PDA

View Full Version : Anti-Americanism


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Neil Mick
10-29-2004, 05:51 PM
I find it funny that many people that claim to "support our troops," yet only listen to the troops that have the same positive perspective of the war as they do. The truth is, there are quite a large number of veterans and current members of the military that are opposed to this war. In fact, they even have anti-war GI news letters. There always have been. They are a quite an interesting read, and probably one of the best sources as to whats really going on in Iraq. So, if you support the war, you are not necessarily supporting the troops. Same thing goes for not supporting the war.

In the own words of an Air Force Academy grad and veteran; Cliff Volpe:

"From February to April of this year, I backpacked around Iraq - mingling with the locals, traveling by public transportation, and exploring the country by myself. I found that Iraqis of all ethnicities - Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmen - routinely invited me to stay in their homes, fed me lavish meals, and went out of their way to show me around and make sure I stayed safe.

Without a doubt, Iraqis were the most hospitable, friendly people I have ever met."

-Cliff also touches upon how most Iraqis are much too proud to have a democracy pushed on them. They didn't like Saddam, but they don't like the Americans occupying their country either.

Good point, Mitch. I have been watching a fascinating 3-part TV-series, streamed in the internet, called "FAQ's." The show focuses upon the effect of the war upon soldiers and their families, and a good part of the segments had questions phoned in from the audience.

Check it out at www.linktv.org. Find the stream-link on "FAQ''s"

DanielR
10-29-2004, 08:38 PM
Come on, step up to the plate. I am curious as to your perspective on this issueStepping up to the plate of this post (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=85022&postcount=493) would mean laboring through a meaningless exchange of exaggerations and generalizations. So I thought I'd go get some fresh air instead.

I never said this, nor do I advocate violence, on any levelI take this passagePersonally, I think suicide bombing is a strategy that hurts the Palestinian's, in the end. If they are going to use a strategy that will end up killing themselves, then they should try directing their efforts against the Apartheid Wall, or the illegal settlements (which in themselves, are a misnomer. They aren't really "settlements" at all: more like armed fortresses). Sure, lots of Palestinian's would still die, but at least innocent Israeli's wouldn't be caught in the crossfire.to mean that you don't consider suicide bombings to be a useful way of resistance, but since they're so determined to blow themselves up, they should put it to "good" use and kill settlers instead, despite my pointing out that most of the settlers are innocent civilians that neither shot nor abused anybody in their lives, and are there simply because their government allowed for that. Apparently, your application of humanity doesn't encompass this category of people.

Who's going to say cease-fire for Palestine, at this point?Probably a peace-keeping force. Over the recent years, Palestinians demonstrated, at different times, either inability or unwillingness to halt terrorist acts, so somebody has to do it for them. If and when you fly to Israel again, I think you'll appreciate if your plane isn't brought down by a Kassam rocket fired from the West Bank.

Crimes committed by IDF soldiers, if such take place and are proven in court, should be prosecuted in accordance with the law, but their taking place doesn't negate the necessity of protecting Israel from rocket attacks and suicide bombings. Going back to the analogy of a peace-keeping mission in Rwanda, if a peace-keeper commits a crime agains a local, do you pull out the troops?

I don't know how I'd start acting, if I had an army camped out in my neighborhoodMay I suggest asking yourself why an army is camped in your neighborhood.

Neil Mick
10-29-2004, 10:21 PM
Come on, step up to the plate. I am curious as to your perspective on this issue

So I thought I'd go get some fresh air instead.

Good idea. It seems that you're reading implications, that I don't share, as I shall point out.



I never said this, nor do I advocate violence, on any level

I take this passage



Personally, I think suicide bombing is a strategy that hurts the Palestinian's, in the end. If they are going to use a strategy that will end up killing themselves, then they should try directing their efforts against the Apartheid Wall, or the illegal settlements (which in themselves, are a misnomer. They aren't really "settlements" at all: more like armed fortresses). Sure, lots of Palestinian's would still die, but at least innocent Israeli's wouldn't be caught in the crossfire.

to mean that you don't consider suicide bombings to be a useful way of resistance,

So far, so good. Right here is where you veer off the road of my thoughts, into the minefield

but since they're so determined to blow themselves up, they should put it to "good" use and kill settlers instead.

