PeterDavid.net

Nuke 'em 'til they glow sounds good in the abstract, but why replace one atrocity with another? I've thought from the beginning that we had no exit strategy in this enterprise, and it pains me every day we are still there that I am right.

The best thing we can do is put on our best game face, put the soldiers on trial, and recognize that hostilities don't end with a declaration on an aircraft carrier. But since we all live in the real world, just getting the hell outta there would be nice.

For all the hand-wringing we've done since, I defy anyone to argue that dropping those bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't exactly what needed to be done at that point in time to save lives and end the war. If we hadn't done it, combat would have lasted at least another two years and 1946-Japan would have looked a whole heckuva lot like 2004-Iraq, at least as far as American soliders were concerned. Whether that means we should nuke Iraq from the sky right now...I dunno. The world's a vastly more complicated place than it was 60 years ago. But I do know that your comments PAD, perhaps meant to be faciteous, should not be summarily dismissed without some careful consideration. Anyone know where Jack Bauer stands on the issue?

*************************

"Nobody holds a grudge like the Japs." --Kill Bill Vol. 2

It's pretty much turned into " An eye for an eye until we are all blind " type of situation. It's sad really.

Personally, not sure that Iraq could be like Japan, the mindset of the Muslim extremists just seems to rule that possibility out. (I'm NOT saying all Muslims, only the extremists, radicals that DON'T represent the majority of the folks that practice the Muslim faith.)

I do notice that the terrorists that carried out the beheading are hiding their faces. To me that means that either they are afraid of what others that they are close to would think of their actions, or that they are only brave when their identities are hidden from view. Horrible act, and the acts of cowards by killing a civilian and not an armed member of the military. Terrorists, same as the ones that carry out the acts in Gaza and the West Bank.

I'm just so mad right now that I'm not sure I'm making sense, but I have to get it off my chest somewhere.

jeff

Joking, right?

First off, who are the "they"? You seem to think that only Iraqi exiles are with us. The rest are against us. Such thinking makes it more acceptable to contemplate actions as unconscionable as nuking an entire population for the actions of a group of people who are highly unlikely to have the support of even a fraction of the population.

The killing of Mr. Berg was claimed by al-Zarqawi, a lieutenant of bin Laden. I see no reason to kill civilian Iraqis just to show Zarqawi we mean business.

At any rate, why assume that "They" killed Berg because "We" abused prisoners. Putting aside the fact that "we" did no such thing--a few sadist soldiers did, as their ilk have done in every war, it's not like this isn't pretty much the Daniel Pearl video all over again. Were they psychic when they did an OJ on Mr. Pearl? This is what they DO.

Since it was correctly deemed important to show Americans and the world the photos of US soldiers abusing prisoners I'm sure that the Republican Attack Machine friendly media will be in a rush to show us the full horror of the Berg video, right?

I really don't believe your last statement. This was written in a moment of despair or something, right? I have a suspicion that there is no serious talk going on in the administration about going into Iraq with nuclear weapons. Guess it's just that old lack of imagination thing, right?

Since the topic's come up, can anyone justify teh *second* use of the Atomic Bomb, Nagasaki, without including Hiroshima?

Anyone at all?

Brian

Bill,
The terrorists that murdered Berg admitted to doing it in revenge for the abuse. They said they tried to negotiate an exchange for the prisoners in Abu Ghraib and this was the result of the US rejecting the exchange. So, yes, PAD is correct in saying they did this because we abused their people. We as in Americans, who should have known better. And AOL will show a portion of the video is you have broadband. I don't have broadband, but doubt I could bring myself to watch something so horrific anyway. I think we need to cut our losses. The US is no longer effective over there, if we ever were. I cannot advocate using the bomb, but we need to get out sooner rather than later.

Japan's the only example I can think of where an occupied country came out the better for the occupation.

Were MacArthur or Hirohito unusually smart about handling Japan after the war? Did the Japanese character allow them to adapt where other nations would have gone into a tailspin?

And do the answers to any of these questions contain useful nuggets for making Iraq healthy?

Karen,

The US' policy has been not to negotiate w/ terrorists. I don't know how long that policy has been into effect though. That's why the negotiations failed.

Joe

Karen says

"Bill,
The terrorists that murdered Berg admitted to doing it in revenge for the abuse. They said they tried to negotiate an exchange for the prisoners in Abu Ghraib and this was the result of the US rejecting the exchange."

Karen, I know what they say. but since they have already killed Americans the same way for the crime of being nothing more than Americans and Jews...why believe them?

The accusations are that we abused IRAQI prisoners. The murderers of Mr Berg are Al Qaida--not necessarily the same thing at all.

for those who really think that this was indeed revenge...does that mean it would have been a good idea for the military to suppress the information about the abuse? Keep in mind that it wasn't the newspapers that uncovered this scandal.

Right? I don't know about right. Logical, sure, you're being pefectly logical. I mean it IS the conclusion a sensible person reached when they look at this nonsense. On the other hand none of this nonsense is really right, heck, being over there is barely right. So going with that Peter (umm... am I supposed to call you Peter?) I don't think you're right, I just think that you're smart, and really the two don't go together very well. Mind you, I'd like to do it to, do it or get out of there, I'd rather get out of there and just leave people alone, but since that doesn't seem viable I like your idea. I might be belaboring the point but right just doesn't have much to do with American military policy, or really, anyone's military policy. The real world they seem to use is public opinion. So no it's not right, and we shouldn't do it, and we almost certainly won't, but not for that reason. Hope, I didn't make anyone mad, or violate any board rules

What surprises me is the amount of people that are NOW complaining about the administration's Iraq mess. Oh, we're ABUSING prisoners, not just dropping big bombs on their head because of weapons they got rid of years ago? It's perfectly fine to run amok through Iraq despite the world's wishes, but abuse the prisoners a bit? HORRIBLE!

Here's a thought- how many of you, on 9/11, would have flown over to Iraq to grab Osama and personally rip out his heart? A lot of you? OK.

Take it down a bit. When the Hussein boys were killed, how many of you were okay? A fair amount, because they were creeps who hurt and killed a lot of people? OK.

Take it down a bit more. If, by stripping a prisoner and torturing him, you could prevent an attack that might kill 20 US soldiers, would you? Some of you? OK.

At one point, just about every American was willing to torture another human being for the genesis of all the madness, 9/11. But take away the context, and it's a horrible act on another human being. We don't know the what led hopefully rational people to decide to torture Iraqis. Jessica Lynch's rape? A soldier's death? Who knows?

If anything, I wonder how many American are upset not because of the abuse, but because of the photos of the abuse. I mean,we're the USA! How dare we get caught torturing prisoners! This stuff's supposed to be done in secret! We stand for freedom, apple pie, and all that jazz!

The real problem isn't that we abused Iraqi prisoners. The real problem is that we went to war in the first place. Once you decide, as a people, to go to war, you have to accept that crap like this is going to happen. No matter how smart the bombs, no matter how many huminatarian food drops you perform, there is no humane war. None. If it's humane, it's not a war. You cannot have it both ways.

How do we clean this up? How do we restore our rep to the world? We let the world decide. And we accept their judgement. If that means they judge Bush, Rumsfield, ME, to be a war criminal, so be it. We screwed this one up, big time. We have to sincerely apologize to the world, regardless of the price of that apology. Any other decision will only cement our reputation as an arrogant, uncaring people.

I think we need to cut our losses.

There are a lot of stupid things that get posted at this site, but this is by far the stupidest!

What exactly will cutting our losses achieve? Will it make anyone safer in Iraq or America?
Will it bring us good standing with the global community?
Who would benefit from such a decision?

This is just ignorance on a grand scale!

What is so funny is that this is PAD's typical way of steering away from an argument and point that he was losing and even had to cheat by editing his post. His arguments always go this way.

No, no nuking.

I can't BELIEVE how some people are taking this, actually. It's like what I said on my blog...

When you get down to it, it's all an act of revenge. It's a cycle of violence. A group of people irrationally humiliate, maim, and kill someone from ANOTHER group of people.

The SECOND group of people see footage of this and are OUTRAGED. The blood is on their hands, they say. We have to wipe them out, they shout. DEATH TO THEM ALL, they declare.

The first group of people COULD be Americans, they COULD be Islamics. Both groups feel that they have been inhumanely mistreated. Both groups want to retaliate with blood. Both fail to realize that blood is what started this, and blood will merely continue it.

Seriously guys. Kill as many of them as you want - those who remain will be infuriated, they WILL retaliate, and more and more will die. And the more who retaliate will merely infuriate US, and WE will retaliate... and it's just a bloody, viscious circle.

This thing is never going to end until we are all destroyed in the biggest act of hatred and violence yet. And you know what? I'm starting to think we as a species do not deserve to survive.

I don't blame them for their hatred of the United States. I do blame them for continuing the cycle - they are as responsible as we are. We're all wrong in this one. All of us.

Joe,
I knew we do not negotiate and agree with it. You cannot negotiate with terrorists. They will just keep asking for more. I was trying to let Bill know why Pad was correct.

Bill,
This is escalating because we are where we should not be, trying to force our way of life on another culture. Al-Quaida would not have had this excuse if our military were acting under the rules of the Geneva convention.

Ray,
I agree with your post, but nothing will change until we vote more sensible people into our government.

I am so horrified by what is going on over there. I also know it will get much worse before it gets better. Just as in Vietnam, atrocity will follow atrocity until there is no way of redeeming either side. The only solution, if we are to keep our national soul intact, is to admit we were wrong, get out of Iraq, and go look for the true terorists, Al-Quaida.

But some of you will never admit that going to Iraq was a mistake. You will keep finding reasons to justify our being over there. I can't do that. And I don't want any more deaths on either side. The only way for that to happen is if we leave.

No idea, really. Because this pissing/staring contest is a whole new war that both sides seem to think can be won by pretending it's an old one and firing more bullets, bombs and shrapnel.

9/11 DID change the world. America (and the world) was introduced to a tactic that SO upped the scales in its audacity that for several days I seriously sat ther wondering if we were watching the slow-burn start of WW3. I'm still not sure.

Like you, Peter, I don't know what the exit strategy is. If we leave, the area becomes a bloodbath and the inference is that America/the Co-alition can't follow through on its promises. (Remind me what those were, as they keep changing so often?) The dominoes start falling.

We stay and there's the real chance that this continues to be a Vietnam, only this time most of the Arab world gets pissed off and that isn't good for anyone. More dominoes.

Personally, the only thing I can see happening that works in any way is the handing over the reins to the United Nations - which is really what should have been done in the first place.

Sadly, I'm reminded of an old episode of The Next Generation that was briefly banned in the UK. Data was talking about the fact that far from being useless and fated to fail, most terrorist movements have been successful (he mentioned the IRA, thereby inciting the UK broadcasters wrath). He commented that most terrorists finally win by negotiating but that often it's their terrorists actions that makes people sit up and take notice, hence getting them a seat at the table.

Of course, in this war in Iraq, some people don't ever see sitting down at a table with the enemy as being anything short of an unholy option. Which is where we came in, right?

John

"Since the topic's come up, can anyone justify teh *second* use of the Atomic Bomb, Nagasaki, without including Hiroshima?"

I'd think that most of the arguments that could be used to justify dropping the first bomb on Hiroshima can be used to justify the bombing of Nagasaki. Notably, prevention of the loss of American lives, ultimately lessening the loss of Japanese lives (less still died than would have in a invasion). Add to that, it proved to the Japanese that we had more than just one of the things and that we were willing to keep using them. Implicit in the threat of the Bomb is that we'd keep using them if they didn't surrender.

Therefore, I think that if the use of the first Bomb can be justified, then the use of the second can be justified as well. I'm not going to get into an argument over whether the first bomb was justified as I've got mixed feelings about it.

Since the topic's come up, can anyone justify the *second* use of the Atomic Bomb, Nagasaki, without including Hiroshima?

Anyone at all?

Actually yes.

As a psychological weapon, a timely second atomic attack would be especially effective. If the US had just dropped one A-Bomb and that was it or there was an indeterminably long pause till the next bombing, the Japanese reaction probably would have been “Oh, that sucked. But I guess they only had one of those things. Or maybe they can make more, but it’ll take them a really long time. Let’s rally and really give them what-for and maybe we can get some victories to strengthen our position.” The combined bombings would instead produce a probable reaction of “Oh fuck! Another one?!? Maybe they have another! Hell, maybe American factories are churning them out like sausages! There’s no way we can fight against that. Surrender might actually be a good option.”

And interestingly, history suggests that even the Nagasaki might not have done the trick. The ruling military circle of Japan had a strong faction willing to continue the fight despite the two atomic bombings. It wasn’t until Hirohito stepped in and essentially said, “Enough is enough -- Let’s surrender,” that it was officially game over.

Justify Nagasaki. --Brian

One good justification inserted here. --Sasha

And, as callous as it sounds, there's the Russia factor. If we had only dropped the one, Russia might have had the same reaction attributed to Japan.

What I find interesting, Brian, is your request to "justify Nagasaki without including Hiroshima." That's meaningless--a statement like "was dropping the second atomic bomb necessary" by definition includes in the factors to be considered the dropping of the first atomic bomb. How should I consider the one without the other?

Another thought:

People are speculating on the differences between the Japan and Iraq. Well here's a doosy. In Japan, a highly respected leader formally surrendered to the U.S. and gave the whole affair a definitive end in the Japanese mind in addition to setting an example to his people. In Iraq, the dictator that everyone feared for than Death Itself went underground in the hopes of continuing a guerrilla war against the U.S. forces.

p.s. Since it seems that this thread is about to become an argument over the use atomic weapons, I'd like to say that it seems obvious to me that Mr. David was being ironic. Right, Peter? If we want to argue about something, how about we argue about realistic senarios to salvage the situation in Iraq.

Mitch wrote: "Japan's the only example I can think of where an occupied country came out the better for the occupation."

What about West Germany? It was an economic powerhouse until it had to absorb its economically-gutted eastern half from the Soviets following the fall of the Berlin Wall.

And didn't we occupy Italy after World War II?

Depending on your definition of "occupying," we've had a significant presence -- which also translated into economic good news -- in allied countries following World War II as well.

For example, we stayed in South Korea after the Japanese left, following an agreement with the Soviet Union after the end of World War II. Though its boom has faded, South Korea still has a sparkling economy compared to its Evil Twin to the north.

After World War II, we also had a big presence (and still have a smaller one) in the United Kingdom. And France. And Spain. And Turkey. And Iceland. And the Philippines. Well, you get the idea...

And, Peter, to address your concern: I don't think it'll work. Plain and simple, if we nuke Iraq, at best we piss off the rest of the world even further, at worst we start World War III.

(Okay, technically "at best" we scare the rest of the world into following us, create the Pax Americana, rule the world by force of arms under the banner of the American Empire, embody all of the worst traits of our nation, spit on the concepts of honor and freedom we started out by fighting for, and get destroyed when the revolution comes, depending on how you define "at best." I don't define that as a best anything. Actually, I define that as a W. Olaf Stapledon novel, but that's neither here nor there.)

Iraq wouldn't be Japan even if we used atomic weapons. Japan was wildly different. For one thing, we were at war with Japan--which started with us getting attacked, by Japan. For another, we were in a much more prominent position then. We had just pulled ourselves out of the Depression, Europe was in near-ruin, the Middle East was still mostly colonial, Asia was spiraling downward. Our star was ascendant--and no one else could stop us anyway, since no one else had atomic weapons.

If we bomb Iraq, I can't see anybody--well, possibly the British, but even that's pushing it--not getting so incredibly pissed off at us that we really end up on the skids with the rest of the world. We'll galvanize the nations that don't like us, and certainly we'll make Bin Laden and his allies look good. Imagine Europe now. On the one hand, they have someone saying "don't side with them, and I'll declare peace," and on the other, a nation that just attacked a country with the most destructive weapon ever. Again.

Not to mention, North Korea et al--the nations who not only don't like us, they have some nukes of their own--might decide that with nothing to lose (since we're blowing countries up anyway) they might as well take us out too. Remember that "End of the World" flash video? "Hokay...Here's the Earth..."? Yeah, like that.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that it's not a mushroom cloud.

My 2 cents: I think going into Iraq was mistake for one reason because the US Military is not trained in being an "occupying" force and is most successful when they can go in break things, kill people, and then return home to celebrate. However, that being said, I find it quite interesting all these people suddenly concerned about how Iraqis are being treated when under Saddam's rule they suffered much more. The way these killers in Iraq are acting I'm starting to think they deserved Saddam.
In the end I think only one good thing will come from the war In Iraq: Bush has displaced the battlefield of the war on terror from US soil to Iraq soil. All the terroists are focusing their efforts over there, attacking soldiers, so we are, by default, safer over here.

"If anything, I wonder how many American are upset not because of the abuse, but because of the photos of the abuse. I mean, we're the USA! How dare we get caught torturing prisoners! This stuff's supposed to be done in secret! We stand for freedom, apple pie, and all that jazz!'

Well that's all nice and cynical and all but the fact is that WE are the ones who allowed the world to know about the abuse. WE are also the ones who will punish it. Meanwhile a significant chunk of the world will go on merrily doing the same atrocities day in and day out, to little if any condemnation.

"How do we restore our rep to the world? We let the world decide. And we accept their judgment. If that means they judge Bush, Rumsfield, ME, to be a war criminal, so be it. We screwed this one up, big time. We have to sincerely apologize to the world, regardless of the price of that apology. Any other decision will only cement our reputation as an arrogant, uncaring people."

Funny funny stuff, man. Oh wait. You ARE kidding, right? Just which paragons of virtue will be sitting in judgment of us? The entire UN? They're too busy shredding papers to avoid revealing the entire Iraq "Oil For Bribery" fiasco.

"I don't blame them for their hatred of the United States."

'Cause, you know, WE'RE the ones that tell them to slice off their daughter's clitoris and generally condemn women to subservient status, thus ensuring that they as a culture will never advance into, oh hell, I don't know, maybe the 18th century. Yep. That's us.

"Al-Quaida would not have had this excuse if our military were acting under the rules of the Geneva convention."

And God knows, these are guys who need an excuse to kill people.

"It wasn’t until Hirohito stepped in and essentially said, “Enough is enough -- Let’s surrender,” that it was officially game over."

As I recall, there was even an attempt by some officers to kidnap Hirohito or otherwise stop the broadcast he made that sealed the surrender.

I think though that it might have been worth trying to just let the Japanese leaders kill each other off and hope that the pro-surrender ones prevailed (of course, they might have lost and we might have kept on dropping A bombs).

Folks, I have to say...have some of you gone perilously NUTS??? Some evil psychos perform an evil act...which is consistent with their being EVIL and all...and liberals are contemplating dropping hydrogen bombs on cities??? This is some kind of performance art, right?

If you want to get all weepy and angry why not focus on the fact that while the world clutches its chest and gets a case of the vapors over prisoners sexually abused in prisons (which sure never happens in MOST prisons!) around a million or so innocent men women and children will be slaughtered in the Congo in ways that would make Vlad the Impaler weep. And we will do nothing. Nothing at all. Because if we did, well, people might get hurt.

While I do believe that what the American military prison guards did was wrong, that does not translate into pity for the terrorists that they did that crap to. I also think that the decapitation of the American hostage can be blamed, at least in part, on CBS. They are the ones who let the world see the pictures. There was no need to do that, except to support their partisan agenda in this election year.

Ham--is "ignorant" your vocab word of the week or something? I've seen two posts of yours and that's all they say: Someone else is ignorant. And stupid. Get a new line.

Ken--nice way to dodge the question.

PAD

I also think that the decapitation of the American hostage can be blamed, at least in part, on CBS. They are the ones who let the world see the pictures. There was no need to do that, except to support their partisan agenda in this election year.

You know the world is doomed when a television network showing news is deemed "partisan."

"If you want to get all weepy and angry why not focus on the fact that while the world clutches its chest and gets a case of the vapors over prisoners sexually abused in prisons (which sure never happens in MOST prisons!) around a million or so innocent men women and children will be slaughtered in the Congo in ways that would make Vlad the Impaler weep. And we will do nothing. Nothing at all. Because if we did, well, people might get hurt."

I brought up the Congo months ago. A number of people had no idea what I was talking about. I assume we do nothing because there's no oil there. If there is oil, then I've no idea why we're doing nothing.

PAD

"If there is oil, then I've no idea why we're doing nothing."

The Congo is a land rich with resources, including oil, I believe.

The problem may be with the assumption that we only got involved in Iraq because of the oil. Obviously we could have gotten the oil from Sadam using the same sweetheart deals he had with many courageous members of the UN and it would have cost far far less than the so called "War for Oil".

Rest assured that if we ever DO try to stop the slaughter in Africa we will be accused of going after diamonds and/or gleefully killing as many dark skinned people as possible.

There is no oil in Congo. Don't go so far away. Look at Haiti. The US could have done much to prevent the tragedies going on there but they have generaly ignored the situation.
9/11 was a tragedy, an atrocious act but in a way, something the US had coming for a long time.
The US has been spreading terror and destruction for decades in the name of democracy. Unfortunately, the world is fighting back stooping to their level.

Also, who exactly would be happy to hear that we are going to try to save the Congolese? Me, maybe you....most conservatives would hate the idea because the Congo doesn't affect us directly and most liberals would hate the idea because it would be us imposing our will on some other country.

Not a great vote getter.

"9/11 was a tragedy, an atrocious act but in a way, something the US had coming for a long time.
The US has been spreading terror and destruction for decades in the name of democracy. Unfortunately, the world is fighting back stooping to their level."

Let me be the first to say it: YOU sir, are a mental case.

Have a nice life. Keep taking the meds.

Dropping a nuke on Iraq would be the dumbest thing we could do right now. In the case of Japan, it was arguably necessary to end World War II. World War II also happened to be one of the longest, bloodiest modern wars at that point.

There is no comparison to WWII Japan and present-day Iraq. In World War II, Japan bombed us, bringing us into the war. After a war that took years, we ended it with the most devastating weapon ever known. People were for that at the time because of all the fighting that had come before.

In present-day Iraq, we have a situation where we as a country decided to go and kick their asses. Almost no one else wanted us to do it, and the war was as bloodless on our side as wars get. Imagine how the world is going to react if we walk into Iraq, beat them into submission, occupy them for a year, and then drop a nuke on them? The rest of the world would see us as someone who picks out countries we don't like, makes war on them without regard for what the UN decides, and then obliterates much of their nation with the most dreaded weapon of all time. (A Weapon of Mass Destruction, for those who have forgotten.)

They would see us as a threat to everyone on the planet. We would be a greater threat to the rest of the world than Saddam Hussein was if he really did have WMDs. If they were smart or even the least bit logical, they'd likely try and bring us down before we do any more harm.

PAD, I agree you do have a nice way to dodge the question. It seems to work well for you each time!

"How do we restore our rep to the world? We let the world decide. And we accept their judgment. If that means they judge Bush, Rumsfield, ME, to be a war criminal, so be it. We screwed this one up, big time. We have to sincerely apologize to the world, regardless of the price of that apology. Any other decision will only cement our reputation as an arrogant, uncaring people."

Funny funny stuff, man. Oh wait. You ARE kidding, right? Just which paragons of virtue will be sitting in judgment of us? The entire UN? They're too busy shredding papers to avoid revealing the entire Iraq "Oil For Bribery" fiasco.

See, this is where I think that argument falls down.

The "sure, we did a bad thing, but everyone else sucks worse than we do" defense is really just arrogance disguised as self-justification. If that becomes (or continues to be) our policy, then in the court of world opinion we are heavily asking to be taken down a peg, and absolutely no one is going to give a damn the next time al-Qaeda does so.

The fact that other countries, or other world organizations, have made mistakes -- serious ones, even -- does not mean we should avoid making amends when we're the ones who screw up. In this case, we did: we went in claiming to be a paragon of virtue bringing democracy to those unruly Iraqis, boasted about "closing Saddam's torture chambers", when in fact evidence has surfaced that they've reopened under new management.

So yes -- contrition. Amends. Honest acceptance of consequences. Actual willingness to change behavior.

All are called for. It remains to be seen how many will actually happen.

If we do, that's not going to make everything magically okay, but it's a necessary first step.

What exactly would you suggest is an appropriate response to Abu Ghraib, Bill? I'm seeing a lot of posturing and bluster (much more so than usual from you), but so far you've mostly scorned any expression of concern. You haven't gone the Rush route of "this is the equivalent of fratboy games", but that's the tone I'm getting, and I think you're better than that.

TWL

Darin said:

*While I do believe that what the American military prison guards did was wrong, that does not translate into pity for the terrorists that they did that crap to.*

Well, let's check the facts. Some of the people mildly inconvinienced by having poles inserted in their posteriors, raped and urinated on by the moronic minority of serving co-alition troops weren't actually terrorists. Some were only suspected of mild thievery and looting. Come to think of it, how many of them had been *charged* with anything at that point? Even if they were, my rule of thumb is always, what would *OUR* reaction be if such actions were taken against *OUR* troops. Not so sure we'd be saying 'Ah, well, shit happens!" if it was.

It's one thing to apply pressure under interrogatuon. It's another entirely to humiliate people for the sole purpose of getting off on it and mugging for the camera as you do so.

Darin:
*I also think that the decapitation of the American hostage can be blamed, at least in part, on CBS. They are the ones who let the world see the pictures. There was no need to do that, except to support their partisan agenda in this election year.*

Yup. Sure. Let's NOT let the world see what is being done in their name. However, I presume you'd also ban pictures of a president on an aircraft-carrier proclaiming 'mission accomplished' as that could be seen as electioneering too?

It was right to show the world what was going on. After all, Amnesty International and The Red Cross had submitted written proof months and months ago and neither the UK or US government had done anything practical to deal with abuse. Forty-eight hours after the facts go public, everyone is scurrying to pass the buck and claim their surprise. If they'd dealt with it properly and earlier, instead of the now classic ignore-bad-news-and-it'll-go-away strategy, there wouldn't be such a mess.

That being said, as long as the progress of punishing either side for human rights violation continues (and is seen to continue) I see no need to *keep* publishing new pictures. Their release to date has done what they needed to.

If one thing is for sure, it's that history continues to have examples of 'Do as we say, not do as we do...'

John

Chiming in after a 'Lurker' hiatus, here.

First, count me amongst those who believe that the use of nuclear weapons would be a mistake. We Americans have enough problems without adding to them by creating a desert of blackened glass.

Second, the "Japan Analogy" has an inherent flaw: Iraq is NOT Japan. The cultural motivations/imperatives create mindsets that are quite different and will react differently to stimuli.

As far as solving this mess... You know, I almost think that I will not be taken seriously with this suggestion because of the source. Too bad. Here it is.

I find myself thinking that we, America, should adopt a non-interference foriegn policy. Yes, I'm suggesting something based on the Prime Directive.

I think we need to get out of propping up puppet governments and attempting to tell other cultures how to operate. I think America should enter other countries by invitation only. In the cases wherein the (majority of) citizens of said country inform America that they want their leaders removed in favor of a peaceful governing body then MAYBE we could help.

Trade would still require negotiation, but medical and disaster relief would be offered and not forced or used as political leverage.

Of course, defending ourselves from agressors would still be a requirement.

We like to believe that America is right just because (some say) it is the best country on the planet to live in. That may be true. 'Best', however, does not automatically translate into 'Right' or 'Justified.' For me it DOES mean that we should strive to lead by EXAMPLE.

Perhaps the best way to start would be to get ourselves away from this one-party system we've allowed ourselves to get conned into. What I mean by that is that the Democrats and Republicans have been working together for decades to sustain their shared power-base. It's up to us. We, the People. We are the only ones who can force change for the better.

But we won't. Perhaps it is our refusal to grow in such a direction that helps to make us appear arrogant. Maybe we should start behaving as the 'Civilized Society' that we continually claim to be.

When it comes to the war in Iraq (yes, it IS a war), I would suggest this: "We've gotten rid of your criminal ruler. When your people figure out how they want to be governed let us know if you need a hand. We'll see what we can do. We'll be watching." Then we leave Iraq and let the Iraqi people Figure themselves out. It may seem callous, but it would be wrong to force a way of live on the Iraqi people and wouldn't it be far more satisfying to them if they made those decisions for themselves? Wouldn't that be better for everyone in the long term? If they want freedom from tyranny shouldn't they have the freedom to decide that for themselves?

Salutations,

Mitch, not to be confused with Mr. Maltenfort.

