May 7, 2004 by Reuters
~Red Cross Saw 'Widespread Abuse' in Iraq~ - WSJ


GENEVA - The Red Cross discovered "serious violations" of the rights of Iraqi prisoners, with abuse so widespread it may be considered to have been tolerated by the U.S.-led coalition, the Wall Street Journal said on Friday.

In a confidential 24-page document, which was seen by the financial newspaper, the International Committee of the Red Cross said treatment in some cases was "tantamount to torture," particularly when interrogators were seeking information or confessions.

An official at the Geneva-based ICRC said the document, covering the period March-November 2003, was genuine, adding that the leak was a "major breakdown in confidentiality."

In a rare break with its normal practice, the ICRC said that it would release the full text at a 1400 GMT news conference.

The use of ill-treatment "went beyond exceptional cases and might be considered a practice tolerated" by coalition forces, the newspaper quoted the ICRC as saying.

That differs sharply from the view of senior officials in the administration of President Bush that military higher-ups had not condoned abuse, the newspaper said.

In the report, the ICRC said prisoners at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison were held in empty cells naked and beaten by soldiers. Three former military policemen at the prison told Reuters on Thursday that abuse was commonplace.

The aid group also said coalition forces fired on unarmed prisoners from watchtowers and killed some of them, as well as committing "serious violations" of the Geneva Conventions governing treatment of war prisoners, the Journal said.

The newspaper report comes a day after the Red Cross said on Thursday it had repeatedly urged the United States to take "corrective action" at a Baghdad jail at the center of a scandal over abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

The Geneva-based humanitarian agency, mandated under international treaties to visit detainees, has had regular access to Abu Ghraib prison since U.S.-led forces began using it last year, a Red Cross spokeswoman said.

Pictures of grinning U.S. soldiers abusing naked Iraqis at Abu Ghraib -- the largest prison in the country and notorious for torture under Iraqi President Saddam Hussein -- have sparked an international outcry.

Copyright © 2004 Reuters Limited.

[diego]

More Iraqi Prisoner Abuse Evidence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By SETH HETTENA, Associated Press Writer

CORONADO, Calif. - The U.S. military has launched a criminal investigation into photographs that appear to show Navy SEALs in Iraq (news - web sites) sitting on hooded and handcuffed detainees, and photos of what appear to be bloodied prisoners, one with a gun to his head.

Some of the photos have date stamps suggesting they were taken in May 2003, which could make them the earliest evidence of possible abuse of prisoners in Iraq. The far more brutal practices photographed in Abu Ghraib prison occurred months later.

An Associated Press reporter found more than 40 of the pictures among hundreds in an album posted on a commercial photo-sharing Web site by a woman who said her husband brought them from Iraq after his tour of duty. It is unclear who took the pictures, which the Navy said it was investigating after the AP furnished copies to get comment for this story.

These and other photos found by the AP appear to show the immediate aftermath of raids on civilian homes. One man is lying on his back with a boot on his chest. A mug shot shows a man with an automatic weapon pointed at his head and a gloved thumb jabbed into his throat. In many photos, faces have been blacked out. What appears to be blood drips from the heads of some. A family huddles in a room in one photo and others show debris and upturned furniture.

"These photographs raise a number of important questions regarding the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs) and detainees," Navy Cmdr. Jeff Bender, a spokesman for the Naval Special Warfare Command in Coronado, said in a written response to questions. "I can assure you that the matter will be thoroughly investigated."

The photos were turned over to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which instructed the SEAL command to determine whether they show any serious crimes, Bender said Friday. That investigation will determine the identities of the troops and what they were doing in the photos.

Some of the photos recall aspects of the images from Abu Ghraib, which led to charges against seven soldiers accused of humiliating and assaulting prisoners. In several of the photos obtained by the AP, grinning men wearing U.S. flags on their uniforms, and one with a tattoo of a SEAL trident, take turns sitting or lying atop what appear to be three hooded and handcuffed men in the bed of a pickup truck.