Sorry...I don't believe this: never said this. What part of

I never said this, nor do I advocate violence, on any level.

was vague, or unclear?

Over the recent years, Palestinians demonstrated, at different times, either inability or unwillingness to halt terrorist acts, so somebody has to do it for them.

Overgeneralization. Do all Israeli's support the Occupation? Of course not. Again, the IDF is an army; the Palestinian's are loosely confederated groups. I put it to you that Occupation or "somebody," will NOT be able to halt the Intifada. Only the Palestinian's can do that.

And the only way that they can make the choice to end it, is to be allowed to vote, to organize, and to not be terrorized by an unfriendly Occupation force.

Crimes committed by IDF soldiers, if such take place and are proven in court, should be prosecuted in accordance with the law, but their taking place doesn't negate the necessity of protecting Israel from rocket attacks and suicide bombings.

My, how terribly apologetic, of you. It's all good, so long as the IDF isn't prosecuted. The Justice system is limited in this form of prosecution, and the the US is standing by to make sure that the IDF is free from censure by the world.

It's all sewed up, isn't it? No charges, no problem.

And still: innocents are shot, kids are tied to jeeps, houses are bulldozed. And the crimes go on and on.

Going back to the analogy of a peace-keeping mission in Rwanda, if a peace-keeper commits a crime agains a local, do you pull out the troops?

If a "peace-keeper" commits a crime against a local, you file charges and take steps to make sure that this doesn't happen, again. The IDF seems blissfully free of this check.

Tom Herndall, a British ISM activist, lost his life when shot at. He jumped in the path of a sniper to save an infant, who was the target. The British protested, the (Arab) IDF soldier was disciplined.

What happened to Rachel Corrie's murderer? HE was back in the bulldozer-saddle again, 4 days later. NO charges filed, no investigations made.

Coincidence, that Corrie was an American: a native of the country that supports Israel so thoroughly? I don't think so.




I don't know how I'd start acting, if I had an army camped out in my neighborhood

May I suggest asking yourself why an army is camped in your neighborhood.

(and I gotta say: this answer is patently heartless. Respectfully, you're not putting yourself in the Palestinians' place, if you make this comment.

Which, IMO: is the core of the problem...on both sides)

Oh yes: there's ALWAYS a "good reason," for everything: from the basic, to the most atrocious acts. Bush had his "reasons" for attacking Iraq, too.

The BEST "reasons" are those that have an element of truth, or some justification to them. Hussein was a baad man. Gotta protect the Israeli's from the baad men/women.

Doubtless, the Palestinian's are telling themselves that the IDF has "good reasons," every time the IDF bulldozes another 200+ houses, or ties kids to jeeps.

At least, the IDF press-corps is never under-utilized. But, it's cold comfort for the ppl who have to live with these policies.

Violence always bites the aggressor back, in the end...and YES: Daniel, I mean that for both parties.

DanielR
10-30-2004, 07:31 AM
What part of "I never said this, nor do I advocate violence, on any level." was vague, or unclear?The part where you seem to consider civilian settlers legitimate targets, justifying it by the fact that settlements are "more like armed fortresses" and that they "carry guns, shoot and abuse Palestinian's, as they choose". If the very fact that they're civilians is not enough, I also provided you with information about the settlers that indicates that your statements about settler's character and conduct are, borrowing your term, overgeneralizations. Please explain.

Palestinian's are loosely confederated groups. I put it to you that Occupation or "somebody," will NOT be able to halt the Intifada. Only the Palestinian's can do that.If they're only "loosely confederated", how do you imagine them getting together and collectively deciding to halt attacks and then actually implementing that decision? Somebody or something has to ensure safety of Israel while Palestinians get their act together.

The IDF seems blissfully free of this check. <snip> Tom Herndall, a British ISM activist, lost his life when shot at.According to this site (http://www.tomhurndall.co.uk/press-release-10-8-04.asp), the legal proceedings in this case are continuing. Trial dates are scheduled into November. The plaintiff is represented by two Israeli attorneys. What happened to Rachel Corrie's murderer? HE was back in the bulldozer-saddle againI suppose that since legal recourse is available to Tom Herndall's family, a similar approach could be taken in the case of Rachel Corrie's death.