All right first let me say this DROPPING THE BOMB
WILL SOLVE NOTHING!!!!!!If any thing it will piss everybody off more and cause god knows what further destruction ,long term.
The terrorist who beheaded that young man..to be honest they would have done it if the sun came up.The big thing to remember is we cannot get into a never ending cycle of payback.No matter what we are supposed to be the good guys and should act as such.Not to be all Captain America but we gotta be better than that.Bringing them to justice and when appropriate killing terrorists
is fine but torture and humiliation of potentially innocent people is wrong.
The whole problem is this "war "was an arrogant,not terribly well planned event with no exit plan.There was no link to Al queda,9/11,or weapons of mass destruction.The whole bringing freedom to the iraqis sounds good but its flawed cause:
1.there are other places we could free and dont(hello cuba!)
2.we are applying freedom by our rules which is contradictory.
As far as the morons in the prisons torturing people good job,(sarcasm)Now we know why the next generation of iraqis will hate our guts.
I need a break gotta watch 24,at least the terrorists arent real there and everyone is good looking:)

Ken--nice try. Answer the question.

PAD

Ken writes: "What is so funny is that this is PAD's typical way of steering away from an argument and point that he was losing and even had to cheat by editing his post."

I see no indication that Peter edited any of his posts. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, we'll just have to assume you make things up in order to try and win an argument.

Tim says
"What exactly would you suggest is an appropriate response to Abu Ghraib, Bill? I'm seeing a lot of posturing and bluster (much more so than usual from you), but so far you've mostly scorned any expression of concern. You haven't gone the Rush route of "this is the equivalent of fratboy games", but that's the tone I'm getting, and I think you're better than that."

I thought calling the soldiers who did this "sadists" made it clear where I stood on them. Don't know where I scorned any expression of concern, though I certainly think it completely wrong to say that Sadam's torture chambers have merely "opened under new management". It really IS more wrong to have murder as a policy than it is to have the occasional sadist perform acts for which they will be punished. Or are you seriously suggesting that the acts of the US soldiers, heinous as they were, even approach the creative use of paper shredders that will be providing fans of snuff videos with entertainment for many years to come?

Appropriate response? Well, jail time at a minimum, perhaps in Iraq where I'm sure they will receive the very best of care.

Given the fact that their actions have gone a long way to giving aid and comfort to our enemies, it's tempting to try them for treason, raising the amusing possibility that they might get shot.

So I guess I don't see this as fratboy games, since I generally don't look forward to the jailing and/or shooting of fratboys. Since you give no examples of my "posturing and bluster" I can't really defend myself so I'll just have to humbly hope that I mend my ways.

My point about the UN was simply that I don't see where they are in any position to judge us. Under their watch Sadam was able to torture and kill thousands without fear of any punishment greater than worrying about where to stash several billion dollars in loose bills. Under us scores of prisoners were subject to illegal humiliation and abuse. Nobody will get rich off it. Several will go to jail and have their lives ruined.

I don't have confidence in the UN's ability to make things right. If the actions of some American soldiers tar us all than I guess the recent massacre in Kosovo performed by a UN policeman makes them unsuitable to judge. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/024rjfgr.asp) It isn't only bad when a US administration makes mistakes.

Well that's all nice and cynical and all but the fact is that WE are the ones who allowed the world to know about the abuse. WE are also the ones who will punish it. Meanwhile a significant chunk of the world will go on merrily doing the same atrocities day in and day out, to little if any condemnation.
==
What's this we stuff? Haliburton is cutting off Internet access to soldiers, supposedly in reaction to this stuff. You think Bush decided to leak this stuff? BS. The stuff leaked on its own.

By the way, I'm not being cynical. I do think there are a lot of Americans out there who condone the abuse of the Iraqis and are angry that the stuff leaked. There are plenty of people who are happy with the knowledge that we have people on the payroll who torture others for us, as long as it's not on the nightly news. I'm not one of them, though.

People do condemn what other countries do. It's just that few people listen.
==
Funny funny stuff, man. Oh wait. You ARE kidding, right? Just which paragons of virtue will be sitting in judgment of us? The entire UN? They're too busy shredding papers to avoid revealing the entire Iraq "Oil For Bribery" fiasco.
==
Nope. Technically, this stuff is a war crime. And we (the US) helped write the definition of what a war crime is. So we're, in that sense, sitting judgement on ourselves.

And so what if others judge us? You think they don't know? What are you afraid of? Being a part of the world?

As for the rest of your post, I don't know of any case where Iraqis practice clitoridectomies, so I have no idea where you're going with that argument. There are a lot of cultures on this planet. Stop being afraid of them.

Talk about distortions. When I say that Iraq could turn out like Japan what I mean is a former enemy could turn into a helpful ally. That's it. That's all. Nothing to do with nuking anyone. Despite what is happening in prison camps now. Let me put it to you this way. America bombed Japanese cities for weeks and killed 200,000 thousand cilivans. This was BEFORE Fat Man and Little Boy. America stayed in Japan for SEVEN YEARS after the war. We will be in Iraq as long if not longer. Even if John Kerry is elected. Its not going to be easy. Hopefully it will all work out. I cant predict the future like PAD.

I brought up the Congo months ago. A number of people had no idea what I was talking about. I assume we do nothing because there's no oil there. If there is oil, then I've no idea why we're doing nothing.
==
Maybe the oil's hard to get to? That's actually one of the best arguments for Afghanistan; not only is there oil, but the oil is relatively easy to get to. One pipeline, and you're in the Gulf.

Yes, oil companies DO think this way.

"I think we need to get out of propping up puppet governments and attempting to tell other cultures how to operate. I think America should enter other countries by invitation only. In the cases wherein the (majority of) citizens of said country inform America that they want their leaders removed in favor of a peaceful governing body then MAYBE we could help."

But how do we know what a majority wants? It's doubtful that we would be dealing with a democracy.

Do we do a poll? Mail a survey? And what if a majority is supporting a genocidal dictatorship? If 51% of the German population had been shown to be in favor of turning Jews into lampshades that would not be a good excuse for the world to have sat back and done nothing.

I'm not picking on you--I like your scenario. Kind of us in the Klattu role from DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL. Swoop in, seriously dick around with the locals with our heap big technological juju, and swoop off with a well-delivered carrot/stick speech. Some Bernard Herrmann music would be great too.

>Since the topic's come up, can anyone justify teh *second* use of the Atomic Bomb, Nagasaki, without including Hiroshima? (Brian)

Most Japanese I've come to know in Japan over the years, especially the older ones, agree the first one was needed. Many don't quite feel the same way about the second. They figure it's more a case of politics in action.

>Did the Japanese character allow them to adapt where other nations would have gone into a tailspin? (Mitch)

Actually they DID go into a tailspin. The nation as a whole was so traumatized that they seriously considered banning the use of Japanese and adopting French as the official language to expiate their collective shame.

>Notably, prevention of the loss of American lives, ultimately lessening the loss of Japanese lives (less still died than would have in a invasion). (David)

People tend to forget that part. They also tend to forget that, horrifying as the A-Bombs were, the massive firebombing raids on Tokyo easily killed as many, if not more people in a single night.

>Or maybe they can make more, but it’ll take them a really long time. Let’s rally and really give them what-for and maybe we can get some victories to strengthen our position.” (Sasha)

Rally what? The mighty fleet was pretty much at the bottom of the Pacific by then, the air force practically non-existent, their industrial base reduced to rubble. All they realistically had left were the ground troops defending the main islands.

>And, as callous as it sounds, there's the Russia factor. If we had only dropped the one, Russia might have had the same reaction attributed to Japan. (Will)

That's a historically popular and very believable scenario. The Japanese were pretty much done for and they knew it. But Uncle Joe needed to be convinced we meant business. Or so the thinking went in Washington back then.

I thought calling the soldiers who did this "sadists" made it clear where I stood on them.

On the soldiers, yes. On what should be done about it, no.

Lines like "while the world clutches its chest and gets a case of the vapors over prisoners sexually abused in prisons (which sure never happens in MOST prisons!) " certainly suggest that you consider this No Big Deal In The Big Picture. I don't know if that's scorning concern per se, but it's sure the message I got from it. (That's also one of the lines that led to my "posturing and bluster" remark, since you asked about it.)

Or are you seriously suggesting that the acts of the US soldiers, heinous as they were, even approach the creative use of paper shredders that will be providing fans of snuff videos with entertainment for many years to come?

No, not remotely. I would only point out that (a) it really is different when the "good guys" are committing the atrocities, and (b) we've been given real indications that what's been released is just the tip of a very ugly iceberg. As such, I'm going to reserve judgement.

Appropriate response? Well, jail time at a minimum, perhaps in Iraq where I'm sure they will receive the very best of care.

And for the leadership? If evidence surfaced that orders to "soften 'em up for the interrogators" led to this? What should happen to them?

My point about the UN was simply that I don't see where they are in any position to judge us.

And my point is that that should not be our concern right now. When I apologize for an action, it's not because I think someone's in a position to judge me -- it's because I've judged those actions MYSELF and decided they were the wrong thing to have done. I consider that a basic staple of ethical behavior -- if our country's leadership does not, I consider that an exceptionally black mark against them.

I don't have confidence in the UN's ability to make things right.

Perhaps not -- but frankly, they're the best option available. Pax Americana sure as hell ain't it.

If the actions of some American soldiers tar us all than I guess the recent massacre in Kosovo performed by a UN policeman makes them unsuitable to judge. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/024rjfgr.asp) It isn't only bad when a US administration makes mistakes.

Sigh. And if you can point out someplace where I actually said the last sentence or a similar approximation to it, I'll be happy to buy you a pizza.

If a UN official was complicit in a massacre, there should be strong consequences for that as well. I'm not looking to blame just the US here, Bill -- it's just that my putative country is the one that got us into this, so their actions tend to draw more attention.

Straw man arguments do not become you. I haven't claimed the UN is perfect, nor have I claimed that we need to apologize to them. I think our nation and our leaders should be apologizing for the sake of our own consciences. If you can't see that, then I'm sorry for a whole host of reasons.

TWL

Ray says
"As for the rest of your post, I don't know of any case where Iraqis practice clitorectomies, so I have no idea where you're going with that argument. There are a lot of cultures on this planet. Stop being afraid of them."

Kurt was talking about Islamists, I believe, though his statement that "They" hate us was not specific as to who They were. I believe that much of the hatred toward the United States is due to our having so much and so many of the Islamic countries having so little. However I also believe that one of the main reasons for that disparity is due to the way many of the Islamic culture write off half their population--a guaranteed one way ticket to backwaterville. The Clitorectomies are mostly an African problem but indicative of the low status of the girl-child in too many Islamic cultures. (Incidentally, my reading of the Koran revealed nothing that would make this a necessary part of any Islamic culture).

"And so what if others judge us? You think they don't know? What are you afraid of? Being a part of the world"

But we AREa part of the world. The part that people come running to. Another reason for our success.

Mr. Mulligan wrote:

"But how do we know what a majority wants? It's doubtful that we would be dealing with a democracy."

To be honest, I don't have a solid answer to that one. It does occur to me, however, that people will always find a way. A better question might be how do we interpret the information sent to us? Again, I don't know.

"Do we do a poll? Mail a survey? And what if a majority is supporting a genocidal dictatorship? If 51% of the German population had been shown to be in favor of turning Jews into lampshades that would not be a good excuse for the world to have sat back and done nothing."

I agree with you on this. However, as indicated in prior posts regarding the Congo, isn't that what is happening now? Isn't the world standing by in while those in the Congo are living in just that type of horrendous situation? I only learned of it by reading about it here. Shouldn't we be offering aid to the Congo as I described above?

"I'm not picking on you--I like your scenario. Kind of us in the Klattu role from DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL. Swoop in, seriously dick around with the locals with our heap big technological juju, and swoop off with a well-delivered carrot/stick speech. Some Bernard Herrmann music would be great too."

I regret that I am not terribly familiar with the reference, but I do believe I get the gist of it. (I swear... the word "Gist" sounds like some kind of carbonated citrus drink) What I regret more, thought, is that I have conveyed my ideas so poorly that you are left with that impression.

Salutations,

Mitch Evans, because one Mitch is never enough.

P.S.
Mr. Mulligan, if you are picking on me, well, then have at it. I actually enjoy a good ribbing.

"Straw man arguments do not become you. I haven't claimed the UN is perfect, nor have I claimed that we need to apologize to them. I think our nation and our leaders should be apologizing for the sake of our own consciences. If you can't see that, then I'm sorry for a whole host of reasons."

Sigh. Tim, look, the thing that set me off was the following:

"How do we clean this up? How do we restore our rep to the world? We let the world decide. And we accept their judgement. If that means they judge Bush, Rumsfield, ME, to be a war criminal, so be it. We screwed this one up, big time. We have to sincerely apologize to the world, regardless of the price of that apology. Any other decision will only cement our reputation as an arrogant, uncaring people."

And I'm sorry, but to me that's just plain goofy. Maybe I misunderstood. I took it to mean that Ray seriously meant that if the world (by which I assumed he meant the UN since how else are we supposed to get the "world's" opinion?) claimed that Bush, Rummy, Ray etc were "war criminals" the we'd have to accept the penalties. Which would be, I guess, Bush, Rummy and maybe even Ray (what the hell did HE do?) being strung up like Alfred Jodl. THAT'S what I was commenting on.

I'm GLAD we apologized to the Iraqi people, though words are cheap and I would hope that the punishment of the soldiers who did it will be more effective. As for the higher up--time will tell. I know the creeps who posed for the pictures are guilty. I will require some evidence of guilt before I start thinking about what to do with the higher up ("softening up" prisoners seems like a very dangerously open ended order, ripe for abuse).

"Lines like "while the world clutches its chest and gets a case of the vapors over prisoners sexually abused in prisons (which sure never happens in MOST prisons!) " certainly suggest that you consider this No Big Deal In The Big Picture. I don't know if that's scorning concern per se, but it's sure the message I got from it. (That's also one of the lines that led to my "posturing and bluster" remark, since you asked about it.)"

But I LOVED that line! My point, besides the visual that, sorry, makes me smile, is that the prison story, while major, ISN'T even the biggest story in Iraq. I understand why Americans sodomizing prisoners is a bigger story than Palestinian terrorists shooting pregnent women and children but it does make it harder to take the condemnation of some countries with the level of gravity that perhaps you feel I should.

"Sigh. And if you can point out someplace where I actually said the last sentence or a similar approximation to it, I'll be happy to buy you a pizza."

That wasn't meant to be taken as my statement of your beliefs. I was just thinking that if the criminal actions of American soldiers make people believe that we should cut and run then there is no reason to think that the exact samething won't happen if and when the UN applies their golden touch.

"I see no indication that Peter edited any of his posts. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, we'll just have to assume you make things up in order to try and win an argument."

What he's referring to, Glenn, is on a different thread when I did a posting, then realized that I spent half of it falling into the rhetorical trap of defending, not something I said, but what people had claimed I said. So I deleted that section of the post.

In Ken's world, focusing a response somehow equates to losing an argument.

PAD

Bill,

Sigh. Tim, look, the thing that set me off was the following:

"How do we clean this up? How do we restore our rep to the world? We let the world decide. And we accept their judgement. If that means they judge Bush, Rumsfield, ME, to be a war criminal, so be it. We screwed this one up, big time. We have to sincerely apologize to the world, regardless of the price of that apology. Any other decision will only cement our reputation as an arrogant, uncaring people."

And I'm sorry, but to me that's just plain goofy. Maybe I misunderstood.

I wouldn't say you misunderstood it, but I do think you're taking it substantially more literally than it was meant. (Ray, feel free to jump in here.) I completely agree with the sense of Ray's quote above -- the way to make amends is to be honestly contrite and willing to listen to what others think of us, not to issue the sort of "I'm sorry you made me do this" that annoying 12-year-old brothers the world over are famous for.

I didn't take it as Ray volunteering himself (or Bush) for the gallows. If that's how you took it, then I do at least understand your point a bit better. I'd take issue with some of his phrasing, I guess, but not the point overall. I'm honestly having trouble telling whether your issues with the phrasing are getting in the way of some basic agreement here.

I'm GLAD we apologized to the Iraqi people, though words are cheap and I would hope that the punishment of the soldiers who did it will be more effective.

I'd certainly agree with both halves of that.

As for the higher up--time will tell. I know the creeps who posed for the pictures are guilty. I will require some evidence of guilt before I start thinking about what to do with the higher up ("softening up" prisoners seems like a very dangerously open ended order, ripe for abuse).

I agree, which is why I think it's probably pretty crucial in this case to find out exactly what the orders were.

My point, besides the visual that, sorry, makes me smile, is that the prison story, while major, ISN'T even the biggest story in Iraq.

Right at this second I think it is, though I agree it certainly shouldn't be over the long term.

What I think gives this story special resonance (apart from the visuals, which naturally give it a huge kick) is that it's suggesting a basic hypocrisy on America's part. We talk big about human rights, democracy, etc. -- but we also close down newspapers and abuse prisoners in the name of "liberating" them. It may be unfair to tar the whole occupation for the actions of (I hope) a few, but it's going to happen. It's already happening, and it's making anything else we want to do in Iraq or in the region that much harder. For solely practical reasons if nothing else, we need to pay attention to how we're viewed and see what we can do to improve it.

(I also think that as a generalization, liberals tend to care a lot more about what other countries think of the U.S. than conservatives do. I don't think the stereotypes are true, (liberals as whiners who always want to kowtow to the U.N., conservatives as barrel-chested he-men who think that as long as we have military supremacy "we're number one!"), mind you, but I do think the overall generalization has at least a germ of truth in it.)

"Sigh. And if you can point out someplace where I actually said the last sentence or a similar approximation to it, I'll be happy to buy you a pizza."

That wasn't meant to be taken as my statement of your beliefs.

Sorry. Kinda looked that way.

I was just thinking that if the criminal actions of American soldiers make people believe that we should cut and run then there is no reason to think that the exact samething won't happen if and when the UN applies their golden touch.

I'd agree with that -- I don't think anyone's saying that bringing in the UN is going to make things perfect and flawless. I think any occupying force -- us, the UN, the Organians -- needs to make its own actions as transparent and accountable as possible. I don't think we've done a very good job of that so far, but you're right that it's just as possible for the UN to screw it up too.

TWL

Darin: I also think that the decapitation of the American hostage can be blamed, at least in part, on CBS. They are the ones who let the world see the pictures. There was no need to do that, except to support their partisan agenda in this election year.

Will: You know the world is doomed when a television network showing news is deemed "partisan."

That's no different than blaming Israel for the Palestinian suicide bombers and blaming US troops in Saudi Arabia for 9/11. CBS is not to blame. Terrorists are responsible for their actions. They are not willing to negotiate (unless you count the phrase "full withdrawl" a "negotiation"), so the only alternatives are to stand and take the abuse, or fight back.

"We tortured and tormented their soldiers in a prison camp.

Their response is to cut off the head of a civilian and crow about it on videotape.

PAD"

And it's this type of response that shows the kind of people we are dealing with. These people will kill any person, man/woman/child to support their cause.

I have mixed emotions when I hear of them being tortured. I don't believe it's right to torture anyone per se, but you have to look at what these people are capable of doing to others before you make a decision on whether it was right or wrong to torture them.

If you have to torture them to get information that will save people's lives, then get to it already. If they are being tortured just for revenge, then it's not OK.

Good gravy...there are a LOT of problems with dropping a nuke on certain portions or Iraq, not the least important being that it'd shut down Halliburton's investment.

The thing with nuking is that it's a big stick, and that it'll invite retaliation. The only, ONLY sure way we could do that would be to bomb the Iraqi cities where the resistance is located with a hydrogen bomb to make sure there were no survivors, while simultaneously bombing North Korea, who I think would rightfully go berserk and I think wouldn't hesitate to use their bombs on us. After that, we'd have to eliminate the last vestige of resistance in Iraq, even if it meant turning the country into a graveyard, because one thing I am aware of is that the Middle East culture has a very fine-tuned sense of revenge. So there would be that.

Afterwards, the president would have to take ever-more extreme steps to insure that someone didn't to the same to us. A fellow poster talked about the Pax Americana, and I think that's an apt phrase. We would have to become the big brother of the nations, because I don't think any countries would actually support us after that. I'm also pretty confident that martial law would be imposed on the US, because the protests would be tremendous, and the administration would probably worry about some dissidents overthrowing them.

Of course, it's entirely possible that this could be a worst-case scenario. The thing is, nuclear weapons change everything. Period. They are weapons whose very right to existence has been debated, and unlike guns, they serve no other purpose than to kill people and make the land unlivable.

It can be argued that the Middle East was one giant rickety scaffold, ever in danger of tipping, and that Bush went up and gave it a good solid kick. Regardless of the outcome, things will not be the same in the Middle East. Using atomic weapons would be similar, but on a global instead of a regional scale.

Chris

"We tortured and tormented their soldiers in a prison camp.

Their response is to cut off the head of a civilian and crow about it on videotape.

PAD"

Novafan:
>And it's this type of response that shows the kind of people we are dealing with. These people will kill any person, man/woman/child to support their cause.

You're kidding, right? These are extremists either responding to a situation that, in their culture, is viewed as more heinous than physical torture or simply exploiting the assinine actions of the morons who perpetrated this crap.

>I have mixed emotions when I hear of them being tortured. I don't believe it's right to torture anyone per se, but you have to look at what these people are capable of doing to others before you make a decision on whether it was right or wrong to torture them.

Yer kiddin, right? Right or wrong to torture? Firstly, the world governments agreed it was wrong as handed down by the Geneva convention. The only defense that I've seen sadly thrown out is that these were "detainees" and not POW's, not covered by thee protections. *sigh*

>If you have to torture them to get information that will save people's lives, then get to it already. If they are being tortured just for revenge, then it's not OK.

What information are ou talking about? A vast percentage of prisoners are being held without charges.... and what revenge?

"Ken--nice try. Answer the question.

PAD"

Okay, here are the questions and my answers:

"So they want to go the Chicago Way?

They have always gone this way. It is not something new and they would have done this at some point in any situation.

"Americans want Iraq to turn out like Japan?"

In that we oversaw the re-building and occupied the nation for years and we maintain a presence there that has good for both our countries and the rest of the world in general, yes.

"It's the only way to be sure, right?"

No. Definitely not to that point and hopefully we never will be.

"If people on both sides are going to toss aside rules, regulations and humanity in favor of one culture dominating another, it's time to stop pussyfooting around, right?"

Again, no. Even if what you said was an accurate description of what is happening, the answer would still be no.

"So why are American lives now any less valuable?"

They aren't. But your suggestion, which I realize is based in sarcasm, lends us to believe that you are suggesting that human life holds no value.

Killing those you are there to help would be more of defeat than remaining and rebuilding.

"Right?"

No. Not by any means.

"Am I right?"

No. You twist facts and the words of others too much to be right. You built this whole thread on the post of someone who was talking about our occupation of Japan and made him out to be talking about us nuking a country. Nothing right about that.

The first mistake was lying to the american people to justify going in. The second mistake was going in. The worst mistake was when a majority of the American people let themselves be conned into this disaster. But the worst mistake would be nukes. When you are doing God's work like our illustrious president mass murder is not the way. The fact that the iraqi people had as much to do with Al Qadea[sp] as daffodils do with the GNP. And too many misinformed americans think that they do. If there was an easy answer the idiot in chief would have coppied from someone else's paper just like he did at harvard and yale. I just wish it was over. And make sure you register to vote so this will end sooner rather than later.

A question I wanted to ask, we had a debate here last night on the subject
"This House Believes British soldiers accused of torturing Iraqi citizens should be tried in Iraq"
Replace the British with American if you want, it's the same idea... what are your guys's thoughts about it? Do you think it's something that will help relations? Do you think it's an abandoment of the rules of war? Do you think its even feasible?

Go on, lets see what can be said.

(And control your tongues ladies and gentlemen! Don't get snipey at each other because you don't all agree, personally I think such differences are the best gift the world's got in it.)

"You're kidding, right?"

If torturing an individual will save lives by getting important information out of someone, then it should be done. I know that people like Saddam have important information that they won't give up without the proper motivation. Are we supposed to baby him and ask him to tell his secrets?

Maybe torture is the wrong word to use. How do we define torture? There could be varied degrees of this right?

"The first mistake was lying to the american people to justify going in. "

He didn't lie to us. He proceeded based on intelligence information he received.

"If there was an easy answer the idiot in chief would have coppied from someone else's paper just like he did at harvard and yale."

Ok, now you're accusing Bush of cheating at school. Where's the proof?

Bill:

My understanding is that clitoridectomies take place in African cultures that are not necessarily Muslim, but I have no further comment than that.

And you're right. The US is a place where people can experience some degree of religous and political freedom. And if we want to continue to hold that reputation, we need to accept the world's judgement on the Iraqi war. What are we going to say otherwise? "We're really a great place...except for that whole Iraqi mess."

We're not a perfect people. Look at our history- slavery, Japanese interment camps, Matthew Shepherd, and lots more. What makes us a great people is our willingness to apologize and change. And we need to do that right now. And if that requires submitting to the cries for justice, then that's what it means.

I'm proud of this country. I'm proud to be an American. I'm damn fortunate to live in this country, participating in the wonderful experiment of democracy. But it's that- an experiment. And sometimes we screw up. The continuation of that experiment rests in our ability to recognize when we screw up and take corrective action.

Oh, and Tim:
I didn't take it as Ray volunteering himself (or Bush) for the gallows. If that's how you took it, then I do at least understand your point a bit better.

Well, I'm not volunteering myself or Bush. But look at what we've done. We've invaded a country for NO GOOD REASON. Hey, Hussein's a bastard and a half, but even that wasn't a good reason. When you invade a country for no good reason, it's conceivable that war crime charges could result. What's so outrageous about that?

"9/11 was a tragedy, an atrocious act but in a way, something the US had coming for a long time. "

Coming to this debate late, I can only add that I find this comment offensive in the extreme. Perhaps we should just walk up to the families of the 9/11 victims on the street and tell them, "Well, you know... your family members deserved to die. Each of them personally is responsible for America's actions as a nation, and the fact that they were all civilians doesn't excuse them. They deserved it."

I am shocked that anyone could possibly think that way.

Hey, Novafan:
If torturing an individual will save lives by getting important information out of someone, then it should be done.
===
I have it on good authority that you know where Osama Bin Laden is right now. Get over here in five minutes; the hot tongs will be waiting.

Hey, it's no more silly than linking Osama to Iraq, and the administration already pulled that card.

By the way, I'll freely admit this- if you could have told me where Osama Bin Laden was after 9/11, I would have ripped your colon out with my bare hands. That's my human instinct- the guy orchestrated the murder of thousands of people in numerous incidents. And not one person on the planet, not even a PETA-protesting, tree-worshipping, whale-hugging hippie would stop me. (I'm liberal; if you're one of these, please accept the apology.)
But it's not a moral stand, and if I was the president, I would have to keep myself and my troops from giving in to that urge. It's what leadership is all about.

On a bit of a side note, Ray's response just above about torture and Osama is pretty close to the response I've wished Dukakis had given in '88 to that "how would you feel about the death penalty if your wife were raped and murdered?' question.

"Of course I'd want to see the person who did it dead. I'd want to strangle him myself. But our justice system is not about sanctioning vengeance."

Sorry. Total sidebar -- Ray's comment just reminded me of that full force.

TWL

Congo: Oil And Gas Industry

Not sure how accurate the info is, but I found this site doing a google search. Just click on the above link.

I don't blame them for their hatred of the United States. I do blame them for continuing the cycle - they are as responsible as we are. We're all wrong in this one. All of us.

Blow it out your ear.

I blame them for their hatred. It's not simply the "cycle". If we changed our practices in most any ways they'd still hate us, our country, our fathers, grandfathers, children, and ideas.

It's religion. If it's their doctrine to kill the infidels, then the true believers will follow that doctrine and the Muslims "extremists" will do their best to kill us, to end the infidels. The only other option available for them is to accept our surrender and that's one where we live under them as something worse than second-class citizens.

We either change ourselves into something that is antithetical to our beliefs as free people. Then they'll stop.

Or we fight back. We continue the cycle. Not them. So here's a question... do we go the distance and attempt to end them? Or do we give up and let them peck away at us and/or believe we can be driven off?

Best to destroy the true believers and the clerics and let the ambivalent and the agnostics to decide another way.

CJA

This was never a war we had to get into, it was one we chose to go into.

The rationale was flawed, and now because of combinations of incompetence, misunderstanding, cultural ignorance (on both sides) and lots, lots more that has contributed to make current events untenable, we're supposed to throw a hissy-fit that things aren't going our way and obliterate a people, a region, and thousands of years of evolution of relations between nation-states and (ostensibly) civilization?