A reporter found the photos, which since have since been removed from public view, while researching the prosecution of a group of SEALs who allegedly beat prisoners and photographed one of them in degrading positions. Those photos, taken with a SEAL's personal camera, haven't been publicly released.

Though they have alarmed SEAL commanders, the photographs found by the AP do not necessarily show anything illegal, according to experts in the laws of war who reviewed photos at AP's request.

Gary Solis, a former Marine Corps prosecutor and judge who teaches at the United States Military Academy, said the images showed "stupid" and "juvenile" behavior — but not necessarily a crime.

John Hutson, a retired rear admiral who served as the Navy's Judge Advocate General from 1997 to 2000, said they suggested possible Geneva Convention violations. Those international laws prohibit souvenir photos of prisoners of war.

"It's pretty obvious that these pictures were taken largely as war trophies," Hutson said. "Once you start allowing that kind of behavior, the next step is to start posing the POWs in order to get even better pictures."

At a minimum, the pictures violate Navy regulations that prohibit photographing prisoners other than for intelligence or administrative purposes, according to Bender, the SEALs spokesman.

All Naval Special Warfare personnel were told that prior to deployment, he said, but "it is obvious from some of the photographs that this policy was not adhered to."

The images were posted to the Internet site Smugmug.com. The woman who posted them told the AP they were on the camera her husband brought back from Iraq. She said her husband has returned to Iraq. He does not appear in photos with prisoners.

The Navy goes to great lengths to protect the identities and whereabouts of its 2,400 SEALs — which stands for Navy Sea, Air, Land — many of whom have classified counterterrorist missions around the globe.

"Some of these photos clearly depict faces and names of Naval Special Warfare personnel, which could put them or their families at risk," Bender said.

Out of safety concerns, the AP is not identifying the woman who posted the photos.

The wife said she was upset that a reporter was able to view the album, which includes family snapshots. Hundreds of other photos depict everyday military life in Iraq, some showing commandos standing around piles of weapons and waving wads of cash.

The images were found through the online search engine Google. The same search today leads to the Smugmug.com Web page, which now prompts the user for a password. Nine scenes from the SEAL camp remain in Google's archived version of the page.

"I think it's fair to assume that it would be very hard for most consumers to know all the ways the search engines can discover Web pages," said Smugmug spokesman Chris MacAskill.

Before the site was password protected, the AP purchased reprints for 29 cents each.

Some men in the photos wear patches that identify them as members of Seal Team Five, based in Coronado, and the unit's V-shaped insignia decorates a July Fourth celebration cake.

The photos surfaced amid a case of prisoner abuse involving members of another SEAL team also stationed at Coronado, a city near San Diego.

Navy prosecutors have charged several members of SEAL Team Seven with abusing a suspect in the bombing a Red Cross facility. According to charge sheets and testimony during a military hearing last month, SEALs posed in the back of a Humvee for photos that allegedly humiliated Manadel al-Jamadi, who died hours later at Abu Ghraib.

Testimony from that case suggest personal cameras became increasingly common on some SEAL missions last year.

[red5angel]

who cares about Iraqi prisoner abuse? Doe s it realy matter that these people who have no problem with shooting in the head the fore runner of a group of people who are trying to help those who are in need? Fukk em.

[FuXnDajenariht]

i see where you stand....but maybe you need to reverse your cause and effect.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by FatherDog
what /has/ the response been? Last I heard, one of the soldiers involved was getting a year's suspended sentence...

A number of the people involved pled guilty, and the highest-ranking of those is currently serving an eight year jail sentence (1 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/21/iraq.abuse/index.html)). One of the people involved is apparently contesting the charges, so sentencing is up in the air, but there is the potential for decades of jail time if she is found guilty (2 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/02/england.ruling/index.html)).

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
I really enjoy how when things are brought to point, pre-emptive striking is decried as wrong, the war in Iraq is a quagmire and a mistake etc etc and then someone will bring up some thing completely unrelated to get away from having to answer those question.

Kind of like when things are brought to a point, where UN corruption is decried as wrong, then someone will bring up some completely unrelated point about how Bush is evil to get away from having to deal with that information.