Doubtless, the Palestinian's are telling themselves that the IDF has "good reasons," every time the IDF bulldozes another 200+ houses, or ties kids to jeeps.The recent redeployment of IDF in the territories was a result of repeated attacks on Israel. IDF is there to arrest or destroy militants, confiscate explosives, destroy laboratories for manufacturing of Kassams, increase the buffer zone between Kassam launch sites and Southern Israel. It is an immediate necessity; if it's not done, more Israelis will die in rocket attacks. Tying kids, ISM activists, Israeli leftists, or any other human beings to IDF's vehicles for use as human shields is a deplorable method that must be stopped. It has been challenged in the Israeli Supreme Court.

I gotta say: this answer is patently heartless. Respectfully, you're not putting yourself in the Palestinians' place, if you make this comment. Which, IMO: is the core of the problem...on both sidesIf you want hearted, let's sing "Give peace a chance" together and be done. But this is not what you asked me to "step up to the plate" for, is it?

Neil Mick
10-30-2004, 07:48 PM
The part where you seem to consider civilian settlers legitimate targets, justifying it by the fact that settlements are "more like armed fortresses" and that they "carry guns, shoot and abuse Palestinian's, as they choose".

Here, lemme break it down for you, as you obviously require assistance.

A. Settlements ARE more like "armed fortresses," than settlements;

B. Settlers (NOT all, but certainly the ones that do these things) DO carry guns and shoot and abuse Palestinian's

But,

A + B does NOT =

C, in which you put words in my mouth, saying that "settlers are legitimate targets." No, no, no.

The settlers do not belong there, but once again, violent measures are not the way to remove them. YOU made that correlation, not I.

Next question.

If they're only "loosely confederated", how do you imagine them getting together and collectively deciding to halt attacks and then actually implementing that decision? Somebody or something has to ensure safety of Israel while Palestinians get their act together.

Amazing as it sounds, groups CAN get together to mutually decide upon an action. But, just try and get them to all disarm...Arafat has tried it numerous times...doesn't seem to work.

CERTAINLY, it's a lot harder than ordering an army to stand down.

a similar approach could be taken in the case of Rachel Corrie's death.

Don't you think that this has been tried...? Don't you think that the parents of Corrie have exhausted ALL efforts to bring this about? They even went to the Territories to get justice for Rachel (getting nothing but shot at, for their troubles).

The recent redeployment of IDF in the territories was a result of repeated attacks on Israel. IDF is there to arrest or destroy militants, confiscate explosives, destroy laboratories for manufacturing of Kassams, increase the buffer zone between Kassam launch sites and Southern Israel. It is an immediate necessity; if it's not done, more Israelis will die in rocket attacks.

Oh, please, give me a break. Violence, will beget more violence. I suppose you think the recent incursion in Gaza, which totally sealed off the residents from food and water, to be a "result of attacks?" But of course you do: to you, it's all "an immediate necessity."

Wake me up, when you get to "final solution," will ya? :rolleyes:


Tying kids, ISM activists, Israeli leftists, or any other human beings to IDF's vehicles for use as human shields is a deplorable method that must be stopped. It has been challenged in the Israeli Supreme Court.

"Challenged," is a far cry from banned. The Supreme Court, as I've said, has limited power over the IDF. But at least we agree that these methods are deplorable.

If you want hearted, let's sing "Give peace a chance" together and be done. But this is not what you asked me to "step up to the plate" for, is it?

Fair enough: I did ask you to "step up," not to be empathetic.

Neil Mick
10-30-2004, 10:17 PM
repeated attacks on Israel.

And finally: WHAT "repeated attacks on Israel??"

There's the problem, right there, IMHO...they AREN"T attacks on Israel: I don't see any armies marching through Israel...these attacks are attacks upon the Israeli ppl. At least, if you're referring to the suicide bombers, and the rocket-launcher attacks. The Israeli gov't and infrastructure seem to be doing quite fine, last I checked.

The IDF attacks both the Palestinian ppls, and their gov't. The Palestinian economy is almost completely beholden to Israel. The Occupation affects every aspect, of everyone's life.