Aside from the intrinsic insanity of the argument, can you spell p-a-r-i-a-h?

What I think gives this story special resonance (apart from the visuals, which naturally give it a huge kick) is that it's suggesting a basic hypocrisy on America's part. We talk big about human rights, democracy, etc. -- but we also close down newspapers and abuse prisoners in the name of "liberating" them. It may be unfair to tar the whole occupation for the actions of (I hope) a few, but it's going to happen. It's already happening, and it's making anything else we want to do in Iraq or in the region that much harder. For solely practical reasons if nothing else, we need to pay attention to how we're viewed and see what we can do to improve it.

Really.

What a lot of people seem to miss about Iraq (including some members of the Administration, it seems), is that it is not just a military operation...it's a diplomatic and political one, as well. Hearts and minds, and all that. And not only do you try not to keep each of the separate goals from getting in each other's way, YOU TAKE ACTIVE STEPS TO INSURE THAT.

That is what infuriates me so much about this. The planning from the top down was sloppy. It focussed solely on the military and assumed everything else flowed from that. It substituted ideology for clear thinking, and wishful thinking for contingency planning. It just wreaks of incompetence and stupidity...and the most horrifying thing about it is that I have a sinking feeling a lot of Americans will give the Administration a pass on it for the sake of politics.

I know that in war both sides loss life. I'm not sure that I could defend the position that this war compares to WWII. Yes live is just a valuable but what would the result of such an action be in the world? How many more lives would it cost to defend our position?

I've only skimmed through everyone else's comments so forgive me if I repeat something that was already said.

PAD, I'm sure that you know the answer to your questions and really just asked them as a way to get the debate going on the issue. However, since you asked, here are my thoughts on it.

Putting aside the atrocity that would be the use of nuclear weapons, the fact is that doing it would be useless simply because Iraq isn't Japan.

The reason why Hiroshima and Nagasaki succeeded in ending WWII is that the enemy, aka Japan's leadership (most specifically Emperor Hirohito), actually cared for the well being of the general population, and knew that the cost of pressing on the fight would be too great to bear.

On the other hand, the enemy in Iraq isn't a person or government but rather an extremist terrorist resistance which doesn't really care if other Iraqis are caught in the crossfire (as evidenced by the fact that they've had no calms at attacking purely Iraqi targets, as well as by their willingness to use suicide bombers whom are often barely past their teens, if that). What does this mean? Simply that if we started dropping nuclear bombs there we'd probably kill many insurgents, along with scores more of innocent people, but we'd never get them all and those terrorists that remained would just milk their "righteous indignation" to keep on fighting. But wait, you might say that we could still win, all we'd need is the resolve to nuke every last square inch of Iraq until there's no one left there, right? Unfortunately no, because terrorists aren't confined by borders and would just attack us somewhere else. And should we then move on to the next country... well, I guess everyone can see where we'd end.

The situation above may be extreme, but it also applies on the smaller scale of what's going on right now, which is why I feel that the War on Terrorism can't be won simply by invading countries; terrorists must be fought on a personal level, going after specific people and/or groups and, most importantly, by providing proper education and a sense of entitlement to those who may otherwise become future recruits in the terrorists armies. Basically, exactly what we are NOT doing right now.

Raphy

Gabriel wrote:
"...9/11 was a tragedy, an atrocious act but in a way, something the US had coming for a long time.
The US has been spreading terror and destruction for decades in the name of democracy. Unfortunately, the world is fighting back stooping to their level."

Osama is that you posting here? I knew you'd come out of that cave sooner or later! Now just sit still for a bit and spew your hatred... and oh, don't mind that ever increasing whistling noise coming closer and closer...

Ken: "No. You twist facts and the words of others too much to be right. You built this whole thread on the post of someone who was talking about our occupation of Japan and made him out to be talking about us nuking a country. Nothing right about that."

Well, to be honest, if you're going to be talking about Japan, you kinda have to mention the nuking.

The japanese people surrendered entirely to the US, and more or less co-operated. There wasn't a huge battle royal for power as there is currently in Iraq.

In addition, if this becomes a cycle of ever increasing violence, PAD is just asking "why not cut to the chase, and pull the ultimate Trump card, then?" Which, if that's where this thing is going, makes a certain amount of logical sense. In practice, it wouldn't work out so well, but logically, it's somewhat ound.

He's not saying that such a statement was the absolute truth, and even at the end of the post he says clearly

"Right? Am I right?

Someone tell me, because I really don't know."

I've seen much more evidence of you, Ken, twisting someone's words, then I have of PAD.

John said, "Well, let's check the facts. "

Yes, lets. The “fact” that some of these detainees didn’t have American blood on there hands has been verified as false already. This happened in a cell block specifically set aside for them. These are the same types who decapitated that kid on Monday and they don’t deserve our pity.

And CBS made a decision knowing full-well that what they released could have repercussions on Americans abroad. In effect, they chose to interfere with a military investigation that was seeking truth and justice in a way that would not have jeopardized the lives of our countryman. But CBS didn’t care. They hate Bush and that was all the motivation they needed during this election year. When the obtained the pics, they had that choice to make and they made the one that killed Americans and used "journalistic integrity" as the excuse.

Darin, I assume you can actually give me a source that they only tortured guilty people at the prison, and you're not just making things up. And Dee, get your medication changed.

They(CBS) hate Bush and that was all the motivation they needed during this election year.

And you know this how?

Gee, and I thought that the "Mission Accomplished" over in Iraq.

I guess I shouldn't believe everything I hear.....
......or read on Aircraft Carriers.

I don't have to give a source. Did John give a source? No, he didn't. You didn't have a problem with that. But, just so you know I'm NOT pulling this out of my butt, it was on C-SPAN in both Rumsfeld's hearing and in a read statement from Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba during his statement yesterday. This was also discussed on the Sean Hannity Show yesterday.

"Gee, and I thought that the "Mission Accomplished" over in Iraq."

It's a common miscoception that the libs love to use. The message "mission accomplished" referred to the mission of the aircraft carrier Bush was on, which had just completed the longest carrier mission in US Navy history. But nevermind about context, right?

I was so sickened yesterday by the beheading and the incessant broadcasting of the news that I turned the radio off and considered weeping myself into dehydration. I feel so bad for that man's parents and family.

Yeah, I wondered if there was a study going on for the energy potential of radioactive oil, but I know that's not the way to deal with this.

CNN didn't report on things in Iraq to save their reporter's skins under Saddam's reign; the same ethics should be applied to saving the lives of military and civilian contractors. The prisoner abuse was being dealt with by the military. Reporting it was wrong. It could be held for after the war. AMERICA is in a war, not just us conservatives or the Republicans, but ALL of us. We need to start thinking in those terms.

The military should deal with the abuse (and we don't know enough about the whole situation yet to draw any conclusions). If the Army itself was involved in war crimes, as opposed to individual rogue soldiers, then the world would have a right to deal with us, but that's not the case.

Something I've been wondering about: why aren't our people over there tagged with a transponding chip so we always know where the individuals are? I find it hard to believe that we couldn't take over one of their holding facilities if we knew where they were.

The answer is to hunt down the extremists and kill them. Forget the Chicago way. If your mindset is stuck in terror, you will be terminated.

A greater emphasis should be placed on getting the Iraqi people involved with policing their country.

Those are my answers, pitiful though they are.

The funny thing, Darin, is that you're proving my point: the problem isn't the torture of prisoners, because stuff like this occurs during wartime. The problem is the missionless war itself.

Dee: PAD was so upset about the beheaded man that he thought about nuking Iraq. Just what more are you looking for?

Heck, want to have some real Bush-bashing fun? The guy was over in Iraq looking for a job. Why didn't he stay at home and look? Because, of course, there aren't any jobs! Why? Because of Bush's handling of the economy!

There. Now Bush has the guy's blood on his hands. How's that for outrage?

And that, my folks, is sarcasm. I'm not putting his blood on Bush, at least not for the bad economy. I do find the story a bit curious; I mean, I've been unemployed recently, and I took a job about 40 miles from my home. But I wasn't about to go to a warzone to find work! There's something about this story that stinks, and I think we'll find out what it is in a few years.

I do hope that the killers are found and put to justice. That's a horrible, horrible way to die, and to videotape the killing only makes it worse for the family. (When his father found out about the tape, he collapsed on his lawn.)

Here’s the problem. It’s been so long since we occupied and remade a hostile country we forgot what made it possible. The reason we could rebuild Japan and Germany in our image it because we flattened them. We broke the Germans and Japanese will to fight by warring not just against their armies but also against their civilian populations. But during the cold war we developed a new bushido. Our army would fight the Soviet Army while the threat of MAD assured everyone played by the rules. After all if there had been a land war in Europe what would have been the prize? The industrial capabilities of WG, which neither side wanted, destroyed.

Now others wiser than I have postulated that the Bushies cold war veterans that they are, are state-centric and their actions seem to back this up. So we went into Iraq and fought with our new Bushido and defeated the Iraqi army. The only problem is we never broke the enemy’s will to fight and now were paying the price.

I opposed the war with Iraq. Then once the war began I opposed the way it waged. This island hopping avoiding major populations only accomplished one thing. It showed that the US was unwilling to slog it out the way we did in WWII. Now we are dying the death of a thousand cuts. What we need to do is put a 500,000 boots on the ground and all the armor we can spare. If a town like fallujah flares up we send thousands of men into it, engage the enemy in the kind of house to house fighting we do. The US military is the best in the world they would prevail. If the enemy saw this kind of resolve they would fold like a house of cards.

"They(CBS) hate Bush and that was all the motivation they needed during this election year."

If that was the case, why wasn't it on the main "60 Minutes" which has much higher viewership instead of "60 Minutes 2?"

I'm kind of curious: Are you implying that, if you were running CBS, and you received graphic evidence of what was indisputably a news story, you would not have run it? You would have sat on it? If so, do you feel that's good reporting?

Let's go for a further notion: Let's say the prison story never happened. Clean slate. Now let's say Fox News acquired graphic art of men directly under John Kerry's command beating and tormenting Vietnamese POWS from thirty years ago. Since Fox is as conservative leaning as you claim CBS is liberal leaning, would you be as outraged at Fox over running those pictures? Would you feel they shouldn't be running them because "They hate Kerry and that's all the motivation they need"?

PAD

By the way, I was wrong about Berg. He wasn't looking for work per se; he owned his own company. I misread an article. My fault.

"Heck, want to have some real Bush-bashing fun? The guy was over in Iraq looking for a job. Why didn't he stay at home and look? Because, of course, there aren't any jobs! Why? Because of Bush's handling of the economy!

"There. Now Bush has the guy's blood on his hands. How's that for outrage?

"And that, my folks, is sarcasm. I'm not putting his blood on Bush, at least not for the bad economy"

If one wanted to put the blood of Nick Berg on Bush, there's two ways. First, the obvious: If Bush hadn't launched the Needless War, Berg would never have been over there and would still be alive.

Second, the less obvious: The utter disregard for civil rights and the routine detaining of citizens that has become SOP under the Bush administration enabled Federal authorities to detain Berg illegally while he was in Iraq. Suspicious of his reasons for being there, they locked him up for thirteen days until their investigation was satisfied. His plane home was March 30. He was held until early April. Thanks to his unwarranted detainment, he missed his plane and had to return to Baghdad to try and arrange for safe passage out of the country.

Obviously, he never made it.

Had his rights as a US citizen been honored, as the Constitution requires--the Constitution that Bush swore to upheld and hasn't--he would still be alive.

PAD

"Posted by Darin at May 12, 2004 09:14 AM

"Gee, and I thought that the "Mission Accomplished" over in Iraq."

It's a common miscoception that the libs love to use. The message "mission accomplished" referred to the mission of the aircraft carrier Bush was on, which had just completed the longest carrier mission in US Navy history. But nevermind about context, right?"

Darin, I am about as conservative as you can get. I think we should club baby seals for oil. I read Peter David's uber-left wing commentary on this board just so I can kick my ulcers into high gear.

And even I think that one sounds a little fishy, bud.

Darin, firstly, I've lived in or near Navy towns my whole life, with the exception of the stint I spent in the Air Force (stuck in Omaha then), and I have never - *never* - seen a ship come in from an operation, of any sort, with a "Mission Accomplished" banner. It's assumed that, had the ship not accomplished its mission, it wouldn't be coming home.

Second, while standing in front of that infamous banner, Bush declared that "...major combat operations in Iraq are over!"

Tell that to the Marines in Fallujah. You'll need a Ouija board to reach some of them, of course...

The problem of pronouns.

Who is 'they'? The Shi'ites, Sunnis, Al-Quaida, Iraqis, Kurds or any of the other divisive factions over there?

That's the primary difference between Japan and Iraq...or even Vietnam and Iraq. There is no single person or faction to negotiate with. There are dozens of factions within the country--several that won't trust anyone else to rule. The only reason why Saddam was able to hold it together was that he ruled by fear.

I'm not saying that's how we should rule it. I'm not even happy that we're there. Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that the removal of Saddam was a benefit to humanity...but we seemed to do that without any though of "what happens then?"

It's been stated that one reason why Saddam couldn't be overthrown from within is that none of the factions were individually strong enough to do it on their own, and none were willing to ally with another.

Attacking Japan in the way we did worked because there was a central ruler with enough power to say "enough." We don't have that sort of person or organization here.

PAD,

It isn't bad reporting; it's ethical reporting. Stories that would harm national security were spiked regularly in WWI and II. Show them when the war is over? Fine. During? No.

The 5th Estate is supposed to be "independant" I realize, but dividing the country and reporting the bad without a word to the good is not just independant, it's destructive.

I think that some of the people here may have forgotten that there were pictures of Iraqi prisoners beaten to death and plastic-wrapped for shipment in that bunch of photos. If you want to make the case that Abu Ghraib was nothing but some "abuse" while Berg's death was a horrific crime and they're not even comparable, you might stand a chance convincing me, but I kinda doubt that any Iraqis are going to buy it. And at this point, what I think is irrelevant, it's what the Iraqis think.

Hmmm.

I wonder what Micah Wright thinks of this?

HAHAHAHAHBWAAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"I am feeling more than outraged. Why is anyone being allowed to go to work in Iraq??? Have u seen it PAD? Has anyone here watched the horror? Wheres the outcry from our gov????? Wheres the outrage from Kerry eh? Where's the outrage from fellow Americans? or, is everyone so politcally correct in this country they are afraid to show their anger???"

Dude, I opened up a discussion in which I, in all seriousness (no, I wasn't being ironic) was asking people to tell me why we shouldn't just (as one person put it) cut to the chase and nuke the damned country, because that's sure what I felt like was an appropriate response and the only way this is ever going to end. If that doesn't register on your "Outrage Meter," then I'm not sure what does.

PAD

"It isn't bad reporting; it's ethical reporting. Stories that would harm national security were spiked regularly in WWI and II. Show them when the war is over? Fine. During? No.

"The 5th Estate is supposed to be "independant" I realize, but dividing the country and reporting the bad without a word to the good is not just independant, it's destructive."

First of all, torture in a prison camp is hardly a matter of national security. You won't find me defending, for instance, Geraldo Rivera's revelations of exact troop movements to his home viewing audience. That was just dumb. But I think you'll find that the vast majority of Americans believe that this country should and does stand for a moral higher ground. So if people representing America have deserted that ground...if they have taken up the reviled practices of the man Americans died to get out of power...if, as Pogo said, We have met the enemy and he is us...then the public has a right to know it's happening. And they have a right to know just how far up the chain of command this thing goes.

Furthermore, the reportage hasn't divided the country at all. Instead, if polls can be trusted, the country is becoming united in its revulsion. The only thing this affair has been "destructive" to is the Bush administration's ongoing endeavors to conduct absolutely everything they do under a veil of secrecy more pervasive than just about any presidency in this country's history.

Ethical reporting? To know of practices undertaken by American soldiers that are in direct contravention of the Geneva convention and not report it would be UNethical.

And by the way, the press is referred to as the Fourth Estate.

PAD

A few more thoughts:

Drudgereport has vidcaps from the beheading video. I stupidly gave in to my curiosity. ugh. Seriously, do yourself a favor and just don't look. It's awful. He's dead. You don't need to know much more than that.

Whatreallyhappened.com, a REALLY liberal/leftwing site, feels that it's possible that the beheading was actually done by US to sidetrack discussion of the torture story. Even I don't believe that. And I'm a loony liberal!

Apparently, CBS is under fire- not for releasing the torture footage, but for actually keeping it under wraps until the New Yorker broke the story. That's rather interesting; CBS is under fire from conservatives for undermining the war effort, while liberals are blasting the Big Eye for holding the information to help the Bushies out. Can't win over there.

"Second, while standing in front of that infamous banner, Bush declared that "...major combat operations in Iraq are over!"

Well, the fact still remains that the banner referred to the Abraham Lincoln's mission, which was what the President was there to celebrate, and did not refer to the liberation of Iraq. The fact that he chose that venue to make his declaration doesn't mean that the two statements meant the same thing, as indeed they didn't. Ask anyone who was serving on that carrier, as I have, and they'll confirm that.

And major combat operations HAVE been over in Iraq since that declaration. The invasion was over and it was now time to begin the occupying/searching phase. Bush didn't say that the fighting was over, just that the major combat operations were over. At that point, it was time for the support personnel to be brought it and the country was to be held and occupied. Even when Marines were brought in to attack Fallujha (sp?), it was reported as "the biggest offensive since major combat operations ended in Iraq."

PAD-
if you're not being ironic and you think that the inevitable end of the present situation is a nuclear bomb, I would suggest that just leaving would be good. This isn't Chicago and we don't have to stay there.

Haven't had the time to scroll through every comment, but The Bomb is only effective anymore as a deterrent, not as a weapon. And even the THREAT of dropping the bomb is only effective if the other country already has one. It's like, "If you drop yours, We'll unload our payload on you." If it comes to it, and we do drop a nuclear weapon on Iraq, or anyone for that matter, be prepared for a lot more attacks on US soil from other countries to retaliate and have essentially the entire world looking to ally together and take us out. Basically, we'll start WWIII, only this time we'll be on the wrong side.

"Apparently, CBS is under fire- not for releasing the torture footage, but for actually keeping it under wraps until the New Yorker broke the story."

The New Yorker broke the story? I'd thought it was "Sixty Minutes." Well...good. I always felt the print media has more stones than TV any day of the week.

PAD

I keep thinking back to the "Encounter At Farpoint" episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation everytime I read about the abuse of the Iraqis. Basically, Q believed that humanity was a savage child race. If you ask me, both sides in this war are proving that Q was right.

JHL

"Apparently, CBS is under fire- not for releasing the torture footage, but for actually keeping it under wraps until the New Yorker broke the story"

60 Minutes broke the photos. The military asked CBS not to make the photos public but, of course, for a TV show like 60 Minutes, you don't have a story if you don't have visuals. CBS held the photos until the story was needed that week. Needed to serve the partisan media's agenda.

"I keep thinking back to the "Encounter At Farpoint" episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation everytime I read about the abuse of the Iraqis. Basically, Q believed that humanity was a savage child race."

Less than 20 military guards out of the 200,000+ personnel over there is enough to label them all as such? I think not. Think of it in terms of a percentage of the whole and then try to say something like that.

Mr. Wesley, we probably wouldn't even have to wait a while for nuclear armageddon. Everyone, including the U.S. and Russia, still has their missiles on launch on warning status. A couple of nuclear blasts in the Middle East and we'd be lucky to avoid a full-scale exchange.

My recollection of the situation at CBS was that they held the story at the request of the government (which was already investigating the situation), but that they published when they learned that someone else was about to publish the story that they'd been sitting on. I have no complaints about the way that CBS news handled this.

I've heard various folks on interview shows complain that the government should have released the story before CBS did. I'm of the opinion that they *couldn't* do that, since CBS had held the story for them. If someone holds a story for you, you don't get to break it for them, if you're the government and ever want to receive that courtesy again.

As far as the original question that PAD posed, the reason for *not* nuking Iraq is that -- even if you set aside the moral questions involved -- it won't solve the problem there and will likely create more problems that it would solve.

As others have observed, there's no Emperor in Iraq who can tell everyone in Iraq to lay down their arms and command obedience. An impressive show of force won't likely result in surrender, but in continued resistance.

Further, World War II was one of the last times(possibly *the* last time) when it was considered allowable -- by "civilized" countries -- to bomb the civilian populace as opposed to strictly military targets. The Germans bombed London, the Allies bombed Dresden, and eventually the U.S. bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

After WWII, "we" (whoever that collective we *is*) decided that is no longer acceptable behavior, even in wartime. I tend to think that's a good thing. Not everyone in the world agrees with this.

Which is why there were a lot of people in the world who cheered when Al Qaeda killed a lot of civilians in New York on 9/11. (The Pentagon, of course, would qualify as a military target. None of the passengers on the airplanes involved would qualify.)

So we've got a choice. We can be on the side of the terrorists morally and bomb the living bejeezus out of the civilians and not give a damn about it, or we can try to adhere to a higher moral standard, even if we sometimes fail.

Given a choice in the matter, I'll try to stick with the higher moral standard.

>This isn't Chicago and we don't have to stay there.

No, but though the cops were as corrupt as they come, the U.S. still came in and fired them all and now the Mob is trying to run things. Seems to me there's a responsibility in there somewhere to make sure the bad guys don't win out after all, especially when the U.S. is responsible for eliminating one of the only things holding them in check.

Just got this email from my father. I think it's a perspective we need at this time.

***********
Subject: FW: It's Time to Reevaluate Our Involvement!

Every day there are news reports about more deaths. Every night on TV there are photos of death and destruction. Why are we still there?

We occupied this land, which we had to take by force, but it causes us nothing but trouble. Why are we still there?

Many of our children go there and never come back. Why are we still there?

Their government is unstable, and they have loopy leadership. Why are we still there?

Many of their people are uncivilized. Why are we still there?

The place is subject to natural disasters, which we are supposed to bail them out of. Why are we still there?

There are more than 1000 religious sects, which we do not understand. Why are we still there?

Their folkways, foods and fads are unfathomable to ordinary Americans. Why are we still there?

We can't even secure the borders. Why are we still there?

They are billions of dollars in debt and it will cost billions more to rebuild, which we can't afford. Why are we still there?

It is becoming clear...
.
.
.
WE MUST PULL OUT OF CALIFORNIA!!!!!!!!!.

************
Any laugh in a storm, kids. Weather report: it's monsoon season.

"If one wanted to put the blood of Nick Berg on Bush, there's two ways. First, the obvious: If Bush hadn't launched the Needless War, Berg would never have been over there and would still be alive."

Since we are sprouting what if's...

What if Saddam had been left in power...

Next year he probably would have made a pact with North Korea and Libya to obtain and distribute Nuclear weapons.

Libya would never have admitted it was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

We try sanctions after sanctions on Saddam. He gets fed up and launches Nuclear missle attacks at Israel.

Can you say game over?

Yes, it was a what if scenario. But wasn't it a possibility?

Chew on that for a bit.

This is going way off track here, but i just read through all the postings (whew!) and it's still fresh in my mind, so...
While i think an argument *could* be made for the necessity of bombing Hiroshima, i tend to think that Nagasaki was unnecessary and would likely constitute a war crime were it to be more closely examined. We bombed Hiroshima on August 6th and Nagasaki on the 9th. At the time we did it, reports of the scope of what had happened were just beginning to trickle in and the Japanese government really had no idea of the extent of the damage. A somewhat more ethical government than we apparently had at the time would have waited a few extra days for them to see it, and then promised more if they failed to surrender. Hiroshima alone, combined with the Soviets' declaration of war, would have done the job. And then there would only be one annual memorial here (Japan), rather than two. And a lot less people would be dead or suffering from radiation poisoning, the gift that keeps on giving.

(And thank you to whomever indirectly mentioned the firebombing of Tokyo and Kobe. They did kill nearly as many people as the atomic bombings - some here argue they are war crimes as well - and are often forgotten outside of Japan.)

For those of you who would censor a free press, shame on you. The media has a responsiblilty to keep the citizens of this country informed. It hasn't lived up to this in a very long time. We get soundbites instead of stories. Now we have a story of substance and all you can do is call CBS traitors. A free and open press is vital to a democracy. How else will you keep those in power honest? Secrecy allowed the Nixon administration to almost get away with Watergate. The press gave us the information that let us know it was corrupt. It is not the press's job to make the current administration look good. It's purpose is to uncover the truth and report it to the American people.

Karen:

>For those of you who would censor a free press, shame on you. The media has a responsiblilty to keep the citizens of this country informed. It hasn't lived up to this in a very long time. We get soundbites instead of stories. Now we have a story of substance and all you can do is call CBS traitors. A free and open press is vital to a democracy. How else will you keep those in power honest? Secrecy allowed the Nixon administration to almost get away with Watergate. The press gave us the information that let us know it was corrupt. It is not the press's job to make the current administration look good. It's purpose is to uncover the truth and report it to the American people.

I'd just take this opportunity to again invite people to check out online news sites from nations around the world. I used to believe that NPR was fairly non-biased until I began checking out European, Middle Eastern, and Asian sites. It really is eye-opening.

Starwolf, dude, if my two choices are nuke or bail, I vote for bail.

Good Day PAD:

My feelings about the war are as follows:

It is wrong and we should leave immediately. I was honorably discharged from the Army in 1988, and I believe in defending the country; however, this has gone on long enough.

I think your issue of Captain Marvel (the poking fun at the war parody) summed it up best.

My final thought with respect to a nuclear response. I don't know how much longer I will be sucking air on God's green earth but I would like to continue to do so without having to wear a radiation suit. As satisfying as it might be in the short term, a nuclear detonation will have horrifying effects to the ecosystem.

Everyone on the board is right to feel outrage at many aspects of the 9/11 events but let's start to work at healing and attempt to end this obviously pointless war.

Regards:
Warren S. Jones III

Actually the thought of nuking everyone in that part of the world comes growling into my mind whenever an atrocity like this is committed. It would be a horrible atrocity, but how do we make Americans safe?

Here are some facts:

Muslim extremists want to kill any and all Americans. Al Queda offered a series of rewards last week. The highest rewards were for American leadership in Iraq, but they offered $13,600 in gold for the killing of ANY American anywhere. That includes you, me and those kids in the preschool down the street. They offered a similar reward for the British and half that amount for citizens of Japan and Italy. That's not soldiers, folks. That's your grandma and the kid who delivers your pizza.

I do not believe it is possible to negotiate with people who think like this and who act like this. It would not be enough to pack up and go home. It would not be enough to stop supporting Israel. The only thing that will satisfy people with this type of extreme view is the day when everyone in the world is bent to their will or dead.

People like this do not operate in a vacuum. If the rest of the muslim world would denounce these people, would demand accountability from them, would see to it that they were stripped of their power and influence, then things could change.

Otherwise, the only way to ensure that these extremists pose no threat is to kill them, imprison them or make them burrow so far underground they'll never see light again.

These muslim extremists want us dead. ALL of us. They will not stop until they get their way. They may be willing to save those who cower to their terror until last (such as Spain), but they will not stop and will only negotiate as a means to the very bloody and violent end they are committed to.

Is a premeditated atrocity on an unprecedented scale the only answer? I don't know. But I do know this is a war and everywhere your daughters go without wearing a burkah, everywhere you worship as you please, everywhere you read what you want, eat what you want and express yourself the way you want is the front.

It's a war with an extreme ideology. And it's them or us.

Fred,
In this day and age, to be informed takes a lot of work. I certainly don't rely on TV and daily newspapers for news. The bias is there, but as I said, soundbites have replaced in depth reporting in most instances. I applaud CBS for breaking ranks and informing us. I have no illusions that this will last, but it does give one hope.

Duane,
All the more important to go after the extremists and not be distracted by the war in Iraq. We need to go after terrorists. It's also important to note that not all Muslims are extremists, as not all Christians are Southern Baptist. We should get out of Iraq and put our resources into finding and detaining the real enemies.

Ray said:
Heck, want to have some real Bush-bashing fun? The guy was over in Iraq looking for a job. Why didn't he stay at home and look? Because, of course, there aren't any jobs! Why? Because of Bush's handling of the economy!

c'mon, Ray. Of all places in God's green earth to look for a job he goes to iraq! & what do presidents have to do w/ the economy. The economy is never the result of the person in charge of the country. they get blamed if it's bad but never praise when it's good. & there are tons of jobs out there. some not as good as others, but beggars can't be choosers. The economy is to complex to blame the president, regardless of who that president is.