Not to mention that this tactic is a good tool for blind assertion: when someone claims "you have brought up X to distract from the fact that Bush is evil", the reader's emphasis is caught on whether or not X was brought up as a distraction, and that unsupported assertion that "Bush is evil" doesn't just slip under the radar, it's implicitly accepted as true because its truth is required to assess whether X was a distraction. For those interested in being wary of propaganda, that's a fine illustration of a classic and ubiquitous technique used in the field.

[Merryprankster]

Nice, but missing the point entirely. Also suspect given the content of that site. It's fair and balanced the way FOX news is.

My logic is simple.

War sucks. Bad things have always happened and continue to happen, despite any system put in place to curb or prevent it.

The question is one of systemic problem. Put simply, is it one?

My answer remains no.

Abu Ghraib was awful, without a doubt. The SEALS in question shouldn't have taken war trophy photos. Two whole incidents with specific evidence you can point to. Wow. Now THAT'S evidence of "widespread abuse," diego.

But you will notice that in each case we find out about this stuff, the justice system kicks in - evidence of systemic health.

On to the Red Cross story. For me, the Red Cross has a credibility problem in this arena because they ALWAYS say there is widespread abuse every time anybody takes military action anywhere. While they are an amazing and valuable international organization, they have an agenda, just like the Bush administration has an agenda, just like Al Jazeera has an agenda, just like any organization has an agenda. The Red Cross is exceptionally concerned with human rights, which is a good thing, and keeps us honest.

But consider this - They call cuffing a man in the field, and making him lay face down, while I put my foot on his neck, abuse. I call that safety for both him and me.

I never accept any report wholesale. I do not think that our military has an express or implicit policy of abuse and torture, but I am not so naive to think that it does not happen, from time to time. In a place where literally thousands of interactions with varying levels of violence are taking place day to day, it is not unsurprising to me that there might be, over say, the course of a year, one hundred to two hundred discrete incidents of human rights abuse.

Further, given that human behavior tends to follow patterns, I bet lots of those abuses are carried out by the same few people or units. So if that's your definition of widespread, then sure, there's widespread abuse. It happens daily and across Iraq, without a doubt. But taken in context with the number of interactions that actually occur, it would be a small percentage - that we should ALWAYS be trying to reduce.

However, I prefer to look at widespread in the sense of the system itself - the military - because that tells you much more. Of COURSE it's going to be widespread across Iraq because there are people everywhere and the abusers are not going to be concentrated in the same unit. But I see no evidence that indicates it permeates the military. To claim that the whole of the military has an Abu Ghraib-like, systemic problem is IMO unsupportable.

[David Jamieson]

Way to minimize that aggressive occupation meery.:rolleyes:

holy jeez, is their nothing you couldn't justify?

you compare the red cross with the bush admin on a matter of agenda?

dude, I don't know if you're already on drugs or if you need to be on them, but that post is more amazing than you think the red cross is.

yeesh.

[FuXnDajenariht]

lol so basically i give u evidence from a report done by 'General' Taguba of the United States army and he has as much credibility as Bill O' Reilly. perish the thought that hes just trying to do the right thing. maybe he wants out of the military? if you compare the red cross, amnesty international and the associated press, not to mention many top level officials from the the military to Fox News as having an agenda, then exactly who will you will believe? and no the so called justice system hasn't kicked in or there wouldn't still be calls to the government for investigation from human rights groups.

first it wasn't abuse, then it was an isolated incident, now theres a possibility that it might not have been isolated, but thats ok cuz war is sucky. ;)

and u can say this of the greedy pigs in the UN. atleast they didn't invade a country to line their pockets....

seriously tho, the fact is, as President Bush so readily agrees with. the UN is not responsible for our country and what we do or dont do, he is. simple.

[Merryprankster]

first it wasn't abuse, then it was an isolated incident, now theres a possibility that it might not have been isolated, but thats ok cuz war is sucky.