DanielR
10-30-2004, 11:04 PM
Here, lemme break it down for you, as you obviously require assistance.Thank you, I did indeed ask for assistance. Your position is now clear.
Arafat has tried it numerous times...doesn't seem to work.So who or what are going to protect Israel from attacks?
Don't you think that the parents of Corrie have exhausted ALL efforts to bring this about? They even went to the Territories to get justice for Rachel (getting nothing but shot at, for their troubles).I suppose they did. I can acknowledge the sadness of this incident, but I cannot reach a definitive conclusion for obvious reasons.
I find it interesting, by the way, that you didn't acknowledge that your claim regarding Tom Herndall's case was apparently incomplete, unless you possess information not published on the site I provided reference to.
I suppose you think the recent incursion in Gaza, which totally sealed off the residents from food and water, to be a "result of attacks?" But of course you do: to you, it's all "an immediate necessity."I do think that something needed to be done to prevent rocket attacks. I do not condone excessive force or hardships caused to the local population that can be avioded.
Wake me up, when you get to "final solution," will ya?If I understand this correctly and you refer to the final solution in the context of the Holocaust, then I find it highly inappropriate.
they AREN"T attacks on Israel: I don't see any armies marching through Israel...these attacks are attacks upon the Israeli ppl.Please explain importance of this distinction, and how it should change the way Israeli government protects its people.

Neil Mick
10-31-2004, 03:31 PM
.So who or what are going to protect Israel from attacks?

Sure: Israel should protect its populace: but there comes a line between "protection," and "aggression."

Sharon's marching into the Al Aksa Mosque with 600 troops at his back to "demonstrate" how "anyone" should be able to enter, is not defending Israel, IMO. It's an overt act of aggression.

So, my (incomplete) answer is--less overt aggression, more protection. Occasional security checkpoints are an obvious necessity: what is not, is the 5+ hr waits in the hot sun at these checkpoints, for no reason other than to harass.

I could go on, but you get the idea. The IDF's relationships with the Palestinian's are sorely lacking (there are exceptions, but these pale with the viciousness of the aggression), and a complete withdrawal of the Occupation, would be a good start.


I find it interesting, by the way, that you didn't acknowledge that your claim regarding Tom Herndall's case was apparently incomplete, unless you possess information not published on the site I provided reference to.;/quote]

OK: my claim regarding Herndall's case was incomplete. I was related the latest info I'd heard on the topic. But, one investigation is hardly a conclusive example that IDF soldiers' excesses are properly disciplined, or investigated, in their entirety.

[quote]I do think that something needed to be done to prevent rocket attacks. I do not condone excessive force or hardships caused to the local population that can be avioded.

Yes, we are in agreement, here.

Please explain importance of this distinction, and how it should change the way Israeli government protects its people.

Palestinian's need to be taken out of the role of "enemies of Israel." It's time for a little Truth and Reconciliation, on both sides of the fence. As it is now, the situation resembles Apartheid South Africa.

Investigative committee's need to replace missiles, and military incursions. These don't work, except to anger the Palestinian's, more. The UN could be of major assistance here, and could replace the more violent alternative, to Occupation.

MitchMZ
10-31-2004, 06:04 PM
All is fair in love and war my friends...very important to remember that.

mj
11-01-2004, 12:15 PM
All is fair in love and war my friends...very important to remember that.
Sorry...this is the 21st century. We expect more now.

MitchMZ
11-01-2004, 01:05 PM
Conflict is in human nature, and it is in human nature to not fight fair. Really, I see conflict as a simple way to cover up more complex issues. For example: It is much easier to just smack someone is the face than it is to perform an Aikido technique. I think with proper knowledge and power comes the ability to not use direct conflict. That is why we are training right? Violent action is as predictable of a human response as when someone flinches or blinks. Thats not to say it necessarily correct in every situation, though. I think those with simple views tend to favor aggressive action. Me, I see everything as a complex web of factors. Including the current conflicts around the world.