Joe

Darin -

I have to comment on "Mission Accomplished" banner being in reference to the Aircraft Carrier's mission being accomplished...

... you think the President's staff doesn't have total control over the environment of
a PR appearance, why exactly?

If it was meant only as a local "we're done men and women!"... the banner wouldn't have been in view for the TV cameras. They'd have taken it down until the President was done, IMO.

That it was meant locally... I hadn't heard, but it sounds plausible enough.

So I have to think that the message Bush's PR folks were trying to get across was meant the way most people took it: "End of major combat operations" = "Mission Accomplished".

A nice, dramatic image to get the point across. Can't really ask for better PR.

At least as far as the President's PR staff is concerned ... and as far as the message they were trying to get out. Which, I'd suggest, is different than what the men and woman aboard the aircraft carrier might have been feeling with their OWN "mission accomplished" and getting home to port.

Such PR appearances are incredibly choreographed, from what I understand. As the banner stayed up, I can only assume the PR folks meant for it to do so.

Just a few thoughts.

Sorry Ray, I TOTALLY missed the rest of your post. I don't know what happened. Sorry.

Heck, want to have some real Bush-bashing fun? The guy was over in Iraq looking for a job. Why didn't he stay at home and look? Because, of course, there aren't any jobs! Why? Because of Bush's handling of the economy!

c'mon, Ray. Of all places in God's green earth to look for a job he goes to iraq! & what do presidents have to do w/ the economy. The economy is never the result of the person in charge of the country. they get blamed if it's bad but never praise when it's good. & there are tons of jobs out there. some not as good as others, but beggars can't be choosers. The economy is to complex to blame the president, regardless of who that president is.

Joe
===
Your argument would be great if you could read. I posted a sarcasm notice right underneath it, and then corrected myself a bit later. So, y'know...

>Or maybe they can make more, but it’ll take them a really long time. Let’s rally and really give them what-for and maybe we can get some victories to strengthen our position.” (Sasha)

Rally what? The mighty fleet was pretty much at the bottom of the Pacific by then, the air force practically non-existent, their industrial base reduced to rubble. All they realistically had left were the ground troops defending the main islands.

True, but considering the die-hard nature of the Japanese military leadership, the concept of the entire Japanese army (if not the entire population) is not off-base. God and the non-fiction section of Lucian's library only knows what kind of effect that would have had on the war effort. I'll wager not a pretty one.

"Such PR appearances are incredibly choreographed, from what I understand."

To the point that the [I]Abraham Lincoln[/I] was turned around and taken further out to sea after the President's arrival, so San Diego wouldn't show in the background, thus delaying their arrival at the Everett shipyard by almost three days. The sailors weren't happy about that, of course, but one doesn't openly criticize one's commander-in-chief - at least, not until one has gotten home, changed out of the uniform, and downed a beer or two...

Sorry Ray, I TOTALLY missed the rest of your post. I don't know what happened. Sorry.
===
Maybe the same thing that happened to me when I criticized your post without reading this? ;)

Ah well. It happens. I apologize for the remarks.

Out of curiosity, are there actually people on this board who think "Mission Accomplished" was not intended to convey that the major fighting in Iraq was over? And that it wasn't a huge blunder for Bush (never thinking that the insurgents would embark on a guerilla war designed to wear down American resolve for the occupation of Iraq)? Just curious.

"First of all, torture in a prison camp is hardly a matter of national security."

Tell that to Berg's family. IF the military wasn't policing itself (but it was) THEN maybe the story should be leaked. If CNN didn't report a story to protect their lives, the same should go for protecting our military. It doesn't take a genius to guess at the Muslim reaction.

And Karen, I'm not for muzzling the press for ever. Just in the interest of security and just until the sitation stabilizes.

The Forth Estate was fair and even journalism. The Fifth Estate is who we've got now. Not just liberal but printing only news that will make a profit.

"If one wanted to put the blood of Nick Berg on Bush, there's two ways. First, the obvious: If Bush hadn't launched the Needless War, Berg would never have been over there and would still be alive."

Since we are sprouting what if's...

What if Saddam had been left in power...

Next year he probably would have made a pact with North Korea and Libya to obtain and distribute Nuclear weapons.

Libya would never have admitted it was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

We try sanctions after sanctions on Saddam. He gets fed up and launches Nuclear missle attacks at Israel.

Can you say game over?

Yes, it was a what if scenario. But wasn't it a possibility?

Chew on that for a bit.

[chews, determines that like Cool Whip there is not enough substance to chew on, moves on to something more nutritious]

And Karen, I'm not for muzzling the press for ever. Just in the interest of security and just until the sitation stabilizes.

The problem is that, according to some, "9/11 changed everything" and that the War on Terror [TM] is never really going to end. As such, "until the situation stabilizes" is entirely too open-ended a statement to make me even remotely comfortable.

As soon as the press allows itself to be muzzled once, it becomes all too easy to find an excuse to keep the muzzle on long-term.

I'd also point out that there was an argument further upthread about whether the Berg death really was directly related to Abu Ghraib, or whether Abu Ghraib provided a convenient pretext. If the latter is true (and I suspect it at least partially is), then the press publicizing matters really isn't relevant.

This whole discussion is coming dangerously close to "the problem isn't the torture, it's those bastards in the press who exposed it", which is basically what Sen. James Inhofe said yesterday. My reaction to that is best summed up at the site I'm linking to below. (I have no connection to that site, but a friend showed me the link and I agree with the Inhofe-related entry pretty much word for word.)

http://www.youaredumb.net/

TWL

Sasha -

Sure, that's one possibility.

And let me add a "if Saddam or Qaddafi were stupid enough to actually use a nuke, their country would be a glowing wasteland very soon - and they know it".

As long as we're on what ifs.

This is only for those that opposed the US going into Iraq in the 1st place. Here is my question:

1)Why?

Now i just want to know why you opposed it in the begining. Not now. I mean before a shot was fired & any soldier died.

This is for everyone else, we invaded Iraq. I know the occupation is going horribly wrong & both sides can be blamed on that. So the question is:

2) Now what? & why?

What can we do. And let's be real about it. If you offer a solution, why do you think that should be the course of action

Why did I oppose the war?

Because it was unnecessary.

1) I did not find the WMD claims well-founded -- on the contrary, the inspectors seemed to be making good progress until WE told them to ship out because we were going in.

2) Even *if* the WMD claims were well-founded, there was every indication that containment was working and that Saddam was basically a gnat: annoying and irritating perhaps, but not someone who so desperately needed removal that it was worth jeopardizing all our alliances.

3) The move to war showed every sign of taking all the sympathy and goodwill we'd received after 9/11 (justifiably) and turning it into opposition and resentment. As a fairly committed internationalist, I saw the cost of that as being so great that I wouldn't have considered it a good idea unless the benefits were both overwhelming and obvious. They were neither.

There you are. Three reasons, all of which were just as true before we crossed the border as now. Thoughts welcome.

TWL

Ok I've read quite a bit of the thread and become very frustrated by several posts from the "right."

On the Prison Photos...
Yes most of us are upset about the photos... aparently less are upset about the actions, but only because it was us doing it to them. There really isn't an US or a THEM. We're all fucking people here. On the same point according to the military 90% of those who went through that prison including quite a few who went through the abuses and tortures(totall numbers have not come out for how many were tortured yet) were found to be innocent of any crime or conspiracy against the Coalition. So we tortured and beat to death and humiliated innocent Iraqis. No wonder they're mad. We're mad every time we find someone doing it to any of our people... What we have to realize like I said before, Is that there isn't really the US soldiers and Islamic Extremeists doing this, its small groups of individuals. Its stereotyping at the worst, that allows someone to grab someone and torture/kill them as revenge for another death, despite who that someone might be. We can't equivicate Iraqis with Extremist Muslims if we ever plan on winning this war.

On Atomic Weapons of Mass Destruction...
First off... according to several shows on the History Channel and textbooks from college...
Hirohoto was trying to surrender after the FIRST bomb. The US did not respond to his message until after they ordered the second one dropped. Granted there were reasons to drop the second one, they thought of many, all of which i've seen up above, but the one i've constantly seen given as to why? Well that was something along the lines of "We built it to use it" So in a sense it was used in revenge for the entirety of the war. War is brutal. That is done with. Now we have to suffer the shame that being the only nation to use these weapons on an enemy. But all that is done with. No use in arguing over that now. Its History. As to useing them in Iraq?? Please Peter thats pretty insane. I suspect as others that you weren't entirely serious about the propistion but still. The result will end up with nothing good for america as the bombs begin to be dropped on us. What justification will there have ever been to get rid of WMD from Iraq? none. So no bombs. That just leads to the quick fall into armeggedon.

And on Rebuilding Occupied Nations.
Yes it worked well in Europe and Japan and Korea. But each of these nations had something that allowed it to work. Iraq has none of these. Most of the people there and in the region are completely mistrustfull of us. There are the extremely vocal few who publicly hate us beyond death itself. There is none of the aspects of what allowed our rebuilding efforts to work before. Japan had a sense of honor and submission to defeat in its culture that once Hirohito went along with us, it became easier. South Korea well they don't exactly love us they don't hate us that much. But they to had the culture for our help. Germany? well we were there with several other nations with us. And Germany took a long time to turn around. But in the Middle East you have a prevasive veiw of one culture with several different nations. Each slightly different on the political level but enough for the common man to consider themselves first and foremost a Muslim. Not to mention that we have other extremeists running in from outside Iraq to fill the ranks of the extremeists. And with US policies over the many long years (both made by republicans and democrats) Most Muslims distrust the Westerners especially those from the US. Massive mistrusting an occupier leads to what we have here. One act of bloody desperation leads to revenge and the vicious circle of violence that plagues Iraq just as it does Israel. Where does it end?

Tim Lynch... those are exactly the reasons I opposed the idea of invading Iraq as well. Well said.

Mr. Joe V. asked:
"What can we do. And let's be real about it. If you offer a solution, why do you think that should be the course of action."

I believe that I touched on this when I wrote:
"When it comes to the war in Iraq (yes, it IS a war), I would suggest this: "We've gotten rid of your criminal ruler. When your people figure out how they want to be governed let us know if you need a hand. We'll see what we can do. We'll be watching." Then we leave Iraq and let the Iraqi people Figure themselves out. It may seem callous, but it would be wrong to force a way of live on the Iraqi people and wouldn't it be far more satisfying to them if they made those decisions for themselves? Wouldn't that be better for everyone in the long term? If they want freedom from tyranny shouldn't they have the freedom to decide that for themselves?"

That is my 'Exit Strategy.' Let the Iraqi people choose their own future. It's their country. Sure, they will make mistakes along the way but isn't that how people learn? Through their own experience? If we, America, do it all for them then they lose something in the transaction. Dignity and self-respect. I think with this aproach I think we turn enemy into ally, or at least a dignified and respected neighbor.

Salutations,

Mitch Evans

Joe V:

>1)Why?
>Now i just want to know why you opposed it in the begining. Not now. I mean before a shot was fired & any soldier died.

I was ready to respond when I noticed Tim summed it up as wel as I could. So wihout being redundant, without being redundant, I'd only add that Bush not only seemed wayyyyy too eager to move ahead with his "war on terrorism", but he also appeared too invested in making a point not to hear what the rest of the world's leaders were almost universally saying against his planned invasion that this seemed to smack in the face of any logical, well-planned, unifying move towards peace, IMO.

Joe:
I was against the war on Iraq. Too many Iraqi civilians would die trying to get Saddam out of power. Hey, I'm glad he's out of power, but if thousands of Iraqis have to die to get him out of power, was any real good done?

Also, we were damaging our goodwill with the rest of the world. Not only is it a bad practice to piss off your neighbors, but in a weakened global economy, this had the potential to further weaken the US economy.

And, to me, this war was not so much a response to 9/11 for our president but rather the fulfillment of a personal agenda. By invading Iraq, he not only took revenge on Hussein, who had tried to kill his father, but also rewarded his energy industry friends and Haliburton, a company that his VP has close ties to.

What to do from here? Revamp, rethink, and reconnect.

Revamp: Get a president in there with the ability to communiacte our goals to the world, to our citizens, and to our military. The world doesn't trust Bush (and they might not trust Kerry that much, but they'll trust him more than they will Bush). Americans don't trust Bush. The military obviously doesn't understand Bush; if they did, why did some of them decide to take it on themselves to torture Iraqi prisoners?

Rethink: Our military is painfully inadequate at handling small, guerilla-based tactics. Sure, we can play "shock and awe" better than anyone, but we can't handle these street-level scrimmages without suffering substantial casualties. Reinvent the army again; focus on developing smaller squadrons that can handle terrorist tactics. Right now, it's safe to say that in some areas, we're not smarter than the terrorists. Let's GET smarter than them.

Reconnect: Get down to the UN and win back some of the countries that have lost faith in us. Heck, go overseas and make the case to the people of Europe and Asia. I do believe that the people of the world want to believe in American ideals; let's put a trustworthy face to those ideals and get the world behind us again.

Most people want these terrorist attacks to stop. No one wants to relive Madrid, the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and all of the other attacks that have needlessly claimed the lives of civilians. You're a Muslim, and you don't agree with us? Hell, I don't agree with 'us', anyway! Let's work together and fix the problem. And maybe we can't come to a solution, but maybe we'll find a compromise, and you won't kill my countrymen.

And if that fails...then you try something else. There isn't any magic bullet here; these are damn tough problems. But just because they're tough does not mean that we can run ramshod all over the world. It'll catch up to us, and sooner than you think.

CSO wrote: "Ok I've read quite a bit of the thread and become very frustrated by several posts from the "right."

CSO then responded with, in part: "Yes it worked well in Europe and Japan and Korea. But each of these nations had something that allowed it to work. Iraq has none of these. Most of the people there and in the region are completely mistrustfull of us. There are the extremely vocal few who publicly hate us beyond death itself. There is none of the aspects of what allowed our rebuilding efforts to work before. Japan had a sense of honor and submission to defeat in its culture that once Hirohito went along with us, it became easier. South Korea well they don't exactly love us they don't hate us that much. But they to had the culture for our help. Germany? well we were there with several other nations with us. And Germany took a long time to turn around."

The right? The political right? You must mean me, because I'm the only one who discussed the occupation of countries other than Japan, which everyone else had fixated on.

Sorry, CSO -- I'm an independent voter. Keep in mind that just because someone states something that is seemingly at odds with a liberal point of view does not automatically make them a conservative. As I said before, I've been voting since 1972, and it is a rare election that I ever vote a straight ticket for either major party.

Karen,
Why is that the only time you feel the media are "informing" us is when they give us information that coincides with your point of view?
You disagree with the war in Iraq, so therefore anything that shows us in a bad light - and therefore wrong - must be true! What BRAVERY by CBS to show pictures that were guaranteed to put the war effort in a bad light and inflame the Muslim world!
If CBS had shown Iraqis who supported us or acts of American kindness, then that would be dismissed by the left as "propaganda".
people wonder why a lot of ordinary Americans accuse liberals of being un-American, and this is why.

It is hard to say PAD but like many situations in our world there is no a black or white answers, when I was groin up I keep wondering if that bomb in Hiroshima was absolutely necessary I am sure if President Bush was to take that action the uproar all over the world would be tremendous.

I know the United States has the power to stop those atrocities but I don’t think, as a society the US is ready to make that decision. I feel the nation is divided and the politicians are pulling towards their views of right and wrong… not necessarily towards the benefit of the nation.

It is harsh to say but I lean for bombing them. Not necessarily a nuclear bomb but at least enough power to level a city or two. For the looks of it most of these people (terrorist) only understand violence; but once more I don’t think I could give the order if I was on the Bush’s place… I feel it for him he does have a very difficult job at hand and has my support I might not agree with everything he does but I feel our leaders need our support as a nation.

To Everyone,
First, let me dismiss the nuclear option out of hand because it would be immoral and the chances of us actually using it are nil.
But to those who actually believe - on the Right or the Left - that Nick Bergwas killed by an alQaeda offshoot in retaliation for Abu Ghraib abuses, I only have one word:
Bull.
Were there any known abuses at Abu Ghraib when Wall Street Journalreporter Daniel Pearl and Italian hostage Fabrizio Quattrocchi were murdered by Islamic terrorists?
The answer is no.
had the abuses at Abu Ghraib come to light when frenzied crowds in Fallujah burned and mutilated the bodies of four Americans and strung them from a bridge?
The answer is no.
No, the murder of Nick Berg had nothing to do with Abu Ghraib.
This slaying was about the war against the west in general - and America, in particular.
For those who are constantly yammering about how we should "focus on Bin Laden" the beheading may have been carried out PERSONALLY by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a top aide of Osama Bin Laden.
It seems many people, including a lot of the media and the posters on this blog, have forgotten aboy 9/11.
That attack was a declaration of war - despite some imbeciles who try to compare it to the Oklahoma City Bombing - and should have been enough to justify all-out war. But the hand-wringing over the war in Iraq - and over even modest steps America took to defend itself, like the Patriot Act - suggests that many truly have lost sight about what the war is about.
Well, yesterday we all got a shocking reminder.
And for those who somehow equate degradation that can be a part of many college hazings with the brutality of what happened yesterday, or to the contractors in Fallujah, please explain why you hold us to te highest possible standard while those who would kill us to the lowest?
This is not a game. It is not an episode of Oprah. An enemy that is as fanatical and cold-blooded as exemplified by yesterday's events do not give us "points" for restraint, compassion or understanding.
Indeed, they took our unwillingness to launch a full-out assault on Fallujah and Najaf as one of weakness. Or haven't some of you gotten that point of view from the BBC, or Palestinian and Asian newspapers? You know,the media that "doesn't spew American propaganda, propaganda being anything that portrays our mission as successful, our leaders as competent, and our soldiers as noble.
As far as Moqtada al-Sadr andhis ilkare concerned, they stood up to us and won, because we sent a signal that we are weak.
No more.
This war cannot be won with half measures.
It can only be won and can only end with the total annihilation of those who practice butchery and barbarism and those who have set as their goal the destruction of America.
we made a mistake negotiating with them at Fallujah, because there can be no negotiating with such people. There can be no compromise with those who seek to destroy us.
Yesterday, the white House promised to "pursue" those responsible and bring them to justice"
In my opinion, that sounds like cops 'n robbers thinking, and is not nearly enough.
America needs to come out swinging,and it must not stop until EVERY LAST ONE of the savage thugs are dead.
if that means the resumption of major combat in Iraq, so be it. If we need another division of troops to finaly finish this job, let us transplant them from Europe or Korea if we have to, and in sufficient numbers to get the job done.
At this point, I say:
TO HELL with political sensitivities in the region.
TO HELL with negotiating with radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in Najaf and the Sunni insurgents in Fallujah.
TO HELL with hand ing Saddam Hussein over to Iraqis, as some want to do, and risking some reverse - or perverse- kangaroo trial that results in his survival.
Evil, cutthroat terrorists need to be eradicated.
That is a job that is going to require overwhelming and brutal force. There is simply no "nice" or painless way to accomplish such a task.
As yesterday demonstrated quite clearly, the enemy is bound by no moral compunctions.
And, yes, we need to be better than that, and won't sink to THAT level.
But, for the first time in a while, we need to steel out backbone and have our military fight like it means it.
It's the only way we are going to win this war.

Bombing people for the sake of terrifying millitants is ludacris. It's exactly what Al-Qaida thought they were doing with Sept 11, the Madrid train bombings, Bali and others - bombing targets in order to terrify those in the west that they view as millitants and terrorists too.

All bombing like that is, is terrorism of our own. And that is an unacceptable action for a powerful nation that stands for independance of thought, belief and action to take.

I don't come here regularly, but every time I do Maida seems to be insulting someone. Is this normal?

Speaking of responsible media, we have the Boston Globe, which reported that some dimwit politician name Chuck Turner distributed photos that were supposed to be of US soldiers raping Iraqi women. The nation of Islam supplied the photos.

Unfortunately the photos are frauds--simply porn pictures taken off of the internet (where, apparently, porn is easily found, I am told). Also, the Globe ran a photo of the pictures uncensored, which must have really gone great with the cornflakes and coffee.

In a related vein, a news conferance in Iraq had some guy start yelling about how his bandaged arm had been mutilated by americans but then some of the other Iraqis claimed he was a liar and when they held him down and took off the bandages his arm was miraculously healed, Allah be blessed.

German TV, showing the kind of lack of bias that we Americans can only wish for, showed the conference and his claims without cluttering up the viewer's minds with the part about the fraud claims.

Peter, this has been an enjoyable thread...but I still don't see how it is possible that you can give any serious thought to using nuclear arms. You keep saying that the question is serious and if I keep suggesting otherwise it will get insulting (not my intention) but I'm having trouble seeing your thinking here.

Berg was not murdered by the people who would be killed by bombing Baghdad. You don't even give evidence that a majority or anything approaching it of the Iraqi population supports the killing of Americans. So the Untouchables analogy kind of falls apart since the "they" you will be putting in the morgue are not the same "they" who put "ours" in the hospital.

shKennedy makes the photos sound less graphic, and less prominent, than Hayes does. Not having seen the print edition, I can't offer an opinion, except that this is clearly an embarrassment for the Globe regardless. Though as Kennedy notes, it's a bigger embarrassment for the Boston politician, , who was distributing the photos. No doubt the Globe will be making that point, too.

"It can only be won and can only end with the total annihilation of those who practice butchery and barbarism and those who have set as their goal the destruction of America."

Cut off a limb and two shall take its place!- HAIL HYDRA!

I mean, I learned this in comic books...you can't win a terror war by killing all the terrorists, because if the conditions that caused people to decide to become terrorists in the first place don't go away, then more people decide to become terrorists.

We aren't going to win this war by having people fear us, because there will always be people who will say, "Fear? I have no fear! I'll take you on anyway!"

And last I checked, to answer an earlier post, there is no non-nuclear bomb that merely levels a city.

Jerome,
As I recall, I said the press doesn't offer much of substance any more. We get sound bites instead of in-depth reporting. I don't believe we are getting much concrete news from the right or left. And if you think I'm happy that our soldiers abused prisoners just so I can applaud CBS, please think again. I am more than apalled and shocked. I was in the military. I remember being briefed on the Geneva convention. I am stunned that people I may have served with are capable of this.
How am I un-American because I choose to criticize the media? How am I un-American if I choose to criticize how my government is being run? I believe in the goals of United States. I don't think we are heading, as a country, in a positive direction. That does not mean I am less patriotic than some flag-waving guy off the street who jumped on the patriotic bandwagon and bought his flag after 9/11. It is part of my responsibilty as a citizen to find out the truth and use it to make informed decisions in elections. I read books that are also critical of Democrats and based on these findings, ALL politicians are bought and paid for. I am liberal, but there are those on the left who also abuse the common trust. That doesn't happen to be the topic of this thread, though.

Jerome,
On the contrary. We don't think we should have gone to war in Iraq, but should have concentrated on the real enemy. Bin Laden. If we had kept our resources in that direction instead of heading of to Iraq, maybe Berg would not be dead. Maybe we would by now have captured the real terrorists.

In response to Darin.

Perfectly willing to put my hand up if I'm wrong, but hasn't at least one of the prisoners featured in the photos - and since released *without charge* - claimed that he was in fact in because of petty theft. Before the whole 'They would say that wouldn't they?' chorus, I don't believe the fact has been disputed.

Even if these were higher-security prison areas, I'm not sure most of the photos show viable forms of genuine interrogation. The Administration's response has been one of being shamed by these photos - rather than turning around and saying 'The actions were not pleasant, but necessary, this is war.'

I have no qualms about saying that the execution of Mr Berg is infinitely worse - a murder in the most horrible and most public way. My heart goes out to his friends and family. But it's common knowledge that a *minority* of Iraqis have no problem with viciously killing occupying forces. They should be hunted down and face the full force of justice. Why not just execute the offenders? Because we're supposed to be better than they are. We prove a charge and *then* punish.

I don't condone the murderers' actions, but it is a minority and we shouldn't judge all the Iraqis by the actions of the few, however horrifying. You either agree with that (which is after all the reasoning used by America to try and calm Iraqi fears about abusers)or you don't. If you think it's somethign more than a rogue volatile minority, then that flies in the face of the 'official co-alition line' that most of the country is simply soooper and right behind Uncle Sam and it's just a few pockets of nasty people left to clear up.

Given all the facts in the public domain, it seems to me that far from Iraq being part of a war ON terror, terror seems to be doing jussssst fine, thank you. Wanna bet there's more Al-Quaeda operatives there than there were eighteen months ago?

John

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/172852_interogate12.html

So, it would appear that not only were the actions at Abu Ghraib immoral, unethical, vicious, and barbaric, they were also counterproductive and stupid.

Karen,
I never menat to say that I thought you were un-American. I just hope you understand that it can be perceived that way, especially those on the left who are much more in the "foaming maniacs" category or by those on the Right who definitely use less critical thinking skills.
I feel the coverage by the Big Three has predominantly been on the negatives. While this could be cataegorized as "truth" or even a "point of view", so are the Iraqis who HATE the terrorists and hated Saddam and do welcome us with open arms.
In this respect, I agree with you. It is a complicated problem, and bush has hardly been triumphant in trying to explain what our goal is, or even in emphasizing the positives. But, I just feel in general there's a lot of people and a lot of posters here who are more inclined to BELIEVE the good news and not the bad news.
That's all.

I think the only solution is to beg their pardon for starting a war and give a finish to the occupation. That's all.

In Spain, in the XIX century, Frace invaded us and the Spanish people gived a lot of hell to the French and at last they won. We had a tirane king ruling there, and after that he came back. But nowadays these people are called heroes, but the Iraquian people are terrorist... why?

I don't think that Fatman and Little boy was a good solution also. And this has nothing to be with now I'm living in Japan. This action meant the life os American soldiers was more valuable than the life of a lot of Japanese civilians.

In Irak had died Americans, Spanish, Japanese, Birtish... but no one in Spain or Japan spoke about nuking them...

What thing do we use in our cars? Petroleum or blood?

Micko
Your Spanish guy in Japan

Tim H,
You may not come here regularly, but it may help if you actually stated what was so insulting about my prior two posts, specifically the latter.
I took strong positions against the terrorists and feel we should take strong, decisive action against them as well.
But if you want to take cheap potshots at me without even saying why, go ahead. Attack if you wish.

Jerome,

I hope your lengthy screed above was posted in the heat of passion rather than after some thought. (No shame in that -- I think we've likely all done that. I know I have.)

If not ... well, frankly, you scare the hell outta me.

First, you're doing exactly what you say shouldn't be done as a result of Abu Ghraib: blaming an entire group for the actions of a few people. Many Iraqis have already gone on record as saying that they are as shocked and nauseated by Berg's killing as we all are.

Second: after saying that Berg's killers have nothing to do with Abu Ghraib and everything to do with "a war against the West" (which sounds like it should have a stirring Howard Shore score underlying it), you then go on to say that we need to take all the gloves off ... in Iraq, which you've already said isn't the primary issue here. Zarqawi (sp?) is al-Qaeda, not Iraqi -- but your suggested response is about Saddam, about al-Sadr, and about Iraqi cities we haven't yet managed to pacify.

You're fighting your war in the wrong place.

Yes, Berg's killers were absolute savages. Saying "we must move in with overwhelming force and forget all about X" (where X = diplomacy, respect, cultural sensibilities, the rule of law in the region, etc.), however, is not going to do one damn bit of good in the long term. You say "we won't sink to THAT level", but beyond that you don't give any indication of what level of behavior you would consider inappropriate even if it gets the job done. (From the tone of your piece, so far as I can tell not sinking to that level means you wouldn't use a knife when beheading someone.)

You say "this is not a war that can be won by half measures." By "a war" you appear to mean eradicating every terrorist in the region. If that's your definition, then I'll go you one better: this is a war that cannot be won, PERIOD. Not by military force.

You want to go in and level cities? You want to go in and uproot any group you find until you find the "evil, cutthroat terrorists"? You want "every last one of the savage thugs" dead, and don't care who or what stands in America's way in the process? You want to escalate our presence in the region by vast amounts (which will almost certainly mean a reinstatement of the draft)?

Why not say that the death of any American at Iraqi hands will result in the killing of 500 Iraqis, including the perpetrator's own family? It worked so well for the Centauri Republic, after all.

It hasn't worked for Israel in Gaza, and they've got a lot more history in and rights to the region than we do.