If this is supposed to be a representation of my position, it's completely wrong. I have never said 'there was no abuse.' I suggested that the incidents themselves were isolated, that is, it is not a pervasive problem, a systemic problem in the military itself. My comment that in war bad things happen was a simple statement borne out by history, meant to demonstrate that you cannot expect war without abuses. The question then is not about whether or not abuse will occur, but rather, is it express or implicit policy or not, and what is the response to incidents of abuse.

I've read the Taguba report. The whole thing, at least, as it has appeared since the original report was classified. Have you? Taking comments out of context doesn't really address the issue. Teguba came to the conclusion, as I did, that abuse occurred at Abu Ghraib. He does NOT reach the conclusion that there is a systemic problem that is pervasive throughout the military. That is pure invention.

For instance, you forgot about this part:


(U) There is a wide variance in standards and approaches at the various detention facilities. Several Division/Brigade collection points and US monitored Iraqi prisons had flawed or insufficiently detailed use of force and other standing operating procedures or policies (e.g. weapons in the facility, improper restraint techniques, detainee management, etc.) Though, there were no military police units purposely applying inappropriate confinement practices.

MY comment about report validity was directed at the fact that the website you pulled stuff from reads like a paean to the far left. As such, the material must be viewed with a critical eye, in much the same way that one must view Fox News or information from the Project for a New American Century with a critical eye. Or did you not notice the obvious bias of uncommonthought.com?

With respect to the Red Cross, my point remains clear. They are good people on a good mission, but they ALWAYS say there is widespread abuse, no matter what, who, when or where. They also have a definition of abuse that is quite strict and includes things that would place most law enforcement officers on their **** list - things that are not abusive and are done for the safety of the the detained and the LE officer.

Clearly, we are not going to come to agreement about this. You think the evidence suggests widespread, systemic abuse. I do not. But don't misrepresent my position.

As far as Kung Lek, he's once again demonstrating that the special education classes shouldn't have access to the internet. I'm not justifying anything. Justifying these behaviors would entail excusing them based on the circumstances - which I am not doing. Only the stupidest reader, or the most willfully obtuse, could possibly reach that conclusion. Which one KL falls under, I've never been certain.

[FuXnDajenariht]

Originally posted by Merryprankster

They are guilty of bad judgment and command failings, but they are not guilty of abuse.



i can copy and paste too. i know i know...its out of "context".

but since we're picking and chosing what we want to read.....

"That between October and December 2003, at the Abu Ghraib Confinement Facility (BCCF), numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees. This systemic and illegal abuse of detainees was intentionally perpetrated by several members of the military police guard force (372nd Military Police Company, 320thMilitary Police Battalion, 800th MP Brigade), in Tier (section) 1-A of the Abu Ghraib Prison (BCCF)."
Are we to presume that the interrogations themselves were any less brutal than the "softening up?"

Given the conditions established, the chain of command, the actions of the US in relationship to seeking protection and exemption from prosecution, it seems much more likely that abuse and torture is a standard procedure not limited to a "few bad eggs."

you forgot this part too. which is basically the entire point of the report.

...and dont forget this right below it....

"This is reinforced by the chain of command and their responses to the various reports and investigations - they were let slide. While every indication is of widespread problems, little if anything was done to change the situation - at Abu Ghraib or any place else."

oh yea....this too...

All the information and reports currently coming to public attention point to a broad and systemic use (and approval) of abuse and torture of those held in US custody. According to Taguba, his investigation focused on the 800th, and in Iraq they were responsible for Camp Bucca, Camp Ashraf, Abu Ghraib, and the High Value Detainee (HVD) Complex/Camp Cropper. There were concerns about all of the facilities, and Taguba notes that "In May 2003 four soldiers from the brigade had been formally charged with detainee abuse at Camp Bucca." The Red Cross Saw 'Widespread Abuse' in Iraq - WSJ ( this report has not yet been made public). The former Iraqi Coalition Provisonal AuthorityHuman Rights Secretary raised wide concerns with Bremmer in November of 2003, but there was no response (Bremer 'knew of abuse in November'). Returning soldiers claim that "it is a common thing to abuse prisoners," and that troops were forewarned of investigations so they could hide or destroy and contraband (5/07/04 Tanner, Reuters, Soldiers Back in U.S. Tell of More Iraqi Abuses).

bolding is fun :)

i dont see how you can use one part of the article to discredit the rest of it....