DanielR
11-01-2004, 03:09 PM
a complete withdrawal of the Occupation, would be a good start... The UN could be of major assistance here, and could replace the more violent alternativeThe UN has no trust in Israel, as it is perceived as heavily anti-Israeli (whether it's justified or not). IMO, only when a serious army replaces IDF in ensuring security of Israel at the territories immediately after IDF withdraws, will there be any chance for resuming talks.

they AREN"T attacks on Israel: I don't see any armies marching through Israel...these attacks are attacks upon the Israeli ppl. At least, if you're referring to the suicide bombers, and the rocket-launcher attacks... Investigative committee's need to replace missiles, and military incursions.Let me see if I understand you correctly: are you saying that since there's no state of war between Israel and Palestine (whatever the latter is), attacks on Israeli civilians should be considered criminal acts, not acts of war, and thus Israel has no right to a military option? But anyway, all this is completely academic since there's noone that would investigate and take effective action, unless, again, there's a strong force in place.

mj
11-02-2004, 06:39 PM
Conflict is in human nature, and it is in human nature to not fight fair...
Speak for yourself. :circle:

MitchMZ
11-02-2004, 08:02 PM
Well, I tend to take an evolutionists perspective to things...I do not advocate violence...I think that brings us to the level of animals. But, it seems many people are happy being animals ;)

Neil Mick
11-02-2004, 10:09 PM
a complete withdrawal of the Occupation, would be a good start... The UN could be of major assistance here, and could replace the more violent alternative

The UN has no trust in Israel, as it is perceived as heavily anti-Israeli (whether it's justified or not). IMO, only when a serious army replaces IDF in ensuring security of Israel at the territories immediately after IDF withdraws, will there be any chance for resuming talks.

And so, we come to a parting of agreement. I contend that one of the sources of the "problem" is the manner in which Israel treats it. "The Palestinian problem" is a matter of security and a police-matter, and the whole course of treating it as a military-matter, is what is causing the problem. Military campaigns, left unchecked, tend to increase in violence, and the Occupation has been going on for quite some time (not as long as Britain, but give it time..it's just starting to build up steam). Obviously, the violence increases proportional to the resistance, of the Occupied.

The very nature that Israel chooses to see the Palestine's as an "enemy," is what is causing the cycle of violence.

The UN is perceived as anti-Israeli because of if the US's "special relationship" with Israel. If the US doesn't want to being up an issue antithetical to Israeli interests, it tends to go away. Anything against Israel's interest that manages to make it to vote is vetoed by the US. I think the animosity is simply...jealousy. The Marshal Islands WISHES it were Israel. :crazy:

And sorry, the chances of resuming talks is practically nil, if you don't allow the Palestinian's to organize and elect a leader. Who are they going to talk to?

they AREN"T attacks on Israel: I don't see any armies marching through Israel...these attacks are attacks upon the Israeli ppl. At least, if you're referring to the suicide bombers, and the rocket-launcher attacks... Investigative committee's need to replace missiles, and military incursions.

Let me see if I understand you correctly: are you saying that since there's no state of war between Israel whatever Israel is, as it's the only nation on earth, with no defined borders--N
and Palestine (whatever the latter is), attacks on Israeli civilians should be considered criminal acts, not acts of war, and thus Israel has no right to a military option? But anyway, all this is completely academic since there's noone that would investigate and take effective action, unless, again, there's a strong force in place.

We will have to agree, to disagree. I think the UN would be a better alternative, to Israel, who can't seem to be bothered with niceties such as international law. But, we CAN agree that it's academic because neither the Israeli's (for various political reasons, mostly spurred on by fear): and the Palestinian militants cannot think outside of a "die for the Cause" solution (for various physical reasons, partly due to the realites of Occupation).

And in the end, it bites them both. Israel probably won't be invaded by some Palestinian menace: it will more likely implode. Who shot Yitzhak Rabin? Not a Palestinian: a Rightwing extremist Israeli.

And "distrust?" Please--are you worried about a UN invasion of Israel? :freaky:

Neil Mick
11-02-2004, 10:29 PM
Conflict is in human nature, and it is in human nature to not fight fair. Really, I see conflict as a simple way to cover up more complex issues. For example: It is much easier to just smack someone is the face than it is to perform an Aikido technique. I think with proper knowledge and power comes the ability to not use direct conflict. That is why we are training right? Violent action is as predictable of a human response as when someone flinches or blinks. Thats not to say it necessarily correct in every situation, though. I think those with simple views tend to favor aggressive action. Me, I see everything as a complex web of factors. Including the current conflicts around the world.