If your policy is adapted, we will fight the enemy by becoming them -- and Iraq is not the only nation that will be destroyed by such an action.

Again, I seriously hope you posted the above in anger and in haste. If not, and if after looking back at it you'll still stand by every word ... well, I'll have to hope there aren't enough of you to make that happen.

TWL

Karen,
I never menat to say that I thought you were un-American.

You seem to deliver this particular backpedal a lot, Mr. Maida. You've said it to Jonathan, to Karen, to me (at least twice), and I believe to others.

Methinks it's time you looked at why you make that charge so often.

TWL

Ray Cornwall,
"If the conditions that caused people to become terrorists in the first lace dn't go away, then more people decide to become terrorists".

See, that's the basic disconnect. Sort of like eliminating the "root causes" of crime. Crime is not a direct result result of poverty. NYC spent billions in poverty programs, etc. It was only when Giuliani got tough on criminals (and Pataki reinstituted the death penalty, though there is less direct connection in regard to this) - by cleaning up times Square for example - that the crime rate.
And just as you claim conditions cause terrorism.Well, there will always be "conditions" (you won't specific, so I won't try to guess). But not all Muslims who are angered by conditions decide to become terrorists.
And unless you feel we should just leave people alone who aggressively seek our destruction, I would really like to hear an alternative plan from you.

Jerome,
I read in my very local little town newspaper about a toy drive that our troops gave to Iraqi children. There's some positive news for you. I would love to hear and read positve news all the time, but as a rational person I know this is not going to happen. True journalists dig for stories that affect us. There are some wonderful positve articles out there, but they have no bearing on this discussion. Shall I talk about he multi-part story that was in my paper about the ex-con who turned his life around? I, and others, speak to the negative because we see the need to change something for the better. I'll talk about positive news when we have no reason to talk about the negative news anymore.

Tim,
If the current administration manages to stay in power after this election, I hope you have room in your car for some of the rest of us to go to Canada with you. :)

"I mean, I learned this in comic books...you can't win a terror war by killing all the terrorists, because if the conditions that caused people to decide to become terrorists in the first place don't go away, then more people decide to become terrorists."

Yeah, but in real life you can point to the destruction of the Thugee sect by the British, or the elimination of the Assassin movement of al-Hasan ibn-al-Sabbah, or here at home the breaking up of the Ku Klux Klan as a major power and instrument of terror. The Nazi Werewolf guerilla movement was crushed.

Depending on one's view of terrorism, one can probably find many many examples in history where a "terrorist" group met ultimate defeat. I suspect that, to the Romans, Spartacus, Boudica, and Vercingetorix were terrorists. Defeating them was not easy but they did succeed at doing it.

Tim,
Regarding your most most recent post (I need to go to my night job, but will respond to your longer one ASAP), I did NOT make a CHARGE of anti-Americanism at Karen, Mr. Lynch. I simply stated why it could be INTERPRETED that way. If you feel that is splitting hairs, what can I tell you?

The Forth Estate was fair and even journalism. The Fifth Estate is who we've got now. Not just liberal but printing only news that will make a profit.

Oh, my aching ears. And eyes--"fourth" has a "u" in it.

1) "News that will make a profit"? Care to define that fairly ridiculous turn of phrase? Do you mean news that gets people to turn on the TV and watch? Oh, so we're back to the "if it bleeds, it leads" charge against TV news. I want to know what the problem is with that--blood _is_ news. Violence is news. Abu Ghraib is news. Nick Berg's murder is news.

2) Why does the media always have to have a secret agenda like it's a Group in Illuminati, for crying out loud? The job of the news media is to report the news, nothing more, nothing less.

(Yes, I'm sensitive to the topic of news. It's in my blood.)

Jerome,
How do you explain national crime statistics going down while the economy was humming along and rising again when the economy tanked? Poverty is certainly one of the causes of crime. And Giuliani's get tough on crime actions were probably a part of the decrease, but what else was going on? To say that was the only reason is a little naive. Too many factors go into human behavior to say that doing A causes B and will directly result in C. If it were so easy we would have a crime free country by now.

Jerome,

If you're so frequently saying things that "might be interpreted" as accusing people of being un-American or anti-American, perhaps you should look at why the further clarification is so often needed.

That's pretty much what I said last time, but perhaps this is in a more palatable form. Perhaps not.

TWL

>"considering the die-hard nature of the Japanese military leadership, the concept of the entire Japanese army (if not the entire population) is not off-base." (Sasha)

But, by then, they could be simply isolated with a blockade and eventually starved into either submission, or non-existence. This was indeed one instance where the death of many was preferrable to the long-term suffering or the out-and-out death of the whole.

>"Chew on that for a bit."

Quadaffi(SP?) may have been nutters, but not enough to let nukes fall into Hussein's hands. The guy was too unstable. It would have come back to haunt Quadaffi one way or another, assuming he lived so long.

> "We built it to use it" (CSO)

Another popular theory is that the Americans simply did want to see if this version of their toy worked as well as the other. Not sure how well it stands up to close examination, however.

>"That is my 'Exit Strategy.' Let the Iraqi people choose their own future. It's their country. Sure, they will make mistakes along the way but isn't that how people learn? Through their own experience?" (Mitch)

The way we let Rhuandans (SP?) choose their own future? Yes, they did learn a lot ... those who survived.

>"I don't think that Fatman and Little boy was a good solution also." (Micko)

Not an ideal, but, realistically, the best under the circumstances. A friend in Yokohama used to tell me of the horror stories her parents recounted to her of Japanese soldiers on Okinawa forcing civilians to commit mass suicide by jumping off cliffs, because they didn't want the civilians to fall into American hands. Now imagine this country-wide in the advent of an invasion.

>""I hope you have room in your car for some of the rest of us to go to Canada with you. :)" (Karen)"

Need a guide once you get up here? ;-)

As for the idea of using atomic weapons on Iraq ... the final word goes, I think, to the Peace Museum in Hiroshima. I invite anyone to go through it and then, once they come out the other end, if they still think using such weapons is a good idea, I can recommend a good psychiatric institute where they may possibly be cured of such thoughts. Or at least locked away where they can't harm anyone.

You know what your problem is, PAD? You believe in things. The world would be a much simpler place without all the people going around creating all that conflict with their beliefs. When the dust settles on this war, I wonder what we'll believe then. How will these beliefs shape America and its neighbors? How will we change?

We are living in very uncertain times. I wonder how it's gonna end.

Wouldn't Germany be a better example than Japan?

So a nuclear strike would start World War III.

Has anyone considered that this is exactly what Bush, the religious fundamentalists, really wants?

Remember, he was the one who said "history doesn't matter." Why? Because he believes the End of History is about to begin. And he goes to Heaven, and all of the rest of us go to Hell. He hits the Trifecta - or is it the Trinity? - for good.

I wonder how God will view Bush's last few years of trashing the planet, letting the poor fend for themselves, and turning to violence without exhausting other possibilities. Not to mention that I don't think the big guy is big on lies. Heaven...might not be his ultimate destination...

Need a guide once you get up here? ;-)
(Starwolf)

Much appreciated. I'll stay here for a little while hoping things get better, but just in case, save a place for me at the dinner table! :)

Posted by Ray Cornwall:
"I was against the war on Iraq. Too many Iraqi civilians would die trying to get Saddam out of power. Hey, I'm glad he's out of power, but if thousands of Iraqis have to die to get him out of power, was any real good done?"
Without sounding more worse than the truth is, this question would probably be better asked to the families of the hundreds of thousands of bodies found in the mass graves in Iraq. This alone should throw Saddam into the class of a WMD all by himself.

"Also, we were damaging our goodwill with the rest of the world. Not only is it a bad practice to piss off your neighbors, but in a weakened global economy, this had the potential to further weaken the US economy."
No offense, but screw them. They want our money, and will overlook a lot that pisses them off for the greenbacks. Just look at the oil-for-food debacle at the UN now.

"And, to me, this war was not so much a response to 9/11 for our president but rather the fulfillment of a personal agenda. By invading Iraq, he not only took revenge on Hussein, who had tried to kill his father, but also rewarded his energy industry friends and Haliburton, a company that his VP has close ties to."
The assassination of the US President, past or current (or attempt to assassinate) is an act of war. Period. The fact that Clinton didn't do anything about it just shows another major flaw during his watch. And I'll ask again, as I did on other topics here. Please name a company other than Haliburton that has the resources and experience to do the oil work in Iraq. Also, if this is a 'war-for-oil', like many here were proclaiming, why are gas prices up to almost $2.00 a gallon nationwide?

"What to do from here? Revamp, rethink, and reconnect."

"Revamp: Get a president in there with the ability to communiacte our goals to the world, to our citizens, and to our military. The world doesn't trust Bush (and they might not trust Kerry that much, but they'll trust him more than they will Bush). Americans don't trust Bush. The military obviously doesn't understand Bush; if they did, why did some of them decide to take it on themselves to torture Iraqi prisoners?"
It won't matter who's the President. The terrorists want to kill anyone that doesn't believe in their god the same way they do. Period. End of story. They want to destroy our way of life and bring the world to it's knees thru intimidation.

"Rethink: Our military is painfully inadequate at handling small, guerilla-based tactics. Sure, we can play "shock and awe" better than anyone, but we can't handle these street-level scrimmages without suffering substantial casualties. Reinvent the army again; focus on developing smaller squadrons that can handle terrorist tactics. Right now, it's safe to say that in some areas, we're not smarter than the terrorists. Let's GET smarter than them."
Yes, we are smarter than the terrorists and insurgents. But, we're taking fire while trying not to destroy everything in our path. If we wanted to, we could use heavy weapons and level Fallujah. But no, we're trying to preserve as much as possible and keep civilian casualties down as much as possible. It's always easier to fight a guerilla war than to defend against it. Or are you saying that we should be using guerilla tactics (killing anything that moves)?

"Reconnect: Get down to the UN and win back some of the countries that have lost faith in us. Heck, go overseas and make the case to the people of Europe and Asia. I do believe that the people of the world want to believe in American ideals; let's put a trustworthy face to those ideals and get the world behind us again."
Yep, the UN is doing such a great job with all of the civil wars around the world. That is, if the UN leaders aren't counting up the money they got from Iraq. Sidebar, if everyone in the UN hates the US so much, then move their headquarters. I'm sure they could get a good price on real estate in Iceland or someplace similar.

"Most people want these terrorist attacks to stop. No one wants to relive Madrid, the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and all of the other attacks that have needlessly claimed the lives of civilians. You're a Muslim, and you don't agree with us? Hell, I don't agree with 'us', anyway! Let's work together and fix the problem. And maybe we can't come to a solution, but maybe we'll find a compromise, and you won't kill my countrymen."
And there is the crux of the problem. These extremes don't want compromise. They want total destruction and obedience. They want democracy to end and to move to a totally religious state. Many people here complain that Bush is a Christian, but don't seem to have a problem that these terrorists have faith of one kind or another.

"And if that fails...then you try something else. There isn't any magic bullet here; these are damn tough problems. But just because they're tough does not mean that we can run ramshod all over the world. It'll catch up to us, and sooner than you think."
Yes, there is a magic bullet. It's a .44 round in the center of the forehead. And catch up with us? Hell, it caught all of us blindsided on Sept. 11. And March 11. And it will keep catching up as long as these lunatics are out there. Sitting around a campfire singing KUM BA YAH only works if everyone is singing. It won't work if one of the people around the fire has a friend sneaking up behind you with a knife ready to slit your throat.

Finally for all that want to complain and gripe about the government, please feel free to continue. But remember, if the War On Terror is lost, you'll probably the the first to go under the new regime. From all I've heard, they don't take kindly to dissidents. Just food for thought.

"Tell that to Berg's family. IF the military wasn't policing itself (but it was) THEN maybe the story should be leaked. If CNN didn't report a story to protect their lives, the same should go for protecting our military. It doesn't take a genius to guess at the Muslim reaction."

No. No, you don't get to do that. You don't get to bitch out the messenger because of what happened with Berg. If the military gave a damn about Muslim reactions, then they never should have embarked on a course of subjugation and torture in the camps in the first place. You can't blame the press for reporting on the misdeeds of the military and then claim it was the press, not the military, that is to be blamed.

"And Karen, I'm not for muzzling the press for ever. Just in the interest of security and just until the sitation stabilizes."

It doesn't matter if you're in favor of forever or for a short time. Allow it for a short time, and forever will follow.

"The Forth Estate was fair and even journalism. The Fifth Estate is who we've got now. Not just liberal but printing only news that will make a profit."

No, the Fourth Estate is an existing phrase referring to the media, and the Fifth Estate is what you called it because you got it wrong.

PAD

"If CBS had shown Iraqis who supported us or acts of American kindness, then that would be dismissed by the left as "propaganda".
people wonder why a lot of ordinary Americans accuse liberals of being un-American, and this is why."

See, whereas a lot of liberals think that conservatives are slandering, libelous dolts who smear people possessing differing opinions with unfair and ridiculous "what-ifs" and then pretend they bear some resemblance to reality.

I would *love* to see footage of Iraqis talking up Americans. Personally, I got a kick out of the articles showing men getting haircuts and women throwing off their veils in Afghanistan with the fall of the Taliban, and I thought it was great when the Iraqis were tearing down Saddam's statue. I think Bush's actions were completely dunderheaded, but since we're there, I am thirsty for news that matters are proceeding well and that we'll be out of there soon.

Instead I see polls being taken where, a year ago, only 17% of Iraqis didn't like that we were there, but now the number has swollen to over half and it's growing.

Journalists should strive to be impartial, Jerome, rather than eagerly smear entire groups who hold to a particular political belief. You've got some serious work to do in that regard.

PAD

"Speaking of responsible media, we have the Boston Globe, which reported that some dimwit politician name Chuck Turner distributed photos that were supposed to be of US soldiers raping Iraqi women. The nation of Islam supplied the photos.

"Unfortunately the photos are frauds--simply porn pictures taken off of the internet"

I'm sorry...did you just say that photos depicting US soldiers raping Iraqi women were frauds...and that this was an UNFORTUNATE revelation?

Man, I don't mean to bust on you (okay, maybe I do a little) but really, I'd say that it was damned fortunate they were frauds. Don't we have enough tsuris as it is?

PAD

"The Nazi Werewolf guerilla movement was crushed."

There were Nazi Werewolf guerillas? Seriously? I mean, sure, I hate Nazis and everything, but they had werewolves working for them? How cool is that?

So the "Angel" episode with the vampire Nazis on a U-boat...that was fact based?

PAD

To Russ Maheras
thats all well and good Russ... but I also wrote a lot of other things... and i was not speaking specifically of you... Had I been I would have adressed you in particular.
Yes i was speaking for those on the political "right." and so that you know... the "right" isn't a party. One can be independent and be right, just one can be republican and thought "left." I didn't say a particular party because I was hoping to avoid the demo/repub namecalling and wished only to speak to the conservative veiwpoints that were being expressed.
So I regret that you took it so personally. It wasn't an attack on you specifically.

PAD says:
I'm sorry...did you just say that photos depicting US soldiers raping Iraqi women were frauds...and that this was an UNFORTUNATE revelation?

"Man, I don't mean to bust on you (okay, maybe I do a little) but really, I'd say that it was damned fortunate they were frauds. Don't we have enough tsuris as it is?"

Well, I meant unfortunately for the credibility of The Boston Globe and the pinhead politician. Of course. That's what the opening line ("Speaking of responsible media") was all about.

"There were Nazi Werewolf guerillas? Seriously? I mean, sure, I hate Nazis and everything, but they had werewolves working for them? How cool is that?"

Oops, I misspoke. Actually they were Nazi Werewolf Gorillas. How f***** up was that? Bastards!

fortunately, Hitler's knowledge of actual gorillas must have come from watching King Kong. Once the unfortunate beasts reverted during daylight hours they merely became placid herbivores, easily shot.

Now, wanna hear about how WE tried tying small bombs onto bats so that they would fly into German barns, drop the bombs and destroy the German agricultural base?

The terrorists want to kill anyone that doesn't believe in their god the same way they do.

William Boykin, line 2. General William Boykin, please pick up on line 2...

TWL

Posted by: Joe V. at May 12, 2004 04:52 PM
This is for everyone else, we invaded Iraq. I know the occupation is going horribly wrong & both sides can be blamed on that. So the question is:

2) Now what? & why?

What can we do. And let's be real about it. If you offer a solution, why do you think that should be the course of action

What we do now is allow the military to act like a military. The only army that should be concerned with doing charitable works is the Salvation Army. Have our armed forces clear an area thouroughly. Then let the Peace Corp, or whatever the equivalent is today, handle distributing food, teaching school, and other things of that nature.
On FNC this weekend, they were showing some of the positives that came out of the war so far, and one image was particularly striking in my view. They had video of our soldiers handing out knapsacks full of school supplies to Iraqi students. It was a sweet sentiment, but the wrong people were doing it.
I think the efforts in Iraq would be easier to sell to people if the military part was treated as a separate entity from the rebuilding. I am not trying to bait anyone here specifically, but there are certain mindsets that would see the tape of the soldiers helping the children, and not be able to see anything except an army uniform. If the two aspects of our being there were kept separate, then people who were opposed to the war on genuine concern for people's well being, such as being a pacifist, they could still help and support the rebuilding without compromising their principles about the military.

Apologies if this is somewhat off-topic in that it's not about Iraq, but it's certainly germane to a political thread.

Given recent conversations about how each "side" of the political dialogue should try and reach out to opposing viewpoints and have honest discussion, I thought the editorial below was informative. Assuming the event in Kalamazoo being described is being reported honestly (and I've no reason to believe otherwise), I hope I'm not the only one who finds this a bit unsettling.

http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=6228

TWL

"Without sounding more worse than the truth is, this question would probably be better asked to the families of the hundreds of thousands of bodies found in the mass graves in Iraq. This alone should throw Saddam into the class of a WMD all by himself."

Funny thing- Bush's has killed more Iraqi civilians per month that Hussein did per month as leader of Iraq. Does that make Bush a WMD?

"No offense, but screw them."

I can't begin to comprehend who'd come up with such a stupid statement. You don't want to offend the rest of the world, but you want to screw them?

Yes, they want our money. But we also want THEIR money, and their resources. It's a global economy, and you can't go around pissing off your trading partners, no matter how much more "manly" it makes you feel. Get a clue.

The fact that Clinton didn't do anything about it just shows another major flaw during his watch. And I'll ask again, as I did on other topics here. Please name a company other than Haliburton that has the resources and experience to do the oil work in Iraq. Also, if this is a 'war-for-oil', like many here were proclaiming, why are gas prices up to almost $2.00 a gallon nationwide?
====
Actually, Clinton's "bomb away" program destroyed whatever was left of Hussein's WMD program. That's why we haven't found any- Clinton destroyed them all. Probably between sessions with Monica too.

As for Haliburton, even the Wall Street Journal (just last week!) has written about what a terrible, expensive job they've done overseas.

Why are gas prices so high? SUV's. Demand is dramatically higher than it was before the SUV boom, so gas prices rise as a result. I never said the oil companies want to sell cheap gas; they just want to get to those lush Middle East oil pumps.

Misspelling "fourth" was a mistake. Using "Fifth" was quoting, I think, Glenn Beck (might have been Shannon Burke). I thought it was a clever use. Sorry I didn't attribute it.

The Military didn't do it, soldiers in the military did, against the rules. The Military is dealing with it. While the decapitation is just par for the course, that they used Berg was in direct relation to the revelation that was unnecessary at this time.

Also, let me clarify that I want the press to voluntarily keep certain things underwraps for the time being, not that someone else should do it for them. An adoption of ethics that was common in WWI and II.

Finally, "if it bleeds it leads" IS true. How many stories have you seen on the positive developments in Iraq? A few? Isn't that news, too? With it's significant absence, you don't have balanced reporting.

I firmly believe that if the military has U.S. support behind them, they will work better, faster and more effectively. Never underestimate morale as a significant force. I've heard from several soldiers and contractors that they are mystified and demoralized by the lack of reporting what they are really accomplishing.

That some prisoners were abused and some were tortured is horrible and unexcusable, but it is a small fraction of what's going on over there, yet it dominates the news. That's just wrong.

Last rebuttal to you, Jeff, and then I think I'm done with this thread:
"Finally for all that want to complain and gripe about the government, please feel free to continue. But remember, if the War On Terror is lost, you'll probably the the first to go under the new regime. From all I've heard, they don't take kindly to dissidents. Just food for thought."

See, here I fully agree with you. I will continue to complain and gripe about a government that ain't getting the job done. And if we lose the War on Terror, I'll probably get killed. That's WHY I'm complaining. I WANT to see the end of terrorists in this world. My problem isn't the mission, it's the plan and the execution. Both of those were conceived and executed by the Bush administration, to less-than-spectacular results.

Hey, if you don't complain about the War on Terror, and we lose, I don't think the new regime is going to go, "Hey! This guy didn't complain! Let's keep him around!" We're both screwed if we lose.

"No offense, but screw them."

Ray:

>I can't begin to comprehend who'd come up with such a stupid statement. You don't want to offend the rest of the world, but you want to screw them?

Now that is one overwhelming libido, but can you blame him? Imagine the cost of flowers or follow-up phone calls alone.

In regard to Haliburton:
How do we know another company couldn't do the job? Did anyone else get the opportunity to bid? There are so many companies out there that also have experience. The contract went where it went because of Cheney. No fair practices, no looking to see if anyone else could do it, just let's give it to the people he used to work with. Anyone who thinks they got this job fair and square is deluding themselves.

"Well, I meant unfortunately for the credibility of The Boston Globe and the pinhead politician. Of course. That's what the opening line ("Speaking of responsible media") was all about."

Okay, fair enough.

Me, I'm still thinking about the Nazi werewolves, whether guerillas or gorillas. There's just GOT to be a story in there somewhere.

PAD

Blackjack wrote: On FNC this weekend, they were showing some of the positives that came out of the war so far, and one image was particularly striking in my view. They had video of our soldiers handing out knapsacks full of school supplies to Iraqi students. It was a sweet sentiment, but the wrong people were doing it."

I totally disagree. Humanitarian relief has ALWAYS been a large part of the Post-World War II U.S. military mission. At every base I was ever assigned to, there were hundreds of official and unofficial efforts to help those in the surrounding community and elsewhere. As a matter of fact, I could easily write an enormous book about the military-sponsored volunteer efforts I've personally participated in or observed. I've pulled tires and junk from rivers on Earth Day; cleared overgrowth from a historic, but abandoned 19th-Century cemetery; cleaned highways as part of a unit-sponsored "adopt-a-highway" program; helped during several base-hosted Special Olympics; collected toys, food and clothes for the disadvantaged; donated books to school libraries; helped build a home for the "Habitat for Humanity" program; and who knows what else. And most of what I've listed, though organized by military units or volunteers, is just the stuff done off-duty! And to be honest, my contributions are NOTHING compared to what I've observed many, many other military people do.

On the official side of the equation, I've observed many humanitarian and disaster relief missions during the 20 years I spent in the military. For example, when I was stationed at Dover AFB, it seemed like the Air Force was always flying generators here, food there, and doctors and medical supplies somewhere else.

The same goes for disaster relief, both at home or abroad. The military is almost always involved during the aftermath of tornados, floods, earthquakes, etc.

Which is why, when I read stories about U.S. military people building schools, "adopting" schools and orphanages, providing medical care, and working on community projects for the locals populace in Iraq, it doesn't even register anymore in my mind because it's something "we always do" -- it's normal ops, in military lingo.

To say the military is ill-equipped to handle such chores is to not really understand what your military's mission is all about.

Russ Maheras

"Misspelling "fourth" was a mistake. Using "Fifth" was quoting, I think, Glenn Beck (might have been Shannon Burke). I thought it was a clever use. Sorry I didn't attribute it."

I wasn't busting on you about spelling it wrong; I just chose to spell it correctly. I don't know who either Glenn Beck or Shannon Burke are, but if they said "Fifth Estate," they got it wrong, too. And yes, if you don't want people to think you're getting it wrong as well, then you would have been well advised to say, "...or, as so-and-so-calls it, the Fifth Estate."

"The Military didn't do it, soldiers in the military did, against the rules. The Military is dealing with it. While the decapitation is just par for the course, that they used Berg was in direct relation to the revelation that was unnecessary at this time."

Trying to distinguish the military from soldiers in the military is ridiculous. Furthermore, for those willing to swallow the notion that the travesties at the prison camp were the actions of a few independently-operating soldiers--and that their superiors are shocked, SHOCKED, to learn that torture is going on in here--I will remind you that conservative thinking dictated Watergate was merely a third rate burglary perpetrated by independent operators. That was before the free press dug and dug and found out just how high up the chain of command it went. Mark my words: This is Torturegate. The press is doing what they're supposed to do: Search for the truth. And conservatives are doing what they're supposed to do: Blame the free press. It's nice to know that everyone has still got their assigned role down.

"Also, let me clarify that I want the press to voluntarily keep certain things underwraps for the time being, not that someone else should do it for them. An adoption of ethics that was common in WWI and II."

It was a different time. The development of television has made the world smaller and more intimate, and secrets are simply harder to hide. The vast majority of this country had absolutely no clue that FDR, for the latter half of his term, was in a wheelchair. It has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with the development of the news media as the TV camera reveals that which reporters with pen and paper did not or could not.

"Finally, "if it bleeds it leads" IS true. How many stories have you seen on the positive developments in Iraq? A few? Isn't that news, too? With it's significant absence, you don't have balanced reporting."

I never said it wasn't true. What I was responding to was the assertion that liberals don't *want* to see positive stories because it would interfere with their agenda. As for reporting, personally I think you have zero clue as to what "balanced reporting" means. Balanced reporting doesn't mean that for every story about bad things there's also a story about good things. Otherwise for every story about a man being murdered in New York, you'd need to present a story pointing up the millions of men who weren't murdered that day. Balanced reporting means that when you write an article, you try to quote people from all sides of any conflict so that the story is presented in an even-handed manner. That's it. That's all. Any other requirements are handed down by complaining readers who are upset, not because they really think that NO political agenda should be served, but because they think THEIR political agenda ISN'T being served.

PAD

Russ M:

>I totally disagree. Humanitarian relief has ALWAYS been a large part of the Post-World War II U.S. military mission.

*snip*

>To say the military is ill-equipped to handle such chores is to not really understand what your military's mission is all about.

Russ,

While I believe that this should be a focus, I think that this quote and its context succinctly sum up the skill and insight of our military leaders in this "crusade":

“Change the channel”
- Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops.
[NYT 12th April 2004]

The Military didn't do it, soldiers in the military did, against the rules.

Sorry, but this is just not a well informed statement.

Yes, the individual soldiers did it and deserve the main responsibility blame. But organizationally, the military deserves blame for dumping this duty on untrained soldiers (reservists, for heaven's sakes!), giving them unclear instructions and giving them no support or supervision. And it's not like they didn't know it could happen...traning and supervision are put in place specifically to prevent prisoner abuse.

And the administration deserves some scorching for ignoring reports of this abuse...the Red Cross has been trying to talk to the US on abuses for the better part of a year.

As an aside, Roger, reservists are not untrained soldiers. Reservists go through the same training as the active duty military and almost all have been active duty before becoming a reservist.

Posted by: Ray Cornwall:
"No offense, but screw them."

"I can't begin to comprehend who'd come up with such a stupid statement. You don't want to offend the rest of the world, but you want to screw them?

Yes, they want our money. But we also want THEIR money, and their resources. It's a global economy, and you can't go around pissing off your trading partners, no matter how much more "manly" it makes you feel. Get a clue."

Here's your clue. The phrase 'screw them' is a euphamism that can mean ignore/disregard them. The US doesn't have to bend over foreward because France or any other country says so. In reverse, they don't have to do the same if the US says so. It is a global economy, and there are other places to go for goods and sales. If I walk into Sears to buy a hammer, and the sales clerk makes rude remarks, I can always tell the clerk "screw you", leave and go to Home Depot. This doesn't mean that I want to have body parts touching in intimate ways.

As an aside, Roger, reservists are not untrained soldiers. Reservists go through the same training as the active duty military and almost all have been active duty before becoming a reservist.

Sorry...I wasn't clear here. I meant training at guarding and interrogating prisoners. And I think untrained personnel have no business participating in interrogation procedures.

Roger wrote: "Yes, the individual soldiers did it and deserve the main responsibility blame. But organizationally, the military deserves blame for dumping this duty on untrained soldiers (reservists, for heaven's sakes!), giving them unclear instructions and giving them no support or supervision. And it's not like they didn't know it could happen...traning and supervision are put in place specifically to prevent prisoner abuse."