[MoreMisfortune]

dude, the govment pays the dude to come here and say "evertything its allright, is under control" :cool:
its that military inteligence stuff, the part that works directly with us (the civilians)

or im playing
but murphys law says if it can go wrong, it probably will, so it might have, then id be right

[Shooter]

xebudude, you're always right!

:D

[MoreMisfortune]

:D

[David Jamieson]

I'm not justifying anything.
you sir, are full of shyte.


:rolleyes:

whatever merry, ya neo-con ditto head.

You are the one with an agenda it seems there short bus.

Talking trash about the faults of organizations and then having the audacity to comparing them to w's abuse of power and misue of the US army to attack Iraq for what is apparentlly not much of a reason beyond greed and hindsight when it comes down to it.

You are indeed with your posts attempting to justify what many see as a crime. The war on Iraq in this new version of Bushes gulf war is in may peoples eyes a crime and you can wax rational for it all day by pointing fingers at what are ralatively minor problems in large organizations.

I have no idea why. Maybe just because you are a hateful and bitter redneck idiot.

But you must be simple to not understand taht every organization that ever there was and ever there shall be will have its members who are corrupt, unlike W's Game which is rife with ignorance and corruption, hate and fear.

whatever merry, enjoy your version of america and your little comfort zone of idiocy.

[FuXnDajenariht]

Originally posted by MoreMisfortune
dude, the govment pays the dude to come here and say "evertything its allright, is under control" :cool:
its that military inteligence stuff, the part that works directly with us (the civilians)

or im playing
but murphys law says if it can go wrong, it probably will, so it might have, then id be right

lol good point. i was thinking the same thing. the taguba report as filtered through karl rove and the white house...

shooter dude!...long time no speak :)

[ZIM]

General question:
If the US had Tony Blair for President- even knowing that the Iraq war would've still occured- would you be happier about it?

Just curious.

[diego]

US admits the war for ‘hearts and minds’ in Iraq is now lost




Pentagon report reveals catalogue of failure
By Neil Mackay, Investigations Editor



THE Pentagon has admitted that the war on terror and the invasion and occupation of Iraq have increased support for al-Qaeda, made ordinary Muslims hate the US and caused a global backlash against America because of the “self-serving hypocrisy” of George W Bush’s administration over the Middle East.
The mea culpa is contained in a shockingly frank “strategic communications” report, written this autumn by the Defence Science Board for Pentagon supremo Donald Rumsfeld.

On “the war of ideas or the struggle for hearts and minds”, the report says, “American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended”.

“American direct intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature of, and support for, radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single digits in some Arab societies.”

Referring to the repeated mantra from the White House that those who oppose the US in the Middle East “hate our freedoms”, the report says: “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedoms’, but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing support, for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.

“Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypo crisy. Moreover, saying that ‘freedom is the future of the Middle East’ is seen as patronising … in the eyes of Muslims, the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. US actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination.”

The way America has handled itself since September 11 has played straight into the hands of al-Qaeda, the report adds. “American actions have elevated the authority of the jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims.” The result is that al-Qaeda has gone from being a marginal movement to having support across the entire Muslim world.

“Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic,” the report goes on, adding that to the Arab world the war is “no more than an extension of American domestic politics”. The US has zero credibility among Muslims which means that “whatever Americans do and say only serves … the enemy”.

The report says that the US is now engaged in a “global and generational struggle of ideas” which it is rapidly losing. In order to reverse the trend, the US must make “strategic communication” – which includes the dissemination of propaganda and the running of military psychological operations – an integral part of national security. The document says that “Presidential leadership” is needed in this “ideas war” and warns against “arrogance, opportunism and double standards”.