Good post.
Too true.

But...you forgot one thing.

For an average Joe to be trained to kill another human being, takes a certain element of deception, to convince them to kill. Most ppl will not kill another person, simply because they are ordered to do it. It takes repetitive training and increasing use of abstractions (bullseyes, simulations, etc) to convince a person to follow orders to kill on command (or even, at all. There's this great episode of "The Prisoner" a 1960's TV series w/ Patrick McGoohan, where his captors were trying to delude him into picking up and using a gun to kill: he didn't. The episode was censored, and not shone on TV).

In fact, we are the only animals who kill our own species on any organized scale. Most fights between apes, wolves, lions, etc, end up with the loser still alive (OK, you may have me with ants, etc, but I prefer not to pattern my life around the behavior of an insect :eek: )

Personally, I think that the animals have it right, and we dumb humans have been confused by all this violent training. :cool:

DanielR
11-03-2004, 12:27 PM
one of the sources of the "problem" is the manner in which Israel treats it. "The Palestinian problem" is a matter of security and a police-matter, and the whole course of treating it as a military-matter, is what is causing the problem.This is the question I've been repeating over and over. What force is going to do the "securing" and the "policing" when IDF withdraws.

Occupation has been going on for quite some time (not as long as Britain, but give it time..it's just starting to build up steam)I fail to see that,in light of the planned pullout, and the public opinion of the majority of Israelis (as I see the latter).

Obviously, the violence increases proportional to the resistance, of the occcupiedNot necessarily. For instance, IIRC, violence was at one of its peaks during the period prior to Rabin's assassination and subsequent Peres' short-lived leftist government, when the chance for a settlement was good.

the chances of resuming talks is practically nil, if you don't allow the Palestinian's to organize and elect a leader. Who are they going to talk to?I don't think I ever said they weren't to be allowed to organize. Again, my concern is safety of Israelis in the period between the withdrawal of IDF and the moment an organized Palestinian entity is strong enough to ensure that safety. Whoever Arafat gives up control to, they need to make Hamas, the Tanzim etc. maintain a cease-fire. Analysts doubt that anyone in today's Palestinian leadership has enough influence to do that, due to internal struggles for power and the strength of the Islamic groups. If the new Palestinian leadership is unable to prevent attacks and immediately find and neutralize the perpetrators in case an attack happens, Israel will not tolerate repeated attacks for long.

And "distrust?" Please--are you worried about a UN invasion of Israel?I said that UN is perceived as heavily anti-Israeli (whether it's justified or not). IMO, many Israelis consider most IDF actions over the years as those of self-defense, and UN's condemnations as unbalanced and driven by hostile Arab and European countries. Please note that I'm talking about public opinion, not my own, so maybe we could skip your explaining how this opinion is incorrect. In addition, UN has no proven track record of mediating such complex and dangerous conflicts. Their mission in Lebanon (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/), for example, is absolutely toothless.
We've been through this: any major shift in policy needs to be sold to Israeli voters. No change in policy is going to fly unless Israelis are more or less safe from attacks coming from Palestine.

Neil Mick
11-03-2004, 02:03 PM
See you crying the evening of Nov. 2, saying, "Whyyyyyyy, oh Whyyyyyy !"

Since I am listening to the latest news on the BBC, I thought this would be an appropriate time, to respond.

My overriding feeling...? Annoyance. Once again, we get yet ANOTHER four years of lies, massive bulldozings through Civil Liberties, an appt of the Supreme Court in the balance, a war in which the bad news from Iraq is coming in, DAILY, and how does the American system (yes, the majority (but, a slim majority) of the American voting public) decide?

"We prefer fear and bullying, to any sort of a reminder that we are being led, facefirst, into a big, black hole. Hooray for violence"

So, yeah: I was thinking about this question...why? The answer is involved, but I got part of it, reading this (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/10/28/BAGLB9HPS71.DTL) article yesterday, by a Conservative columnist.