Oh, man, are YOU misinformed about today's reservists! Reservists are typically older and more experienced than many active duty troops. In addition, many reservists who are military security police/security forces have collateral jobs as police officers in their civilian lives. As a matter of fact, I believe I read that two of the soldiers up for abuse charges in Iraq had full-time prison guard jobs as civilians back in the United States. One soldier was a civilian guard in a maximum security prison, and the other was a civilian guard in a medium security prison.

The bottom line, there was absolutely no excuse for such behavior even at the lowest level, in my opinion.

Russ Maheras

Further, the chain of command is supposed to be held responsible to the actions of the soldiers under its command. When I was at HQ SAC in the USAF, anything I did or said on duty reflected immediately on TSgt Mathews (NCOIC of my section), Maj. Kinsey (my OIC), Col. Trent (my unit CO), and Gen. Chain (the CINCSAC). If anyone had a problem with the way I comported myself on duty, they would take it up with TSgt Mathews; if she could not satisfy them, the complaint would go up to Maj. Kinsey, and include TSgt Mathews as well; and so on. If it got as far as the Colonel (or, God forbid, the CINCSAC), everybody between him and me was in deep trouble - for not keeping me in line.

Those soldiers at Abu Ghraib had superiors, who were supposed to be keeping an eye on things. Either those superiors failed at their assigned tasking, or they actually did issue the illegal orders the soldiers are citing. Either way, they should be removed from the assignment; if the latter case, courts-martial are in order.

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in...

Jeff:

"Here's your clue. The phrase 'screw them' is a euphamism that can mean ignore/disregard them. The US doesn't have to bend over foreward because France or any other country says so. In reverse, they don't have to do the same if the US says so. It is a global economy, and there are other places to go for goods and sales. If I walk into Sears to buy a hammer, and the sales clerk makes rude remarks, I can always tell the clerk "screw you", leave and go to Home Depot. This doesn't mean that I want to have body parts touching in intimate ways."

Y'know, I actually did know you meant "ignore/disregard" as oppose to "have conjugal relations with". And I still think it's an asinine, immature viewpoint. If you buy a hammer somewhere else, no one really cares. But if one or more countries decide to do business elsewhere, BAD things happen. Look at the Pennsylvania milk market, which increased milk prices over 25% as a result of Japan's fears that our cattle are infected with mad cow disease, despite the lack of a full-blown outbreak. Heck, remember gas prices in the 70s as a result of the oil embargo?

How many examples do I have to site before you realize that pissing off a trade partner hurts a lot of people, maybe even you? We might be the most powerful nation on earth, but we are not an island, nor can we afford isolationist policies or pigheaded arrogance towards our neighbors on the planet.

Not to mention the trade imbalance. We already owe quite a bit to other nations because we buy so much more than we sell to them. If China or Japan stop bailing us out, then you'll see what a depression looks like.

"Me, I'm still thinking about the Nazi werewolves, whether guerillas or gorillas. There's just GOT to be a story in there somewhere."

Well, I'm glad to hear that because I agree. One of my projects this summer is to try to hammer out a low budget script for a horror movie that would tie together the werewolf squads with the Viking Berserkers and set it in (all together now) a small Southern town.

Incidentally, there's some debate over how effective the werewolves were. Not very, it would seem (they did assassinate a few big targets) but they were highly feared and probably helped to make the eventual division of Germany inevitable

Oh, man, are YOU misinformed about today's reservists! Reservists are typically older and more experienced than many active duty troops. In addition, many reservists who are military security police/security forces have collateral jobs as police officers in their civilian lives. As a matter of fact, I believe I read that two of the soldiers up for abuse charges in Iraq had full-time prison guard jobs as civilians back in the United States. One soldier was a civilian guard in a maximum security prison, and the other was a civilian guard in a medium security prison.

OK...I thought I read that the guards were not trained in detention duy. My mistake.

On the other hand, I still think there are chain of command problems and lack of supervision questions. And that SHOULD be laid at the feet of the military...that's why there is a chain of command, isn't it?

Roger wrote: "On the other hand, I still think there are chain of command problems and lack of supervision questions. And that SHOULD be laid at the feet of the military...that's why there is a chain of command, isn't it?"

True, but it really depends on what problem we are talking about. If it is a abberrant behavioral issue, like this prison abuse problem seems to be thus far, the company commander -- perhaps even up to the division level -- are really as far as you can realistically go with the blame. Someone at those levels should have had first-hand knowledge of the conditions at the prison. At higher headquarters levels, leadership generally asks for reports and other indirect updates of a given operation -- often distilled for brevity's sake -- trusting the integrity of his/her commanders at the lower levels. The Army does not teach, nor condone at an institutional level, much of the behavior -- particularly the most bizarre stuff. What senior commander would even think to ask, "Oh, yeah, today I have to make a note to ask Maj. Bagodonuts if his prison guards are raping and torturing prisoners." With the reams and reams of operational information being digested at the higher levels, particularly with fighting still going on, such micromanaging would not be the norm.

Of course, it will be now, and it will no doubt negatively impact the war effort in ways far-removed from the current public perception issues.

Based on the information I've seen thus far, the lower-level troops let their bosses down, and instead of pointing fingers, they should take responsibility for their actions.

But it's still early on in the investigation, so we'll have to wait and see where this whole thing leads.

Russ Maheras

Jeff:

>The phrase 'screw them' is a euphamism that can mean ignore/disregard them. The US doesn't have to bend over foreward because France or any other country says so. In reverse, they don't have to do the same if the US says so. It is a global economy, and there are other places to go for goods and sales. If I walk into Sears to buy a hammer, and the sales clerk makes rude remarks, I can always tell the clerk "screw you", leave and go to Home Depot. This doesn't mean that I want to have body parts touching in intimate ways.

I never saw nor see it as a point of "having to do" anything that another country or countries tell a nation to, but there is a middle ground between that and completely ignoring their input, alietnating them, and not at least hearing them out. In our current situation, no pause or consideration was given, even after the majority of nations came down on the other side of our president's viewpoint. Not changing his stance, wasn't my concern, it was not bothering to acknowledge any of the many points being made by the rest of the world.

i hear a lot of you say that if Bush wins or if the draft is re instated you will move to Canada. Why Canada. It's freakin' cold up there & a heck of a lot more expensive. I say if you all want to move that bad try Mexico. For $20 you can buy 80 houses & the weather is a lot nicer too.

Joe

Good point Joe. And I know a little Spanish and almost no French. I live in Washington State so it would be a heckuva lot easier to go north. :)

1) The tortured Iraqis were never verified as "soldiers, a lot of them are innocent people swept up in mass arrests.

2) Berg was not decapitated by an Iraqi.

3) The war without rules began in Sept 2001, when the Bush admin allowed the US to be attacked to wage a series of wars to control the last remaining reserves of cheap oil.
http://www.rise4news.net/Ruppert59.ram

Most of the comments here have been interesting reading. Agree with them or not, most people expresssed opinions that showed some thought.

Then I get to Horace. Horace shows no evidence of being a person with whom one can have a reasonable discussion. However, against my better judgement, I'm going to reply to his statements.

Horace, you state that the tortured Iraqis were not soldiers, but innocent civilians swept up in mass arrests. I'd like to know the source of your knowledge of this. Could you please point me to some evidence of the innocence of these individuals?

You state that the person who beheaded Mr. Berg was not an Iraqi. If the person who did the beheading was who the CIA believes, then you are right. However, since these murderers were masked, it's difficult to say for certain who is who. Assuming you are right, however, what's your point? Is murder not murder simply because the killer was not an Iraqi?

Your third statement has me totally perplexed. If you insisted the Earth is flat I couldn't be more uncertain of where to begin. I think I see your premise--the Bush administration knew about the Sept. 11 attacks in advance and used that as an excuse to gain control of the world's oil supply. (That's worked out well hasn't it, with oil passing $40 a barrel). I'm very interested in your evidence to back up this very strong and very extreme view. Please point me to evidence of this horrible conspiracy?

Horace, if you are going to express such extreme viewpoints, please do us the favor of backing them up with evidence. Otherwise it's difficult for other people who have taken the time to examine situations and evidence to take you seriously.

But Peter, we shouldn't nuke Iraq because we don't have to. We have enough conventional bombs to do the job without making Iraqi's into night lights.
Putting aside whether or not we should have gone over to Iraq, once we did, "Shock and Awe" should have been what the Pentagon hyped it as: Carpet Bombing. (yes, they didn't copme out and say it, but they hinted at it.) Instead, while the quantity of bombs used were more than that of Desert Storm, they were used in a small quantity at a time. They basically overhyped it and then when people complained they rolled out the, "This is not a movie/video game" excuse.
Yes, I know it was to scare the Republican Guard into surrendering and yes, I know that they wanted reduce civilan casualties, but the reason why the militants are having a field day is because they heard what shock and awe was going to be and they think we wimped out. (That and we're part or puppets of the Zionist conspiracy, and we're devils, and all the other reasons they use.) But I think it's time that we stop acting half-assed and show the Militants that America will not tolerate our soldiers being killed.

A nice start would be cutting of the black market's supply lines and such...

Charles F. Waldo

Posted by Fred Chamberlain:
"I never saw nor see it as a point of "having to do" anything that another country or countries tell a nation to, but there is a middle ground between that and completely ignoring their input, alietnating them, and not at least hearing them out. In our current situation, no pause or consideration was given, even after the majority of nations came down on the other side of our president's viewpoint. Not changing his stance, wasn't my concern, it was not bothering to acknowledge any of the many points being made by the rest of the world."

No pause or consideration? There was about a year of debate and hand wringing at the UN AFTER they approved force to enforce their own resolutions. Then they voted and changed their mind when they saw that the US was actually serious about following thru on it.

Don't forget the UN voted for it, before they voted against it. Why is that sounding familiar...?

PAD,
I'm glad you enjoyed the "positive" stories in Iraq. I wish there were more of them reported as well, which is precisely my point. How many stories have the network carried on the kurds, who have had our back in Iraq and are perhaps our strongest allies there? Again, it just seems the negative in interpreted as "truth", while the positive would be viewed by many of those same people as "propaganda".
In regards to my alleged "smearing", I just have to say a few things, because the accusation genuinely hurts my feelings.
First, I never accused someone directly of being un-American. Trust me, I'VE been called un-American by the "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out" crowd. criticism from such people really doesn't bother me however, because they obviously have a limited worldview and so I consider the source.
What I was stating was that it seems a lot of people seem to hold us not to an equal standard with those we are at war with, but a far GREATER standard. In that case, I do feel there is a bit of bias.
Or to real world example, there is nothing more annoying than a mother who thinks her child can do no wrong. But it is absolutely horrifying to find a mother who feels her child can do no right.
Also, you don't exactly act in a genteel manner at all times yourself. If I recall, you even admitted in your last thread (Bush v. Kerry)that supporters of Bush were probably insulted by your implication we like him because we're afraid of picking the smartest guy in the class. And then justified it by saying you've never met a sensitive neo-conservative, or something like that. I'm paraphrasing, so please forgive me if you don't feel i'm conveying your feelings in an exact manner.
Finally, why do you constantly highlight the things I say that piss you off or hit you the wrong way? I gave you plenty of ideas on how to push your "Fallen Angel" sales up, and yet you never responded. I even offered to interview you and try to get your book in libraries. Not even a "Sorry, I don't think the ideas are workable, but I appreciate the effort" or something like that. Buy you found time to rebut someone you felt was calling you dishonest and tell a retailer who you felt was "cherry-picking" that he was "behaving like an ass".
And in regard to threads like this, I have yet to have you reply to one of my posts by saying something like, "I understand what you're trying to say, but I disagree with it, and here's why.."
It's like you find nothing of value in anything I say, regardless of the thread, and I am at a failure to understand why.
Thank you.

Duane,

you are right on the money about Horace. Those were just rants.

What I was stating was that it seems a lot of people seem to hold us not to an equal standard with those we are at war with, but a far GREATER standard

Damn straight. And that's not bias.

If the claim underlying American actions -- in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam (your favorite), Grenada, Panama, Kosovo, etc. -- is that we possess the moral authority to right a wrong (i.e. topple another nation's government, however dictatorial and rotten it may be), then we had bloody well better act in a more moral fashion. We can't go in claiming we can help because "we're better than the barbarians" and then start acting like them ourselves.

So yes, I absolutely hold America to a higher standard. I consider that part and parcel of respect for one's country, and frankly consider it a far more patriotic stance than the ludicrous "my country, right or wrong" credo that gets bandied about.

TWL

Tim Lynch,

I don't agree w/ a lot of what you say sometimes but the above statement is right on 100% correct. I'm a republican conservative & I'm telling you bud you are right on in that comment. As the saying goes, you hit the nail on the head.

Regardles of what those animals do, we must be at a different standard, otherwise, we are no different then the enemy. We are at war, fine, but we are not terrorists & shouldn't behave like them.

Joe

Jerome wrote:

**I'm glad you enjoyed the "positive" stories in Iraq. I wish there were more of them reported as well, which is precisely my point. How many stories have the network carried on the kurds, who have had our back in Iraq and are perhaps our strongest allies there? Again, it just seems the negative in interpreted as "truth", while the positive would be viewed by many of those same people as "propaganda".**

Thing is, the Kurds supporting us really isn't news. It's an element of the situation, sure, but it's not news.

Why?

The best way I can explain it is to cite the title of a good book on journalism by Pete Hamill: "News is a Verb."

If the Kurds backed us before the war, and they back us now, it's not news. Nothing happened. If something changes -- THEN it's news.

If the Kurds pull their support,that would be news. If France decides it's joining the coalition, that would be news too. News is change. Same as it ever was is a Talking Heads lyric, not a headline.

The reason we get so much bad news abotu Iraq is not because evreything happening there is bad, but because things are changing for the worse. If they were staying at the same level of bad (as they were for a while), something else would dominate the news (Nipplegate, anyone?).

But until things turn around or stabilize, most of the news you hear will be bad. The good things happening there haven't changed. When we finally restore the electricity (the target date's been pushed back again), that will be news, and it will be good.

But don't blame the news media. Blame the news makers.

Rob

Horace, you state that the tortured Iraqis were not soldiers, but innocent civilians swept up in mass arrests. I'd like to know the source of your knowledge of this. Could you please point me to some evidence of the innocence of these individuals?

I think Horace is confusing the Red Cross report (which did indeed report that up to 90% of those arrested in the months after the fall of Baghdad were there by mistake) with the current situation, first reported upon in America by Seymour Hersch. I think many of these mistaken arrestees were released. And a lot of this is, I think unavoidable, given the chaos of a post-fall country.

On the other hand, the Red Cross has been complaining about prisoner mistreatment in SEVERAL sites, not just the one where we've heard so much about. And they've been complaining for the better part of a year. And the administration has been unresponsive for all that time.

I think there should be thorough, public investigations of ALL these allegations, not only to address the moral issue (and make no mistake....it is going to take a LONG time to regain that in the eyes of the world), but for internal morale's sake.

Thanks, Joe. Much appreciated.

TWL

So now that MSNBC is linking military intelligence to the torture prison, is anyone really surprised?

Dear Lord, I'm finding myself agreeing with TWL twice within a week. Maybe it really is "the end times."

America absolutely is held to a higher standard, and rightfully so. I do disagree with TWL's dismissal of the "my country right or wrong" catchphrase. I will support my country in any scenario, and I hope TWL's threats to move to Canada are empty bluster. But the origin of "my country right or wrong" was actually a toast given by Stephen Decatur, which in context was, "may she always be in the right, but my country right or wrong." The American republic is (in my mind anyway) the greatest human achievement since the printing press. It's our responsibility as citizens to ensure that the nation is in the right as often as possible.

What bugs the life out of me is that liberals don't give conservatives enough credit for believing this. I truly believe you guys are standing up for what you believe is right. So are we. Reasonable people can disagree on policy issues, but instead of recognizing that, Karen suggests Bush is going to hell, Garafalo (quoted previously on this blog) equates support for Bush with a character flaw, and Kerry calls us crooked. Y'all (can you tell I live in the South?) are getting to be worse than Limbaugh, whom you claim to despise. Get over it and show some respect.

David:

>What bugs the life out of me is that liberals don't give conservatives enough credit for believing this. I truly believe you guys are standing up for what you believe is right. So are we. Reasonable people can disagree on policy issues, but instead of recognizing that, Karen suggests Bush is going to hell, Garafalo (quoted previously on this blog) equates support for Bush with a character flaw, and Kerry calls us crooked. Y'all (can you tell I live in the South?) are getting to be worse than Limbaugh, whom you claim to despise. Get over it and show some respect.

What really bugs me is when a member of one group generalizes behaviors and mindsets onto everyone in another. I agree with Tim as well.

(quote)Y'all (can you tell I live in the South?) are getting to be worse than Limbaugh, whom you claim to despise. Get over it and show some respect.(unquote)

One outcome of co-opting the methodology of the 'other side' is that it can point out how flawed that methdology is.

If Limbaughesque techniques and terminology are so egregious, disrespectful and distasteful and raise such hackles when used by 'liberals,' is it not equally as egregious, disrespectful and distasteful when used by, well, Limbaugh?

As for supporting one's country -- the distinction needs to be made that one can support one's country while not supporting its policy or its leaders.

"To say the military is ill-equipped to handle such chores is to not really understand what your military's mission is all about."

Russ Maheras

After I doubled back to look at my post, I realized that I overstated what I meant. I don't mean that the military is incapable of humanitarian works, or even that they should never do them. What I was aiming for, and obviously missed, was that while there is still fighting going on, that is what they should be focusing on. They should not have to let their guard down to help civilians when there is still an active threat.

Tim,

Let me reiterate Joe's support of your statement. If we are the last remaining superpower, then we better damn well act like it. The prison scandal is a major embarrassment to the US, because it's not what we stand for and the world knows it. They have a right to hold our feet to the fire over this one. I keep asking myself why we shouldn't turn some of the local commanders over to the Iraqis for trial.

"I keep asking myself why we shouldn't turn some of the local commanders over to the Iraqis for trial."

Because, to quote Heinlein, "A man should be able to shoot his own dog."

It was our servicemen who committed these crimes. We should try them, with media present, convict the guilty, and punish the convicted - and not with mere discharges, dishonorable or otherwise. Those responsible should be looking at a few years in Leavenworth, making little ones out of big ones. We should show the world, rather than just telling them, that we hold ourselves to a higher standard than, say, al-Qaeda operatives, who will slowly behead an innocent bystander, do.

"What bugs the life out of me is that liberals don't give conservatives enough credit for believing this. I truly believe you guys are standing up for what you believe is right. So are we. Reasonable people can disagree on policy issues, but instead of recognizing that, Karen suggests Bush is going to hell, Garafalo (quoted previously on this blog) equates support for Bush with a character flaw, and Kerry calls us crooked. Y'all (can you tell I live in the South?) are getting to be worse than Limbaugh, whom you claim to despise. Get over it and show some respect."

I try hard not to lump all conservatives together. Picking on Rush & company is one thing, because I do think there's a "hive mind" mentality when you hit national political commentary. But when we're on a message board like this, it makes more sense to focus on your words and viewpoints rather than your affiliation.

Rest assured, if I criticize you on this board, it's not because you're a conservative. It's because you're wrong. :) Heck, if you're a liberal, and I think you're wrong, I'll tell you.

As for respect, well, I'll respect you if you buy Fallen Angel. I mean, this IS Peter's board...

David Bjorlin:
I do disagree with TWL's dismissal of the "my country right or wrong" catchphrase. I will support my country in any scenario, and I hope TWL's threats to move to Canada are empty bluster.

The problem with saying "I will support my country in any scenario", though, is that it essentially gives said country a free pass to do whatever it wants knowing it has your support.

To use a no-doubt-shockingly-inappropriate analogy, it's rather like people who will watch anything and read anything with the Star Trek name on it because "it's ... it's ... it's Trek!" When they buy every single novel, regardless of whether it's written by someone wonderful (say, PAD) or someone ghastly (say, Diane Carey -- apologies to those who like her work), and when they watch everything up to and including things like Voyager's "Threshold", they are sending the message that the only thing that matters is the name. Quality is not an issue for them, and as such there's no pressure to excel.

Now, obviously, national allegiance is a lot more deeply rooted than any given fandom -- at least, I hope so. When one pledges support regardless of actions, however, it's essentially endorsing blind loyalty rather than holding them to an actual standard of policy or behavior.

David, I suspect you agree with most of that and mean something slightly different by the phrase than I'm seeing -- but regardless, I think any sort of oath of blind allegiance is well and truly dangerous. Change happens through skepticism and testability, not lockstep agreement.

In terms of "conservatives want America in the right just as much as liberals do," I certainly believe that in general. I don't think anyone is likely to say that, for example, John McCain doesn't care deeply about what happens to this country -- or, as a different example, Barry Goldwater.

None of the three people you cited were referring to conservatives in general, which is why it's such a pity you decided to tar all liberals equally. All three of them were referring very specifically to the Bush administration or a subset thereof -- and frankly, where most of them are concerned I tend to agree with the sentiments you so disliked (okay, apart from the "hell" part, being an atheist and all). Sorry if that disturbs you.

TWL

Just adding my two cents, I agree that the United States does need to be held to a higher standard. Not only because we're the sole remaining super power, but also-- and more importantly-- because we present ourselves as having the ideal form of government, one of the people, by the people and for the people. We don't always live up to our own ideals, and when we fall short of them, we should make every effort to correct that. If present ourselves as a model to the world, then we should make every effort to present ourselves in the best possible light.

In the prisoner abuse/torture scandal, that means we punish the individual soldiers involved, as well as those in a position of command who either authorized such actions or, through inaction, let them happen. I also think that someone high up at the Pentagon should be fired, either Rumsfeld or a high-ranking officer. Why? Because we need to send a message that such behavior will absolutely not be tolerated, and that when it happens, we do not simply give a slap on the wrist to the individual soldiers involved, then sweep it under the rug.

On the one hand, it tells the military brass that such actions as the torture of the Iraqi prisoners will lead to repercussions far up the chain of comand; and, on the other hand, making an example of a high ranking official sends a message to the world that we are serious about not tolerating abusive behavior by members of our military.

Yes, there will always be those who will hate us no matter what we do, and would have hated us even if we'd never done any wrong to anyone for any reason. But if the punishment for the prisoner abuse is essentially a slap on the wrist, it just gives more people a legitimate reason to hate us. In the long run, it will hurt us to incur increased enmity against us.

As to "My Country, right or wrong", a quick google seached turned up three different contexts to that statement.
At this site:

http://www.summitlake.com/COMMENTARY/RightOrWrong.html?reload_coolmenus

We have:
"Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right, but our country, right or wrong."

Stephen Decatur, April 1816

And

"I can never join with my voice in the toast which I see in the papers attributed to one of our gallant naval heroes. I cannot ask of heaven success, even for my country, in a cause where she should be in the wrong. Fiat justitia, pereat coelum ["Let justice be done though heaven should fall" - anonymous, circa 43 B.C.]. My toast would be, may our country always be successful, but whether successful or otherwise, always right."

John Quincy Adams, August 1, 1816

and then, at this site:

http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/jun02/voice.htm

we again have the Decatur quote, followed by this:

"Fifty-five years later, Carl Schurz, German-born U.S. general and U.S. senator, clarified the concept, "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right." British author, G. K. Chesterton would probably have agreed with Schurz, since he wrote in 1901, "'My country, right or wrong' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'"

Personally, I think Schurz and Chesterton said it best. If your country is right, then that's great, but if your country is wrong, isn't it best to change whatever that wrong is and put things to rights? Why would anyone want their country to be wrong or to do wrong?

In some cases, what is right and what is wrong is a matter of opinion and political point of view. Bush has done wrong? Put things right by voting him out of office. Bush has done right? Vote to keep him in office for a second term.

But in other cases, such as the Trail of Tears, slavery, and the forced interment of Japanese-American citizens, there is no doubt that a wrong has been committed. The abuse of those prisoners in Iraq crossed the line. It was wrong. That wrong needs to be put right.

Rick

That should be "internment" I knew something about that word looked wrong.

Rick

What happens to an empire when it becomes to powerfull and arrogant? It seems to me that we have come to a turning point and I hope to God we can turn back.

Of course you can never take back the things you have done wrong, but you can be truly sorry for what you have done and try to make amends and ratify a situation you have created.

The big problem that we have, at least what I think, is that too many people, especially those in power, do not see that we have done any wrong. And what's worse, how do you convince someone that what they are doing is wrong when they are wholeheartedly convinced that they do right?

In my opinion, torturing those people was very wrong. Those responsible should be publically punished. How else are you going to show the world, and more importantly ourselves, that we truely understand how horrible these actions were?

I don't want to be part of something where atrocities breed more atrocities. Why can't we try to end the cycle?

I worry every day now. Not just for the U.S. but for everyone around the world. There are innocent people everywhere even in Iraq. I cannot condone or even begin to understand the necessity of bombing a whole culture, because we think our culture is right.

We are a country founded on the right to decide our own fates. Who are we to decide anothers fate?

When I look to the future I don't want to see blood. We have come so far in this world, isn't there another way?

In the end everyone will have to answer for their actions. It's silly to think that we as a country won't. Let's try to fix what we've done wrong so no one tries to fix it for us. Let's do what's right instead of doing what's comfortable and easy. Let's take the hard path because you can feel better about youself at the end.

By all that's holy, I want to feel good about our decisions as a country. I want to lay my head down on my pillow at night content, knowing that we've done some good.

And just maybe if we take responsiblity for our actions, other people will as well. Lead by example,not by force.

And for God's sake, VOTE.

Blackjack wrote: "After I doubled back to look at my post, I realized that I overstated what I meant. I don't mean that the military is incapable of humanitarian works, or even that they should never do them. What I was aiming for, and obviously missed, was that while there is still fighting going on, that is what they should be focusing on. They should not have to let their guard down to help civilians when there is still an active threat."

All areas of Iraq are not the same. Some places have few insurgent problems, and the military folks, while still exercising due diligence, are reaching out to those Iraqis who are receptive. This definitely has its risks, but it is critical to do so if we want to show the Iraqis the positive side of America. You don't win friends by hunkering down in a bunker somewhere. It takes face time, and action -- not words.

By the way, based on what I know about the Air Force mentality, these reach-out efforts are probably originating at the unit level.

The URLs below are some Air Force-related humanitarian stories, written in just the past week, showing how this service interacts with people around the world. You'll probably never read any of these stories in your local newspaper, because no one died, no one was maimed, and the stories don't feature pictures of anguished, teary-eyed people spattered with blood.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007716
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007689
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007703
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007679
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007713
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007683

Some of you may look at these stories as "propaganda" because they were written by Air Force journalists. But keep in mind that the stories are actually written for an internal military audience who reads the base newspaper. This group is much more "in the know" about such ongoing activities than the average civilian, and can be a much tougher audience.

Regardless of your point of view, keep in mind these are real events, real people, and that the military journalists covering these events are taught to follow the same ethics and protocols when covering a story as, say, a journalist with the Miami Herald. I know, because I WAS a military journalist.

Russ Maheras

Tim Lynch said:

"The problem with saying "I will support my country in any scenario", though, is that it essentially gives said country a free pass to do whatever it wants knowing it has your support."

OH MY GOD!!!! TIM, I AGREE WITH YOU AGAIN.

In all seriousness, we the people do need to criticize wrong doings. If we commit a wrong doing, then we as a nation need to own up to it, admit it & rectify the mistake, same as with anyone.

I support our troops in Iraq for the invasion, & i do believe we went in with the right intentions, i do however have to admit that the administration made a horrible mistake in the occupation of Iraq. Now i think both sides are to blame for the situation, HOWEVER, ultimatly this is the president's fault. This is why: THE PRESIDENT WEAKEANED. Bush's priority right now should be being Presidential, not caring about re election. The people will ultimatly decide if what he did was right or wrong with their votes. The president should be doing his best & allowing the troops to be their best. Instead, he ties their hands and says fight a war with one hand tied behind their back.

We are at war. Yes. Fine. I agree. We are. Some say we shouldn't be there to begin with. Fine, I understand your point. But we must fight the war as americans, not barbarians or subhumans. we are the standard by which the world is measured. We conduct ourselves with honor & integrity.

Like Karen said (oh boy, i agree with another lib. God help me) being patriotic means a lot more then just waving your flag around.

Joe V.

Crystal: We are a country founded on the right to decide our own fates. Who are we to decide anothers fate?