“We face a war on terrorism,” the report says, “intensified conflict with Islam, and insurgency in Iraq. Worldwide anger and discontent are directed at America’s tarnished credibility and ways the US pursues its goals. There is a consensus that America’s power to persuade is in a state of crisis.” More than 90% of the populations of some Muslims countries, such as Saudi Arabia, are opposed to US policies.

“The war has increased mistrust of America in Europe,” the report adds, “weakened support for the war on terrorism and undermined US credibility worldwide.” This, in turn, poses an increased threat to US national security.

America’s “image problem”, the report authors suggest, is “linked to perceptions of the US as arrogant, hypocritical and self-indulgent”. The White House “has paid little attention” to the problems.

The report calls for a huge boost in spending on propaganda efforts as war policies “will not succeed unless they are communicated to global domestic audiences in ways that are credible”.

American rhetoric which equates the war on terror as a cold-war-style battle against “totalitarian evil” is also slapped down by the report. Muslims see what is happening as a “history-shaking movement of Islamic restoration … a renewal of the Muslim world …(which) has taken form through many variant movements, both moderate and militant, with many millions of adherents – of which radical fighters are only a small part”.

Rather than supporting tyranny, most Muslim want to overthrow tyrannical regimes like Saudi Arabia. “The US finds itself in the strategically awkward – and potentially dangerous – situation of being the long-standing prop and alliance partner of these authoritarian regimes. Without the US, these regimes could not survive,” the report says.

“Thus the US has strongly taken sides in a desperate struggle … US policies and actions are increasingly seen by the overwhelming majority of Muslims as a threat to the survival of Islam itself … Americans have inserted themselves into this intra-Islamic struggle in ways that have made us an enemy to most Muslims.

“There is no yearning-to- be-liberated-by-the-US groundswell among Muslim societies … The perception of intimate US support of tyr-annies in the Muslim world is perhaps the critical vulnerability in American strategy. It strongly undercuts our message, while strongly promoting that of the enemy.”

The report says that, in terms of the “information war”, “at this moment it is the enemy that has the advantage”. The US propaganda drive has to focus on “separating the vast majority of non-violent Muslims from the radical- militant Islamist-Jihadist”.

According to the report, “the official take on the target audience [the Muslim world] has been gloriously simple” and divided the Middle East into “good” and “bad Muslims”.

“Americans are convinced that the US is a benevolent ‘superpower’ that elevates values emphasising freedom … deep down we assume that everyone should naturally support our policies. Yet the world of Islam – by overwhelming majorities at this time – sees things differently. Muslims see American policies as inimical to their values, American rhetoric about freedom and democracy as hypocritical and American actions as deeply threatening.

“In two years the jihadi message – that strongly attacks American values – is being accepted by more moderate and non-violent Muslims. This in turn implies that negative opinion of the US has not yet bottomed out

Equally important, the report says, is “to renew European attitudes towards America” which have also been severely damaged since September 11, 2001. As “al-Qaeda constantly outflanks the US in the war of information”, American has to adopt more sophisticated propaganda techniques, such as targeting secularists in the Muslim world – including writers, artists and singers – and getting US private sector media and marketing professionals involved in disseminating messages to Muslims with a pro-US “brand”.

The Pentagon report also calls for the establishment of a national security adviser for strategic communications, and a massive boost in funding for the “information war” to boost US government TV and radio stations broadcasting in the Middle East.

The importance of the need to quickly establish a propaganda advantage is underscored by a document attached to the Pentagon report from Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, dated May.

It says: “Our military expeditions to Afghanistan and Iraq are unlikely to be the last such excursion in the global war on terrorism.”

05 December 2004
http://www.sundayherald.com/46389

[ZIM]

US admits the war for ‘hearts and minds’ in Iraq is now lost screw ‘hearts and minds’ . i'll settle for getting them by the balls. ‘hearts and minds’ will then follow.

[FuXnDajenariht]

i think you missed the entiiire point of the article...

:o

you know that saying about the government reflecting the attitude of its people...

[ZIM]

i think you missed the entiiire point of the article... Maybe if I read it....;)

[FuXnDajenariht]

lmao... i see

well if there was ever a good excuse :p