There's an element of bitterness in the writer explaining why she, and her Dad, will vote for Bush. She said that even tho she knows that Bush is running the country wrong, she'll vote for Bush anyway, just to wipe the smirk of the faces off ppl like Michael Moore and Jeneane Garofolo. She went on to stress that she wants the "white hats" back: meaning that she prefers the image of the illusion of the US as global hero, to the reality of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and the prison-industrial complex.

My father, in other words, is not as invested in Bush winning as in Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton and other Bush-haters losing.

There's a term for this: it involves using knives, noses, cutting, and spite. It's hardly a healthy reason for placing your trust in a leader.

I do feel a little sad for all the ppl who worked so hard in this election. I know of at least one Aikidoka in my dojo, who travelled to Florida to work on getting out the vote, last weekend. Personally, I worked a little on electronic voting issues online, and worked a little on getting Ohio Dem's to vote.

But, I balked at trying to muster Dem registration because even if Kerry had won, he wasn't my leader. Kerry still would drive the war, but at least he wouldn't have kicked out Roe v Wade, and likely, he'd have stepped down from deploying battlefield nuc's. Certainly, he'd have been better for the environment.

Instead, the nightmare continues. It is still midnight. Gods help America, and the world. But, a Kerry election wouldn't have been a big wake-up, either.

But, give up, stop working for change, assume that the liars will always win...? A warrior never quits: just changes the battlefield. :cool:

But first: off to march I go.

Michael Neal
11-03-2004, 02:26 PM
Lol

Taliesin
11-04-2004, 08:45 AM
Neil

Look at the bright side at least Osama Bin Laden can sleep safely for the next 4 years (probably the only person on the planet who can)

Michael Cangemi
11-04-2004, 09:27 PM
I'm over my initial feelings of horror and disgust at the way it all went down this week. I guess I am, anyway. At first, my question was "how can the same mistake be made 56 million times?" I thought about it all day wednesday, and I honestly couldn't come up with an answer. In fact, it left me with a more puzzling, and even more troubling question -- is it that there truly were 56 million mistakes made by my fellow voting citizens...or is it that they truly believe that this clod is either capable of, or has done, a good job the last 4 years? To me (and since it's my post, what I say goes, get your own post to offer empty opinions) the incompetency and arrogance of this regime is obvious, but maybe it's me, I don't know. Still, that aside, if the majority of Americans are apparently buying what they have sold us...well, I sure hope we kept the receipt.

Neil Mick
11-04-2004, 10:00 PM
Neil

Look at the bright side at least Osama Bin Laden can sleep safely for the next 4 years (probably the only person on the planet who can)

:freaky:
There's another bright side: at least Bush will have to clean up his own mess he made in his first term.

if the majority of Americans are apparently buying what they have sold us...well, I sure hope we kept the receipt.

Yes, I share your feelings. But no, we don't get to keep the receipt: esp if your precinct used e-voting. ;)

The thing that REALLY gets me are all the Polly-Anna media telling us how "new and better" things are expected of Bush, and he's expected to change his stripes.

And darn it! There goes ANOTHER pig flying across my window... :crazy:

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

But, I also have a sneaking suspicion that this isn't through. The evidence of election shenanigans (and yes, I AM talking about tampering) are slipping in, and I think that the full story has yet to be told.

Michael Cangemi
11-04-2004, 10:23 PM
Neil,

I think you might be right -- there probably were some fun and games played this time around. I guess they had four years to conceal them a bit better than they did last time. But on the other hand, let's be honest -- this fool couldn't find oil in Texas, can't find a 6 feet, 5 inch guy with a portable dialysis machine wandering through the desert, and couldn't Photoshop a spy satellite photo to show a nuke somewhere outside of Baghdad. Are they/he really capable of rigging a dog show, much less an election? Part of me hopes so -- at least then we could point to that as an excuse for four more years of subpar government and the war on "turrur"....

Neil Mick
11-05-2004, 05:08 PM
Neil,

I think you might be right -- there probably were some fun and games played this time around. I guess they had four years to conceal them a bit better than they did last time.

Yes, but the story isn't over. See my other post in the "Voter Meltdown" thread, for some links on this issue.