I agreed with that until 9-11. That has made me realize that, for better or worse, we have to defend ourselves from Radical Islam. While forces outside of Islam can't reform the religion itself, we do need to take steps so that moderates within it have the chance to do so. Afghanistan was a good first step since it was ruled by the Taliban. Iraq is another good step, but not as good. Iran is likely the next major one we need to be concerned with.

Now, of course, we are faced with the age-old adage of leading the horse to water and how to make it drink. How do you get the Iraqis and other moderates to want to remake their country and religion so that non-Muslims are no longer threatened?

This is a long-haul project, and it will be difficult. I have mixed feelings about nation-building, too, but we can't stand by and watch another 9-11 happen without doing anything.

Hey Mark,
I agree that we need to defend ourselves. But if we don't hold ourselves up to higher standards how can we expect others to do it. We need to keep humanity in all of our dealings. Not throw it to the wind.

I personnally think we are dealing with the war in the wrong way. Instead of a military standpoint we need to take a police standpoint. Infiltration. There are plenty of Muslims that do not agree with the al quida movement. (Did I spell that right?) Recruit them. Build up their police forces. Show them the policing tactics that we use here. Raiding and such. As a society they need to learn how to police their own society, not rely on us to do it for them.

Education is the key I think. 9/11 sickened me too, but I don't think destroying them will make it right.

Tim Lynch,
A few things:

1) If you would reread my "screed", you would know that I do not equate Muslims with terrorists. I do feel it is a mistake to let the insurgents regroup. They view it as weakness. I would love to work in harmony with the Iraqi people, and I would also love to crush those who would kill us. It is foolhardy to try and be sensitive to the Muslim culture and then at the same time ignore the fundamentalist aspects of that culture that value strength and "standing up' to the enemy and view our hesitancy not as "negotiation" but "capitulation"

2.) To me, this war is a defining moment for our nation. As John McCain, a man you claim to respect, said to Judy Woodruff when asked "Do you think we can win?" :
"We must win. We MUST win."
And I don't think McCain is viewed as "a loose cannon, and he definitely doesn't blindly follow Bush, who I feel deep down he holds with utter contempt.
3.) I read the Kalamazoo link, and let me say I'm disappointed. While I could spend days citing instances where the Left has silenced sppech on college campuses, that is irrelevant to this argument. Two wrongs don't make a right. And, much like I feel Kerry not being really tested in the primaries could hurt him, if Bush only speaks to those who agree with him for the rest of this campaign (although this was the students' doing apparently) and doesn't get challenged, well, that will hurt him as well. And even if it doesn't, what hapened in Kalamazoo is just wrong.

3.) Again, if I "scared the hell out of" you, I hope it was because you misinterpreted my words. I simply feel we need to fight to win. I am quite certain many of our soldiers have died being careful not to harm civilians, and even taking care to acknowledge sensibilities.
What i would do is storm the places wherethey feel "safe". But I would make sure to bring camera crews along. Then we could see which side is really callous toward innocents and "sacred" sites.

4.) For the record, I do not "blindly" follow this Administration or the Republican party. I defend the ACLU as much as I defend the NRA, and I simply feel we are doing the right thing and MUST win.

5.) Your "Star Trek" analogy is a good one. There is a friend I used to watch "Buffy" and "Angel" with. I saw the last fe episodes of "Voyager" with him, too, just because I wanted to see how it ended, though i had long ago given up watching it. Then I decided to give "Enterprise" a shot. What the heck. It was new.
it was also terrible. I think I saw a total of three episodes. Then I STOPPED WATCHING IT! This was inconceivable to my friend, who nevertheless had spent every episode we watched critiquiing everything about it, from the acting to the dialogue to the premise to the pacing. In phone conversations, he would constantly and gleefully point out the abysmal ratings and claim that "This shows things aren't as rosy as Berman would have us believe."
I finally replied, "Boy, you're obsessed with proving that, aren't you?
Enraged, he replied, "And you're obsessed with proving that the ratings are good!"
I'm like, "No. I don't care. I stopped watching it. Maybe if more people do the same, they'll cancel it and put a better Star trek show on.If you hate it so much and enjoy seeing it fail, why are you still watching it?"
To which he said, "Because it's Star Trek".
Sigh. Me, personally, I would rather read one of the novels instead of watching a poor show. And for the record, i feel only Michael Jan Friedman and christie Golden come close to the quality of PAD's Trek stories, and I agree that Diane Carey's novels are pretty poor (if she has Picard talk to the holoKirk ONE MORE TIME.... :)

I overgeneralized, and I apologize for that. I do, however, stand behind the sentiment. An awful lot of people on the left don't merely disagree with conservatives, they demonize us. With all due respect, TWL, of the three examples I cited, only one (Karen) was referring to a single conservative. Kerry was referring to the Republican party as "crooked," and by calling support of the President a "character flaw" it's possible to simultaneously insult about a hundred million people; an impressive accomplishment, but uncalled for. Perhaps they were making the same error I did by exaggerating the scope of their statements, but frankly I think they said exactly what they meant.

On the deeper issue, I don't agree with you (still addressing TWL) when you equate allegiance with "lockstep agreement." I don't agree with President Bush on every issue. For one thing, President Bjorlin probably wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq because the political costs were so high. I'm going to vote for Bush's reelection anyway because I agree with most of his decisions. Bush understands Realpolitik. Either Kerry doesn't or he understands but sucks at it. Whether the candidate of my choice wins the election has nothing to do with being an American, however. As best I can tell, you take the John Quincy Adams position, whereas I favor the Decatur/Schurz viewpoint.

The inclination to cut and run confuses me deeply. You wrote last week that there was a 50-50 chance you'd bail if Bush were reelected. Suppose many liberals were to go with you; do you really think leaving the world's only superpower in the unchallenged hands of us Bushies will help? In any event, politics are cyclical. I remember the "V for Vendetta" comic that came out a while back, under the British Conservative government. Alan Moore wrote in his introduction to the trade paperback that he was thinking about leaving Britain because Thatcherism bothered him so much. How dumb do you think he'd have felt after Blair was elected? (And re-elected. And may be re-elected again next year...) Don't leave. Stay and fight for what you believe in. I certainly will be doing just that, no matter how many times Kerry is elected, or even if the Democrats drag Mondale out of retirement and make him President. I'll still be here, bitching loudly.

Also, I liked Diane Carey's novels when I was in high school. I don't know what I'd think of them now.

Incidentally, I agree with skrinq that picking on Limbaugh is legitimate. My disagreement with Al Franken isn't that I think he's wrong to call Limbaugh a big fat idiot, it's more of a "pot, kettle, black" issue. "Don't stoop to the level of your opponent" is the whole point of this thread.

"Karen suggests Bush is going to hell"

Please read the post above that one and then mine. It states that Bush thinks he's going to heaven. I then said he may not be. I never specifically said he's going to hell. While I'm not up on all things Christian, since I am Jewish, don't you people have a limbo place, too? Anyway, my post was said tongue in cheek with a little smiley on the end. I would never presume to seriously talk about where anyone is truly headed in an afterlife, since I'm not sure what awaits us. It was certainly NOT meant as a rant against all republicans, and I would absolutley hate for anyone to think I have come even close to Rush's screeds.

Sorry, just checked back and saw that there was no smiley face. I can only say that I meant "Heaven...might not be his ultimate destination..." in a lighter way than it was taken.

I think it's all too easy to demonize either side because both sides are plagued by yammerhead idiots.

*sigh*

Just gotta make sure that YOU aren't being a yammerhead.....

Just a few hours ago we got an apology from 'The Daily Mirror' - one of the British tabloid papers that a huge proportion of the population read - for publishing faked pictures of British soldiers from the Queen's Lancaster Regiment abusing prisoners. Also, the paper's editor, the scandal-tastic Piers Morgan, finally got shamed into resigning. (finally!... sorry just a snippet of personal bias in there)

Now, just cos there's no proper photos doesnt mean it isnt happening, but it doesnt prove it either. pictures are a million miles away frpm rumours and for a paper with a majority readership in this country and international exports to publish photos without taking time to check they're genuine - putting lives from the QLR, other British soldiers, other coalition soldiers, and even the population of my country at risk is abyssmal behaviour.

That said, I can understand wanting to print them, I'd back them if they were real because the truth is what is needed and coming from one of facet of the multilimbed beast al-quida claim to be fighting illustrates how we are all not the same, and deserving of individual concern and not an umbrella term like 'western capitalist pigs' or whatnot.

Duane and Joe V,

The first thing I said:

“The tortured Iraqis were never verified as ‘soldiers’, a lot of them are innocent people swept up in mass arrests.”

This is true, I have yet to see verification that the abused were soldiers, and if the May 10th
Associated Press story “Red Cross: Iraqi Abuse Widespread, Routine”, which details “Up to 90
percent of Iraqi detainees were arrested by mistake, according to coalition intelligence officers cited in a Red Cross report disclosed Monday”, I wouldn’t doubt that they’re innocent (Also, Sy Hersh’s New Yorker article).

The second thing I said:

“Berg was not decapitated by an Iraqi.”

I was assuming the CIA was correct. I apologize for not clarifying that info.
My point is: “Why use more force in Iraq, against Iraqis, if Iraqis are not to blame?”

And the last thing I wrote:

“The war without rules began in Sept 2001, when the Bush admin allowed the US to be attacked
to wage a series of wars to control the last remaining reserves of cheap oil.”

First, to clarify, I did not say Bush wanted to “gain control of the world's oil supply” as you noted. But instead, the “last remaining reserves of cheap oil.” There’s a big difference between oil and cheap oil.

As oil production is tracked by Hubbert’s curve, a bell curve, listing the amount of oil extracted
VS the price to pull it out of the ground, it’s easy to track the progress and price of a single well, field of wells, or a country’s production capacity. When oil production hits its peak, the top of the curve, it will be considerably more expensive to remove oil from the particular well as time passes. The world’s light crude supply is peaking. The price will never go down (unless the US moves into Saudi Arabia or West Africa or Venezuela to temporarily get more light crude onto
the market), and is beginning to wage a series of wars to control the last cheap reserves.

Under my point, which – for some unknown reason – you find hard to believe, I included a link
to an audio stream (I apologize for its length), which is the basis of my case. I’ll post it again,
and I invite you to visit the lecturer’s website for further information, which, I believe, is
mentioned during the stream.
http://www.rise4news.net/Ruppert59.ram

Jerome,

1) If you would reread my "screed", you would know that I do not equate Muslims with terrorists.

Never said you did. Look back at my response -- I never mention Muslims or Islam in any form. I don't know exactly what you're responding to here, but it's clearly something you're reading into more than it's something I said.

2.) To me, this war is a defining moment for our nation.

Hold it right there.

Define "this war", if you would.

The "war on terror" is nothing more than a figure of speech. As "terror" is an emotion and an abstract concept, it's not something you can actually declare war ON. As Lewis Lapham put it a year or two ago, declaring a war on terror is akin to declaring a war on pride, or a war on lust.

If you want to start talking about winning or losing "this war", you need to define your terms.

Who or what, exactly, are we at war with? "Terror" is not a valid answer.

How do we know when we've won? Who exactly would need to surrender or somehow end hostilities for us to know we were victorious?

How do we know when we've lost?

If you cannot provide answers to those, then the only conclusion is that the "war on terror" isn't a war per se, but simply a new state of mind you're using to justify new tactics and policies.

As John McCain, a man you claim to respect, said to Judy Woodruff when asked "Do you think we can win?" :
"We must win. We MUST win."

I would like to see the exact context of the question. He could have been talking about winning the battle with the Iraqi insurgents. He could have been talking about winning the war for Iraqi hearts and minds. Based on the small quote you included above, there's no way to know exactly what he meant.

(As an aside, your phrase "a man you claim to respect" is a rhetorical tactic that implies I don't actually respect him, but merely pretend to. You're an intelligent person, so I assume I don't need to go into detail about precisely HOW disgusting I find that tactic. I'll just ask, firmly, that you not use it again.)

3.) Again, if I "scared the hell out of" you, I hope it was because you misinterpreted my words.

Based on your post clarifying it ... no, it's not. Your premise seems to be that we can achieve all our goals in Iraq and the Middle East as a whole solely on the basis of military force, so long as we "fight to win."

I feel quite strongly that said belief will not make America the slightest bit safer, and in the long run is quite a bit more likely to destroy us than to save us.

So no, I don't think I've misinterpreted you. I think I'm reading your take on things just fine.

As long as I was asking you to define your terms, though, here's another one along the same vein:

If we need to "fight to win", what exactly does that mean? What tactics and approaches ARE you willing to see our military or our interrogators carry out, and what tactics or approaches would you consider unacceptable under any circumstances? Specifics, please: one man's proper interrogation is another man's Abu Ghraib, and I'd like to see exactly where you feel the lines should be drawn. Your previous post suggests that there isn't much of a line for you, and I assume you simply forgot to correct that.

TWL

David,

With all due respect, TWL, of the three examples I cited, only one (Karen) was referring to a single conservative. Kerry was referring to the Republican party as "crooked," and by calling support of the President a "character flaw" it's possible to simultaneously insult about a hundred million people; an impressive accomplishment, but uncalled for.

I would disagree with the Kerry line. When I first heard it, I took it as referring to the Bush administration and in particular the dirty-tricks squad that runs misleading ads. I never for a moment thought he was referring to all Republicans. Considering how strongly he's praised both McCain and Warner recently, I don't think he really could be.

Garofalo's line about "a character flaw" is really more of a line against Bush than it is against all Republicans, I think, but I'll concede that people could be justifiably offended by that one. (Given the number of Republicans I've seen quoted recently who aren't planning to vote Bush this time around, though, I suspect not all conservatives are as offended by it as you were.)

On the deeper issue, I don't agree with you (still addressing TWL) when you equate allegiance with "lockstep agreement."

That's your right, but it's what's logically implied by the statement "I will support my country under any scenario."

When there is no scenario that would make you withhold your support, that means anyone running the country can count on your support regardless of the actions they take.

If there's no way for someone to lose your allegiance or support, then you have no claim or hold on their subsequent actions, since you've already pledged your support. It may not be lockstep agreement, but so far as I can tell under any practical circumstances it means any disagreement is irrelevant.

Perhaps we're meaning slightly different things here. What exactly do you mean by "support my country" in this case?

The inclination to cut and run confuses me deeply. You wrote last week that there was a 50-50 chance you'd bail if Bush were reelected. Suppose many liberals were to go with you; do you really think leaving the world's only superpower in the unchallenged hands of us Bushies will help?

No, of course not, and that's a legitimate argument on the side of me staying. I think you've misread me if you believe I'd be leaving for the sake of the country. If I leave, it will be for the sake of my family (esp. my daughter-to-be) and my own mental health, among other reasons. I'd just as soon not go into particulars here, however, as it's a fairly upsetting thing to have to think about and I'd just as soon wait until I have to do so.

(I will say that if Bush wins a second term, I have strong suspicions that your statement "politics are cyclical" may break down for a good long time, which is part of my concern.)

TWL

Tim,
In response to your preceding questions:
1.) You accused me of "blaming a whole group for the actions of a few people". If you did not mean Muslims, what did you mean? Iraqis? I never said we should "kill all Iraqis" either. I said we should kill those who are determined to kill us.

2.) In the context of "this war" I mean, for now, the War in Iraq. Actually, we've won the war. we are trying to win the peace.
Who are we at war with? Muslim extremists, from iraq and coming over from Iran and Syria.
How will I define victory? When these insurgents stop trying to disrupt our plans to rebuild Iraq, stop trying to hinder the process of forming a new government, stop trying to kill our soldiers, and barring that, when we kill them all.
How will we know when we've lost?
If we leave Iraq with our tail between our legs with no stable government in place, with the insurgents still there feeling they "stood up" to the mighty U.S., and with terrorists all over the world emboldened by our retreat/failure.

2.) McCain was talking about the battle against the insurgents in Fallujah. I feel he fears failure for the same reasons I stated above.
And for the record, Tim, you reeeeeeeeally are reading into things that aren't there if you take a statement like "a man you claim to respect" as a "rhetorical tactic that implies i don't really respect him". If that is what you feel was implied, then sorry, the implication is all in your head. I could just as easily have said "a man you've stated you respect". Or is that offensive, too, somehow? Judas Priest, Tim, next thing I know if I say "A man I know you respect" you'll acuse me of putting words in your mouth or reading your mind.
can we please have a discussion, without you electronically bludgeoning me for every semantic slight you feel I "imply". You've stated you respect McCain many times. That's all i meant by "claim".
Cheese and crackers.
3.) "Fight to win" means we fight to win. That does not mean nuking or even napalming them. It does mean we no longer will allow them to seek "sanctuary" in mosques. If they can defile it with guns, weapons, and plots to kill, well then, sorry, I don't have a problem with storming them and taking thenm out.
While i realize this might rile some of the Muslim world, al-Sadr does not have a huge following. He is a radical. And many Muslims blame him for defiling mosques for reasons i just mentioned.
And if they are using wmen and children as human shields, we confront them up close and personal. Make sure we bring a camera too. Men who hide behind women and children don't get a lot of respect in the Muslim world either.
As for interrogation tactics, well, I do agree with you that beatings and sadistic torture do not make us better than Saddam Hussein. We SHOULD be better than that. But embarrassing them? Please. They are trying to kill us and their information could save lives. In that context, even the leash girl would be borderline if the abuse wasn't physical and the photo was merely staged for psychological effect. That is a very thin line to draw, but draw it we must.
Hope this answers your questions.

Jerome,

1.) You accused me of "blaming a whole group for the actions of a few people". If you did not mean Muslims, what did you mean? Iraqis? I never said we should "kill all Iraqis" either. I said we should kill those who are determined to kill us.

You said that the Berg killing was evidence we should have launched an all-out assault in Falluja and Najaf, despite the fact that just a sentence or two earlier you said that the killing had nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with al-Qaeda's "war against the West." You said, and I quote, "to hell with cultural sensibilities." You said "we made a mistake negotiating with them" at Falluja.

That does not specify "those who are determined to kill us", or even mention al-Qaeda. That discusses Iraq, and specifically the means by which you think it should be pacified. So, no, you didn't say "kill all Iraqis", nor did I say you did. You did, however, move immediately from the brutal killing of one man by al-Qaeda to a discussion of what we should do in a country which was not allied with them.

Of course, I've no doubt this doesn't bother you, as Bush has tried to link Iraq to 9/11 for the last two and a half years. He has not succeeded, and neither will you.

2.) In the context of "this war" I mean, for now, the War in Iraq. Actually, we've won the war. we are trying to win the peace.

If "we've won the war", then the McCain quote you were so insistent about bringing up is somewhere between confusing and meaningless, isn't it?

Okay, so "the war" means Iraq. Got it.

1) Are you willing to accept the statement that said war is not synonymous with the so-called "war on terror"?

2) Why is a war that we started "the defining moment of our generation", to use your words? This is Bush's war, not mine, and I'll be damned if I let his mistakes define the rest of my life.

Who are we at war with? Muslim extremists, from iraq and coming over from Iran and Syria.

Is anyone opposed to the Iraqi occupation a "Muslim extremist"? Is anyone who shoots at us in the streets of Baghdad an extremist? Are people allowed to defend their homes without being linked to terrorism?

And if they really are coming over the border from Iran and Syria, does that mean you also recommend invading those countries and toppling those governments to ensure stability in the region?

If not, why not given the parallels with Iraq?

If so, why not say so openly?

How will I define victory? When these insurgents stop trying to disrupt our plans to rebuild Iraq, stop trying to hinder the process of forming a new government, stop trying to kill our soldiers, and barring that, when we kill them all.

What exactly gives the U.S. the right to forcibly rebuild a country when its own natives are saying quite loudly that they don't want us there?

Let me rephrase: Colin Powell has said that once the interim government is in place on June 30 (a proposition I consider highly unlikely, but that's a different issue), if said government tells us to leave, we'll leave. Do you agree with that, even if it means our own plans for Iraq are left half done? At what point are we "allowed" to leave? At what point do the Iraqis truly have sovereignty over their country?

Or if June 30 arrives, and the government wants us gone because they think it's the only way to achieve stability, do we insist that we have to "kill them all"?

How will we know when we've lost?
If we leave Iraq with our tail between our legs with no stable government in place, with the insurgents still there feeling they "stood up" to the mighty U.S., and with terrorists all over the world emboldened by our retreat/failure.

Unfortunately, you've left a big middle ground here. Your implication here is that we cannot leave until there is a safe, stable government in Iraq -- even if that takes us the next century.

Is that an accurate assessment of your position? Has Bush's choice to invade Iraq locked our country into a commitment of blood we can never escape?

You also never say whether this government is one that has to like us. Suppose that stable government says "leave tomorrow, or our soldiers start shooting." Do we "leave with our tail between our legs", or "kill them all"?

You don't seem to be leaving a lot of happy options here.

2.) McCain was talking about the battle against the insurgents in Fallujah. I feel he fears failure for the same reasons I stated above.

If that's what he meant, then for you to use it as a statement about the entire war is entirely dishonest and disingenuous.

And for the record, Tim, you reeeeeeeeally are reading into things that aren't there if you take a statement like "a man you claim to respect" as a "rhetorical tactic that implies i don't really respect him".

No, frankly, I'm not. The word "claim" has a very different meaning from the word "states", which is the alternative you suggested this time around. "Claim" implies that it's a statement one party has asserted but which may or may not be true. "States" is far more neutral. You're a political activist, a journalist, and one who sounds off a great deal about slanted media coverage to boot -- I categorically refuse to insult your intelligence by believing that you choose your words without considering how they play.

You do this a lot -- you phrase things which imply your debating "partners" are somehow not representing their own opinions or evidence honestly, and then get defensive when someone calls you on it.

Am I mortally offended? No, of course not -- but I'm going on record here as saying that I'm not planning to play that game with you any more.

can we please have a discussion, without you electronically bludgeoning me for every semantic slight you feel I "imply".

Certainly. All you need to do is stop using them. I think most of this particular thread has been a reasonably informative discussion, for example.

3.) "Fight to win" means we fight to win. That does not mean nuking or even napalming them. It does mean we no longer will allow them to seek "sanctuary" in mosques.

Okay, there's one data point -- or really two, one on each side of the "what's okay" line. Thank you.

While i realize this might rile some of the Muslim world, al-Sadr does not have a huge following.

I don't think the latter is relevant to the former, or at least not as relevant as you're suggesting. Sure, al-Sadr doesn't have a huge following -- but that doesn't mean a lot of the Muslim world wants us to go in and take care of him. (Consider, for example, how we would have reacted had the KGB assassinated Tim McVeigh shortly before Oklahoma City.)

And if they are using wmen and children as human shields, we confront them up close and personal.

Again, that's somewhat vague. Does that mean we storm every place where such things are happening? And if it needs to be "up close and personal" with cameras involved, doesn't that mean we can't use the tanks, missiles, air strikes, etc. that are so strongly linked to American military power?

Do you mean we go hand-to-hand, or simply that no location where these alleged hostages exist should be allowed to remain standing with impunity?

As for interrogation tactics, well, I do agree with you that beatings and sadistic torture do not make us better than Saddam Hussein. We SHOULD be better than that. But embarrassing them?

Sexual humiliation up to and including simulated rape is a lot more than simple embarrassment, particularly for Arab men. This isn't a case of some teenager telling her girlfriends that so-and-so stuffs her bra.

Please. They are trying to kill us and their information could save lives. In that context, even the leash girl would be borderline if the abuse wasn't physical and the photo was merely staged for psychological effect.

Thank you. You have clarified your positions substantially. It doesn't change my feelings about them (if anything, it confirms them), but I appreciate the clarification.

TWL

Horace,

Thank you for the clarification of your points. I have seen articles pointing to "up to 90%" of Iraqis originally detained mistakenly. From that you are willing to assume the people being abused were innocent. I'm not so certain of that myself. I don't know that the people originally detained were kept, or that these people taken by mistake were the people mistreated. I'm sure the facts will come out as the investigation continues. Even if the prisoners were soldiers, their treatment is still abhorrent, but it would be good if this point can be clarified soon.

You believed the CIA? But they were wrong on so many other things. Have they suddenly gotten more efficient? Anyway, CIA right or wrong, if the Iraqi people want peace in their country, they cannot allow gangs of murderers, such as the people who killed Nick Berg to run loose in their midst. Whatever the nationality of the killers, they must not be allowed to kidnap and kill at their own pleasure. This means Iraqi citizens cannot turn away and ignore gangs of thugs among them. It seems to me that the best way to get rid of the Americans is to prove that Iraq can control itself without them and not descend into further chaos.

Your "proof" of U.S. perfidy in the 9/11 terrorist attack led to a web site that seemed pretty far out there, Horace. I tend to be skeptical of frothing-at-the-mouth anti-war ranting, just as I am skeptical of similar my-country-can-do-no-wrong breast beating. The material I saw on the web site showed me nothing that made me give any credence to your claims that the U.S. Executive Branch allowed 9/11 to happen. And, as it associates you with some very illogical conspiracy fans, it throws a wet blanket on any legitimate points you might make on other topics. Please consider your sources when making your claims.

The Americans went to war with Iraq over "weapons of mass destruction"

Heres a crazy thought instead of torturing sorry "liberating the Iraqi people" America could send their troops home.

If you saw a 6 month baby being killed infront of your eyes, what would you do to stop it? Think about this question carefully.... would you act differently if it was an Iraqi baby.

How many Iraqis would die in a nuclear attack?
What would the repurcussions be?
-perhaps the foundation for World War Three will be laid
-perhaps an Iraqi living in America would decide he has nothing to live for except revenge
-what answer will you give to God after you have taken over a country, enslaved a nation, all for oil (don't kid yourselves that was why Iraq was invaded) and then nuked the country, killing thousands of innocent men, women, children

World War 2 was about patrioism
What is this war truly about?
What irrevocable damage has American already done to itself, and how far will it continue for
-oil?
-pride?
-arrogance?
-ignorance?

Perhaps Peter David is right, perhaps we should "help the Iraqi people" and what better way to help them than send a nuclear weapon towards them... can you think of something better?

No, (?)
The Iraqi war is over OIL? You really think we would take the political risk and spill our soldiers blood for oil when we could, you know, have made deals behind the world's back like France and Russia and gotten oil that way? Or a hundred other less painful options.
Your "name" provides the answer.

NO wrote: "World War 2 was about patrioism. What is this war truly about? What irrevocable damage has American already done to itself, and how far will it continue for -oil?-pride?-arrogance?-ignorance?""

Well, actually, President Roosevelt (a Democrat), and President Truman (another Democrat) were both criticized regarding World War II for some of the same reasons you are criticizing Bush regarding Iraq (and 9-11, for that matter).

Critics have said:
-- By cutting off Japanese access to rubber, oil, and other critical raw materials because of an embargo against Japan, Roosevelt "forced" Japan's entry into WW II. The same critics, however, conveniently gloss over the fact that Japan was militaristic and had invaded neighboring countries long before Dec. 7, 1941. As a matter of fact, it was these Japanese forays that led to the embargo in the first place.
-- Roosevelt allegedly had advance warning about the Japanese attack, but he chose to ignore it so the U.S. would be forced into a war that was already raging because of Japan's ally, Germany. Again, the critics fail to mention that these Pearl Harbor "warnings" were as ambiguous and scattered as Bush's "warnings" regarding 9-11.
-- Truman supposedly dropped two a-bombs on Japan because he was a racist, and is thus, guilty of war crimes and genocide. The critics (bless 'em) ignore the Battle of Okinawa, which, because of its widespread introduction of the Kamikaze, and the "fight-to-the-death" credo of Japanese troops, was by far the bloodiest battle fought in the Pacific. It was the first major battle fought on Japanese soil, and the last major battle fought before the a-bombs were dropped. Based on the death toll on BOTH sides during that bloody island battle, Truman and his generals knew an invasion of the mainland would kill or injure MILLIONS. His one-two atomic punch quickly brought the stubborn Japanese leadership to its knees, ending the war quickly and decisively.

I find it sad (and a bit ironic) that 60 years later, Bush is being hammered by almost identical one-sided, partisan criticism from the OTHER side of the Congressional aisle.

"It's all about oil, and racism against Arabs, and stubbornness, and let's-go-to-war conspiracies, and..."

Gee, where have I heard that before? Haven't we learned anything from history?

Russ Maheras

I suspect that if and when Cheney's energy commission minutes ever come to light, we'll see that yes, in part, this WAS about oil. But I do agree with you, Jerome, that doing so was a stupid, wasteful, tragic idea.

Rob

Over the past two years, I have chosen to play dumb and ignore what is going on around me in my world, because basically it is just too horrific to put into words. I have not felt a comfort or safety zone in my life since 9/11 as many other people, I am sure. The hardest part to get over is that a group of human beings could feel so tormented by our beliefs that they would feel the need to murder other innocent human beings.

Men in our country haven been given a job to do, defend our country, our people, our ways, our rights to democracy that were established over 200 yrs ago. It is unfortunate that many of our men that are attempting to accomplish this feat are barely into manhood theirselves. Of course we should expect mistakes to be made, but just as we teach our children mistakes are wrong, we must as a country also teach our soldiers when they have wronged.

I spoke to the mother of a soldier the other day. She was quite emotional and said she hadn't seen her son in over 20 months. She said it is a constant battle to be both defensive and apologetic for "her son the soldier". I believe the truth of the matter is that we are all equal in spite of our opposing views and that the basis is human life. For every one soldier that walks Iraq on either side, there is his family, his mother, his sister, his brother, father, grandmother... etc etc.
The soldier is taught in his training to be tough and strong and ever endearing to the cause, that doesn't leave an option for having feeling, because emotion might get in the way of the job, but we cannot allow them all to be desensitized either. How many soldiers came back from VietNam with nightmares of war that left them less than human in mind? What will be the product of our soldiers minds now in the future?

How many of us have allowed ourselves to also be desensitized to keep from admitting we have a problem with what we see or how we are involved?
Stop some of the craziness, that's all I can hope for.

"Gee, where have I heard that before? Haven't we learned anything from history?"

Bush certainly has. Let's see what he learned:

1) The 1994 election taught that a president can be incredibly popular from a military action, but see his popularity erode once that action ceases and American attention returns to matters of stateside importance. Therefore, the wise president keeps America in a state of war so that the electorate will be perpetually aware of it and thus afraid to make a change. Lesson learned.

2) Vietnam taught that allowing home viewers to see images of row after row of flag-draped coffins can have a rotting effect on support for a war. So the best thing to do is lay down a ban on all such shots. Lesson learned.

3) Watergate taught that revelations of shady dealings and dirty tricks can bring down a presidency. So the best thing to do is make your administration even more secretive. Hone your ability to keep the lid clamped tightly down at all times. Make yours the most secretive presidency in history, and also try your best to keep the press out of your hair since, if you give them a sword, they will stick it in and twist it with relish. Lesson learned.

I'm sure there's other lessons he's learned as well.

PAD

Dead on accurate on all three points...

"Posted by: Peter David at May 18, 2004 05:11 AM
"Gee, where have I heard that before? Haven't we learned anything from history?"

Bush certainly has. Let's see what he learned:

1) The 1994 election taught that a president can be incredibly popular from a military action, but see his popularity erode once that action ceases and American attention returns to matters of stateside importance. Therefore, the wise president keeps America in a state of war so that the electorate will be perpetually aware of it and thus afraid to make a change. Lesson learned"

Actually I believe that lesson was learned in the 1992 election. The'94 elections taught us that if a president ignores the opposing party completely, you know, treat them like lepers, then said president will lose control of Congress.
We also learned that Peter Jennings considers Republican voters to be two-year-olds having a temper tantrum, and that they compose "a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage."
Oh, that wacky liberal media...
(Yes, I obviously knew what you meant, but, everybody else gets to nitpick, so I figured it was my turn. :))

Pamela wrote: "I spoke to the mother of a soldier the other day. She was quite emotional and said she hadn't seen her son in over 20 months. She said it is a constant battle to be both defensive and apologetic for "her son the soldier". I believe the truth of the matter is that we are all equal in spite of our opposing views and that the basis is human life. For every one soldier that walks Iraq on either side, there is his family, his mother, his sister, his brother, father, grandmother... etc etc.
The soldier is taught in his training to be tough and strong and ever endearing to the cause, that doesn't leave an option for having feeling, because emotion might get in the way of the job, but we cannot allow them all to be desensitized either. How many soldiers came back from VietNam with nightmares of war that left them less than human in mind? What will be the product of our soldiers minds now in the future?"

I was stationed on the island of Okinawa for six years. During that time, I saw my parents, siblings and hometown friends (and the U.S., for that matter) only once -- at the three-year mark. Such long separations are tough, but they frequently are a fact of life for those in the military.

Regarding the second part of your comment -- how will the men and women carry their more horrific experiences with them later on in life -- it depends on the individual. Millions of soldiers were involved in combat during WW II, and most of those who came home assimilated back into society just fine afterwards. The same goes for Korea and Vietnam. But, like any traumatic job were death is never very far away (fireman, EMT, doctor, policeman), there are always some who snap. Vietnam vets are often portrayed in popular culture as having more psychological problems than veterans of earlier wars, but I've never seen any study that breaks down such percentages by conflict. But Vietnam was a highly unpopular war, and I think if there is, in fact, a higher percentage of Vietnam vets with psychological problems, such mental scarring may be a result of the way the vets were treated by their non-military peers after coming back home. In my opinion, a statement like "Hey, man, were you ever stupid for going to Vietnam" can be far more damaging in the long term to a veteran than a bullet wound from a firefight. A "thank you" might have made all the difference in the world.

And the fact of the matter is, people are starting to make the same mistake with THIS war. Those who have a beef with the current administration seem to be going out of their way to belittle the troops, or question their intelligence for volunteering to join the military in the first place (Ted Rall, anyone?). My advice for those who oppose the war? Don't take your frustrations out on military people for doing what they're supposed to do -- take your gripes to Washington.

Russ Maheras

Russ,

While I certainly credit and respect your military experience (and the credibility it brings to the table), I think you're painting with a pretty broad brush when you say

Those who have a beef with the current administration seem to be going out of their way to belittle the troops

Most people I know are opposed to the war, and are most certainly opposed to the current administration -- but almost to a person, if we could send a message to the troops right now it would be, "we're sorry you were ever put in this position, but it's not your fault. Come back soon and come back safe." (Well, except for the Abu Ghraib situation, but that's obviously different.)

Don't assume we're all Ted Rall.

TWL

PAD wrote: " 1) The 1994 election taught (Bush)that a president can be incredibly popular from a military action, but see his popularity erode once that action ceases and American attention returns to matters of stateside importance. Therefore, the wise president keeps America in a state of war so that the electorate will be perpetually aware of it and thus afraid to make a change. Lesson learned."

Actually, PAD, the economy has rebounded, and is currently running smoother than the war in Iraq -- thus your conclusion is flawed.

PAD also wrote: "2) Vietnam taught (Bush) that allowing home viewers to see images of row after row of flag-draped coffins can have a rotting effect on support for a war. So the best thing to do is lay down a ban on all such shots. Lesson learned."

As one who was stationed at Dover AFB public affairs in the mid-1990s, let me again make it clear that the DOD policy about media coverage of flag-draped coffins has been in effect for more than a decade. As a matter of fact, in 1996, the media lost a court case trying to overturn the ban. People who keep blaming GWB for the ban are just perpetuating a partisan urban legend.

PAD also wrote: "3) Watergate taught (Bush) that revelations of shady dealings and dirty tricks can bring down a presidency. So the best thing to do is make your administration even more secretive. Hone your ability to keep the lid clamped tightly down at all times. Make yours the most secretive presidency in history, and also try your best to keep the press out of your hair since, if you give them a sword, they will stick it in and twist it with relish. Lesson learned."

I keep hearing how secretive this current administration is, but what I never hear is exactly how. Anyone have any specific examples from an OBJECTIVE source?

By the way, PAD, I noticed that you ignored all my other points citing how partisan finger-pointing and unreasonable accusations about the reasons for various wars has not changed one iota in 60 years, regardless of the political party of the administration involved. And that's a darn shame. Ain't polarization grand?

Russ Maheras

Tim wrote: "While I certainly credit and respect your military experience (and the credibility it brings to the table), I think you're painting with a pretty broad brush when you say Those who have a beef with the current administration seem to be going out of their way to belittle the troops"

You're right. In my haste, I did make a statement that was too broad. I should have said "Some people who have a beef with the current administration..."

Russ Maheras

Actually, PAD, the economy has rebounded, and is currently running smoother than the war in Iraq -- thus your conclusion is flawed.

Really? How come it still sucks in the midwest?

The "economy" cannot and should not be judged by Wall Street. All that says is that people with money invested in Wall Street are doing good.
Those of us with a) no 401(k) and b) no jobs, and c) no stocks, are more or less still screwed.

Travis

RE: LESSONS LEARNED

You're right, Bush HAS learned some lessons, (just from his father's presidency alone), to wit:

1.) He learned from Vietnam that - unlike LBJ - if we commit our troops somewhere, we should win, and not let political pressure tun a war in which we win all the battles into a "defeat" or have our soldiers portrayed not only by the most rabid as "psychopaths" and "babykillers" but even by many as "losers". He realizes that not capitulating and actually making statements that indicate "our soldiers will get whatever they need" and "we will fight to win" are either anathema or simply incomprehensible to many of his enemies, but refuses to vacillate like LBJ.
Lesson Learned.

2.) He learned that despite his father's masterful garnering of an international coalition for the first Gulf War well not too many seemed to view that as an impressive accomplishment afterward, so he wasn't obsessed with doing so and worrying about our so-called "allies" this time around.
Lesson Learned.

3.) He learned that his father, though he fulfilles the U.N. resolution and got Saddam out of Kuwait, he was villified by the SAME PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T WANT TO START THE WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE for NOT FINISHING THE JOB, and taking out Saddam.
Lesson Learned.

4.) He learned that his father tried to be reasonable and responsible by raising taxes in 1990, which is credited - along with Clinton's in 1993 - with our rebound in the '90s. As a result, he was excorciated by the Right and given no credit by the Left. So he rarely compromises with the Democrats and refuses to consider rescinding the tax cuts.
Lesson Learned.

5.) He learned from the Clinton years that no matter how many people you tick off, no matter what your personal shortcomings or other political deficiencies, as long as people feel the economy is good, EVERYTHING ELSE is parsley (except security after 9/11, and he's made that even more of a defining issue).
Lesson Learned.

6) He learned that possibly his dad's biggest mistake is that he didn't "show" he cared and offered no concrete steps to truly change/fix education, Social Security and Medicare. The son has done so. The Son will still be bashed for DOING the WRONG things in regard to these issues, but it is far different than being bashed for not doing anything at all. He's taken normal "Democratic layups" away and had the stones to touch issues considered the Third Rail.
Lesson Learned.

Travis,
First, it's not all about you.
Second, the vast majority of Americans have jobs, and the majority - and an increasing number of them - have 401Ks and stock investments.
Plus the economy in general is "heating up".
So the statement is correct.

2.) He learned that despite his father's masterful garnering of an international coalition for the first Gulf War well not too many seemed to view that as an impressive accomplishment afterward,

Please name someone who disparaged the coalition-building as unimpressive. Actual quotes would help distinguish this from a simple argument-by-assertion.

I was no fan of Bush Senior, but he certainly got that part of things dead right.

3.) He learned that his father, though he fulfilles the U.N. resolution and got Saddam out of Kuwait, he was villified by the SAME PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T WANT TO START THE WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE for NOT FINISHING THE JOB, and taking out Saddam.

Name one person who both opposed the initial war and then disparaged Bush for not going to Baghdad. Actual quotes would help distinguish this from a simple argument-by-assertion.

4.) He learned that his father tried to be reasonable and responsible by raising taxes in 1990, which is credited - along with Clinton's in 1993 - with our rebound in the '90s. As a result, he was excorciated by the Right and given no credit by the Left.

Kindly name someone on "the Left" who considers Bush's 1990 agreement a bad thing. Quotes would help distinguish this from a simple argument-by-assertion.

(my usual the-Left-is-not-a-monolith argument deleted in advance, as everyone knows it by now)

So he rarely compromises with the Democrats

Which is, of course, flatly against his campaign pledge to be "a uniter, not a divider." Just a thought.

TWL

Travis,
First, it's not all about you.
Second, the vast majority of Americans have jobs, and the majority - and an increasing number of them - have 401Ks and stock investments.

Tell that to Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Oregon, and Washington. All who have record numbers of Unemployment... sustained unemployment over the last three years.
Or the upper midwest, where jobs have been exported by the thousands from Mills and Manufacturing...
And if it's not about me, then who is it about? This is supposed to be about America... a Democracy right?

Travis

See, that's the problem. It is about us. The little people. We are the country. If we can't work, who is going to pay for the economy to keep going? The wealthy? They have all their money in the stock market so they can make even more. And by the way, all those wonderful jobs that have been created lately? All pretty much minimum wage. So, if you do get a job you will make too much to go on medicaid, but not make enough to pay for insurance. What a country.

Travis,
Sorry if i seemed a little snippy. Your "then how come it still sucks" just didn't seem like a very reasoned argument.
I have had to temporarily move back to my hometown, and it is a very depressed area. Those in power have screwed every opportunity the federal and state governments have given them to improve things.
We had an opportunity to get saturn here before Tennessee did, but there's NO WAY the Powers That Be wanted the United Auto Workers to come here. Not when the local plant for the military pays $6 an hour.
We also got Empowerment Zones to help the depressed parts of the city. So what did they do? Used them near a new highway, where a businessperson with two brain cells was going to develop anyway! Imbeciles.
I am sorry your situation is not what you want it to be. But the President can only do so much. These are complex problems, and to SOLELY blame the President and/or those better off simply doesn't solve anything, in my opinion.

Duane,

'Your "proof" of U.S. perfidy in the 9/11 terrorist attack led to a web site that seemed pretty far out there ... The material I saw on the web site showed me nothing that made me give any credence to your claims that the U.S. Executive Branch allowed 9/11 to happen."

The 'web site' was a weblink to an audio stream which makes the basic case. I have no idea what's on the Rise4news website, I just use it for its archived stream of a lecture. Listen to the stream.

I am sorry your situation is not what you want it to be. But the President can only do so much. These are complex problems, and to SOLELY blame the President and/or those better off simply doesn't solve anything, in my opinion

No... don't worry about it... I'm used to snippy... Try growing up in my family if you don't like snippy :)
I just think that the idea that Wall Street tells us how good the economy is is bullsh*t... Though people in the main cities may be good, it's not here. And in many places.
I don't blame dubya. I may not like him. I have certain words for Mr. Greenspan and members of congress, and my state congress... but this is one thing I can't blame him for. Or Clinton, or even older dubya. Though I have a hankering to blame it on Ronnie.
Btw, it missed it on previous statement. When I said "democracy, right?" there was a sarcastic *snort* after that.

Travis

Karen,
I hope my last point clarified my position a bit.
but, really, a lot of the "little people" own stocks too.
And you talk about "the wealthy" a lot. Who exactly are you referring to? Anyone who makes above $30,000 (the median wage)? Or $50,000? There's teachers in Montgomery County who make an average of $95,000 a year. Are they making too much?
My dad used to make two dollars an hour, but through hard work and sacrifice he was able to buy a home and now has his dream car, and those "stocks" you deride so much have helped him retire a little early and go on a cruise with my mom once in a while. Is that wrong?
Honestly, bashing "the rich" on a constant basis is just as bad as blaming immigrants for "taking jobs" or "welfare queens". Class warfare is simplistic and solves nothing.
And you've referred more than once to "ordinary Americans". I think of us all as EXTRAORDINARY Americans. We each have gifts to share if we so choose.

Blackjack Mulligan,
Thank you for your comments on Peter Jennings in regards to the 1994 elections. Was he an ass or what?

Karen,
BTW, do you have any hardcore data that shows the jobs being created recently are all minimum wage jobs? Or are you making assumptions?

Jerome,
That info was in an article in the Seattle PI. I am sorry that I can't remember the exact day. When I talk about the wealthy, I mean only those who don't give back to the country that gave them so much. I used to live in Montgomery County, so I can tell you that there are a LOT of very selfish and self-serving people living on the main line. But, I have to give you this, I shouldn't paint all the wealthy with one brush. There are plenty of philanthropic people out there. I'm more angry with the CEO's with million dollar salaries that laugh all the way to the bank while the people that work for the companies have their retirements wiped out. And the stock market is not a barometer for the average person. And I've been saying for years that Alan Greenspan must go. We need a new paradigm directing the economy of this nation.

Also, when they talk about raising taxes on those who make more than $100,000 a year, I think that's reasonable.

Me: The inclination to cut and run confuses me deeply. You wrote last week that there was a 50-50 chance you'd bail if Bush were reelected. Suppose many liberals were to go with you; do you really think leaving the world's only superpower in the unchallenged hands of us Bushies will help?

TWL: No, of course not, and that's a legitimate argument on the side of me staying. I think you've misread me if you believe I'd be leaving for the sake of the country. If I leave, it will be for the sake of my family (esp. my daughter-to-be) and my own mental health, among other reasons. I'd just as soon not go into particulars here, however, as it's a fairly upsetting thing to have to think about and I'd just as soon wait until I have to do so.

We're finally reaching the crux of my difference with you (apart form the political viewpoint issues, which I can easily write off to reasonable people disagreeing over hard questions). I can imagine no circumstance in which I would consider defecting, none, zero, short of me being offered the British throne, and even then I'd probably try to turn the UK into States 51-54. I simply believe that it's unacceptable for an individual to put his own sake ahead of that of the nation. That is what I mean by "my country, right or wrong." If it is wrong, it is my duty to do what I can to straighten it out. My own self-interest becomes a triviality.

Put simply, I wasn't misreading your position, I was rejecting it out of hand. I don't have any business asking about the particulars of your private life, and I won't; I was just responding to what you'd posted earlier.

(I will say that if Bush wins a second term, I have strong suspicions that your statement "politics are cyclical" may break down for a good long time, which is part of my concern.)

Is someone plotting a coup that I should know about? (Actually, forming a government-in-exile would be a legitimately patriotic reason to leave.) Seriously, is there anything behind these suspicions? Do you really know of any steps the Administration is taking to dismantle the republic? If you meant it less ominously as a prediction that the Republicans will be the stronger of the two major parties for the foreseeable future, I'm inclined to agree with you based on demographics. (The magic number is 14-- the number of Congressional seats and their corresponding electoral votes that were reapportioned to Republican-leaning states due to the last census.) But we're conservatives, not fascists.

There are plenty of philanthropic people out there. I'm more angry with the CEO's with million dollar salaries that laugh all the way to the bank while the people that work for the companies have their retirements wiped out. And the stock market is not a barometer for the average person

Well, for 40% of the country it is...that's how much of the country have money in mutual funds, the majority of which are stock based. Not to mention the many pension funds which are stock based as well....

That said, there's something wrong when there is ample incentive given to capital holders, but little of it reaches workers, laborers and other rank and file folks. And I think that's been happening, as we've seen rising productivity and increasing profits, but little change in wages.

Roger wrote:

**Well, for 40% of the country it is...that's how much of the country have money in mutual funds, the majority of which are stock based. Not to mention the many pension funds which are stock based as well....**

I've got some money in a mutual fund. So does my wife. But I have to say, it's not a lot of money, and neither of us would consider how well off we are (or are not) as anything remotely a function of what Wall Street does. But still, since we've got a couple of bucks stashed away, we're part of that supposed 40%.

In other words, the number of people whose fortunes rise and fall in exact correspondence with Wall Street is highly inflated, IMO.

Rob

David:

We're finally reaching the crux of my difference with you (apart form the political viewpoint issues, which I can easily write off to reasonable people disagreeing over hard questions). I can imagine no circumstance in which I would consider defecting, none, zero, short of me being offered the British throne, and even then I'd probably try to turn the UK into States 51-54. I simply believe that it's unacceptable for an individual to put his own sake ahead of that of the nation. That is what I mean by "my country, right or wrong." If it is wrong, it is my duty to do what I can to straighten it out. My own self-interest becomes a triviality.

Obviously, that's your right, though I suspect you're putting it more extremely than actual circumstances might warrant. (That's not meant to be a dig, BTW -- more of a "who of us really knows what we'd do in extremis?" type of thing.) If you really mean that the interests of the state should overwhelm the interests of the individual, that's an intriguingly socialist viewpoint for a conservative. :-)

More seriously, I believe I am doing what I can to put right what I see going wrong, by speaking out in various fora, and in mobilizing for and/or contributing to causes that I see as fighting the good fight. I'm simply acknowledging the possibility that (1) it may not be enough, and (2) a situation could come where I have to do that from a greater distance. Just because I'd leave wouldn't stop me from staying active, after all...

Put simply, I wasn't misreading your position, I was rejecting it out of hand.

I still think saying "I will always support X" is logically equivalent to saying "therefore there's no way X can do something I'll contest", but I think it's probably best to agree to disagree on this point.

Me:
(I will say that if Bush wins a second term, I have strong suspicions that your statement "politics are cyclical" may break down for a good long time, which is part of my concern.)

David:
Is someone plotting a coup that I should know about?

While I wouldn't call it a coup, the combination of the Patriot Act, the moves towards Patriot II, the establishment of "free speech zones" (funny, I thought that was supposed to be the whole frickin' country), and most recently the proposal for the "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004" (which would forbid the Supreme Court from taking cases involving things like Roy Moore's 10-Commandments brouhaha) have all "conspired" to make me deeply, deeply uneasy. When people in power credit God for putting them there, it leads one to a lot of concern about whether they'd acknowledge the will of the people saying we DON'T want them there.

So, no, no concrete evidence for the suspicions ... just a rather cold feeling in the pit of my secular, atheistic stomach. As with some of my other statements, I'd be perfectly happy to be wrong. The more that traditional conservatives speak out against the particularly peculiar form of it currently in vogue, the more comfortable I'd be.

TWL

Karen,
1.)Alan Greenspan must go? He is a huge reason the economy was so prosperous in the '90s. And he did an incredible balancing act, seeing that unemplyment rates were lower than any credible economists believed could be achieved without corresponding inflation (the theory being if the job market is that in favor of the employee, employers have to pay higher wages and therefore raise prices, and it doesn't matter if you make a ton more money if you have to pay $100 for a loaf of bread:)
2.) Many people do give back, and I feel they would give even more if they had more. For example, if i were to achieve my dream of breaking into the comic/screenplay business, and the money was rolling in, I would rather give a hard-working waitress a hndred dollar tip than give that money to the government.

David,
I have to agree with Tim on one point. The statement "I simply believe it's unacceptable for an individual to put his own sake ahead of that of the nation" does sound a bit socialist, even dictatorial.
As a free individual, you should have the choice - unless you're a military deserter - to live wherever the heck you want to.
If someone like Tim decides to leave he will either
A) Find a place that makes him happier
B.) Be even more unhappy and either want to move back or someplace else.
People should live here because they WANT to. Not because they HAVE to. That's sort of what the whole concept of a "free and open" society entails.

In other words, the number of people whose fortunes rise and fall in exact correspondence with Wall Street is highly inflated, IMO.

Hm? And your retirement is entirely cash and bond based? Unusual, though not unheard of....

Many people do give back, and I feel they would give even more if they had more. For example, if i were to achieve my dream of breaking into the comic/screenplay business, and the money was rolling in, I would rather give a hard-working waitress a hndred dollar tip than give that money to the government.

Heh. Professionally speaking, people don't give until they're ready to give. And they don't THINK they're ready to give (no matter the income level) until they're in their mid to late 50s, when the career is at their peak and the kids are out of the house....

I'm not socialist or dictatorial, I'm a nationalist. I don't see why it is really that bizarre for me as a conservative to find one specific thing (i.e. the American Republic) that I believe is more important than I am. One of the things that conservatives presumably want to conserve is the Constitution that guarantees the freest society the world has ever seen. There is nothing inconsistent in my taking the position that such a government is worth a sacrifice of our own petty self-interests. It's one reason I took a $200,000 education and went to work as a state court prosecutor instead of in a high-paying corporate job like everyone I went to law school with; I find it more meaningful to make a contribution to my society. This is not all that different than the argument I made a while back when we were debating the morality of conscription. Nobody is suggesting we hunt down expatriates like draft dodgers; what I am saying is that loyalty to the country is the morally correct position that everyone should take.

And while I agree with Tim that we're better off just agreeing to disagree, I still maintain that loyalty to the United States is not the same thing as slavish devotion to this or any other Administration. This is true even though it would take something truly bizarre, like the Democrats nominating Zell Miller for President, or Bush living up to Tim's nightmares about failing to step down after losing, to get me to change parties. From the other side, I can't see PAD voting Republican unless... um... I can't see PAD voting Republican, but does that mean he was a drone in "lockstep agreement" with the government under Democratic administrations? Political parties are means to ends, and the Republican party tends to advance ends of which I approve. Political affiliation isn't mindless adherence; for me it's merely a recognition that the correlation between my views and the Republican party platform tends to be much closer than the correlation between my views and the Democratic party platform. I assume Tim and PAD make similar analyses when deciding to identify themselves as Democrats or liberals or whatever labels they choose to employ. I don't always agree with Bush. I wouldn't have invaded Iraq. I wouldn't have cut taxes so heavily in the midst of the recession he inherited from Clinton. But I agree with him much more than I did (and do) with Gore or Kerry. If Kerry wins in November, I will be almost as unhappy about the political state of the nation as Tim and PAD are right now. ("Almost" because we'll probably still have the Congress.) But no matter how badly things go for the Republicans, I won't give up on the Republic itself.

David,
Wow! That is one of the most eloquent and heartfelt posts I have read on this blog. Or anywhere, really.
Kudos.
Jerome

Hm? And your retirement is entirely cash and bond based? Unusual, though not unheard of....

No, what money we have in mutual funds is mostly in stocks. I'm just saying there's not a lot there, and factors like job security and whether we're getting raises or bonuses affect us (and our outlook on the economy) far more than our little 401k is doing. And I'd bet that that's not unusual for a significant percent of the 40% of Americans who have mutual funds. Which (getting back to the point) undercuts the idea that becuase so many people have mutual funds, Wall Street's economic health reflects the economic health of the individual -- even many of those who DO own some stock.

Rob

David,

I'm not socialist or dictatorial, I'm a nationalist. I don't see why it is really that bizarre for me as a conservative to find one specific thing (i.e. the American Republic) that I believe is more important than I am.

Well, I do hope you realize I was basically kidding with that quip.

I don't think it's particularly bizarre at all when you phrase it that way -- it was more a matter of the completely absolutist phrasing you happened to use. There are certainly quite a few things I'd put above my own self-interests as a matter of course -- the ideals of this nation being one of them, just as they apparently are for you. Expressing it so absolutely, though, always makes me a tad concerned regardless of what the sentiment in question is. (So I'm wary of absolutes. Sue me ... oh, wait, you're a lawyer. Strike that. :-) When you're phrasing it at such an absolute level, you make it sound as though you're willing to lay down your life in order to prevent the country from getting whatever the national equivalent is of a hangnail, and I don't think that's what you mean. (If you mean that the nation's life or death is more important than your own, then I can at least meet you quite a ways down that line.)

In general, I'm not much of a nationalist -- I tend to view nations much the same way you view political parties, as a means to an end -- but I certainly agree that the Constitution and this nation's ideals are well worth defending and well worth putting above routine self-interest. (I do bristle slightly at the assumption that all self-interests are "petty" and/or not "morally correct" positions, but only slightly.) As I've mentioned before, I'm much more of an internationalist -- when taking a broad view, I personally tend to look more at what I think is best for our species or the planet than just the U.S., though those conditions are frequently pretty similar.

(As one who took a similarly expensive education and went into teaching high school, I completely understand the wish to give something back to the community rather than simply looking out for numero uno.)

And while I agree with Tim that we're better off just agreeing to disagree, I still maintain that loyalty to the United States is not the same thing as slavish devotion to this or any other Administration.

I'm wondering if it's simply an issue of terminology. If the government is taking an action you oppose, what action can you take that makes your disapproval clear while still "supporting the country"? How do you define that phrase? How do you oppose a decision or a policy without being accused of opposing the country?

This isn't just an idle question: an awful lot of us who DID take up opposition to the war, for example, were routinely described as un-American verminous traitors by quite a few people on the conservative side of the aisle (Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc., and then lots of the people who read or listen to them). I don't think you've been doing the judging or the name-calling by any means, but I'm curious as to how exactly you define the term.

I certainly agree with you that it's possible to respect, defend and support the ideals of the country while strongly opposing a particular party or a particular individual. I imagine we've all done that, albeit at different times. If that's all you mean by "supporting the country", then I'm totally with you, but not sure how you saw me as doing anything else.

This is turning into a rather intriguing philosophical discussion, I think!

TWL

You can't be 70815 serious?!?