But on the other hand, let's be honest -- this fool couldn't find oil in Texas, can't find a 6 feet, 5 inch guy with a portable dialysis machine wandering through the desert, and couldn't Photoshop a spy satellite photo to show a nuke somewhere outside of Baghdad. Are they/he really capable of rigging a dog show, much less an election? Part of me hopes so -- at least then we could point to that as an excuse for four more years of subpar government and the war on "turrur"....

It is very dangerous to underestimate (or "misunderestimate," per a fave Bush'ism) Bush: personally, I don't think he's stupid...incompetent, maybe. Uninterested in opinions outside his own, certainly. Inflexible in problem-solving, most certainly. But, to dismiss him as "stupid" is minimalizing how "dangerous" he is: no matter what his IQ, he is surrounded by some of the most cunning and amoral minds of gov't today.

I'm sure you've heard about the supposed wire Bush was wearing, during the debates (see David Lindorff's article on Slate.com). The real question isn't "was he wearing a wire;" it's "why would he need to wear one?" Bush simply isn't interested in learning the complexities of issues, travels little and reads even less. He knows what his vision of the world is, and he is satisfied with the narrow window of his projections.

But, don't be fooled into thinking he's stupid. Dismissing his stupidity is a pitfall into dismissing how dangerous, his Admin is.

P.S. to Daniel: I haven't forgotten our conversation: but my time is limited, and I'll respond (poss in a new thread) next week. Big seminar coming up, and several big Sensei's coming in from out of town.

DanielR
11-05-2004, 07:53 PM
I haven't forgotten our conversationNo problem.

Michael Cangemi
11-05-2004, 07:57 PM
It is very dangerous to underestimate (or "misunderestimate," per a fave Bush'ism) Bush: personally, I don't think he's stupid...incompetent, maybe..

Yeah, that's true. I just can't shake the vibe I get from him -- like he's some kind of puppet for his party, a tool or something (well, he IS a tool, but you know what I mean.)

I'm sure you've heard about the supposed wire Bush was wearing, during the debates (see David Lindorff's article on Slate.com). The real question isn't "was he wearing a wire;" it's "why would he need to wear one?"

"Hey, Bush's lips are moving, but that sounds like Dick Cheney's voice!" Sleep deprivation is kicking in, that seemed funny when I wrote it. Nevermind...

Bush simply isn't interested in learning the complexities of issues, travels little and reads even less. He knows what his vision of the world is, and he is satisfied with the narrow window of his projections.

That reminds me of a great Rush song called Territories -- there's a line in there that goes "better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." That really doesn't have much to do with anything, really. I just like Rush, that's all.

But, don't be fooled into thinking he's stupid. Dismissing his stupidity is a pitfall into dismissing how dangerous, his Admin is.

Very good advice. My hope is that over the next four years, a few million more people get turned on to that idea and make a better choice next time around. I get the bad feeling that in 2008 it'll be Jeb's turn, and I've got to say the day a guy named Jeb is in charge, well...you know.

Neil Mick
11-05-2004, 10:39 PM
That reminds me of a great Rush song called Territories -- there's a line in there that goes "better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." That really doesn't have much to do with anything, really. I just like Rush, that's all.

Oh, I dunno: I think the quote's relevant (and, I have a guilty pleasure for Rush, as well ;) )

Very good advice. My hope is that over the next four years, a few million more people get turned on to that idea and make a better choice next time around.

We'll see: if anyone deserves the "most likely to be impeached" award, it had to be Bush, for his first term. And yet: the guy gets re-elected! :crazy:

My guts tell me some major rigging, was going on. But, all I have is my intuition, and some initial investigations...too early to tell, for sure.

I get the bad feeling that in 2008 it'll be Jeb's turn, and I've got to say the day a guy named Jeb is in charge, well...you know.

brr...scary.... :dead: :hypno:

vanstretch
11-10-2004, 10:28 AM
give it a rest lefto's . He won by 4million votes. The people of this country are sick of the nonsense dribble and negativity of the left and have raised their middle fingers to you. Bush has stuck to his word. Is a man of honor, and is bringing the fight to the enemy. He is unapologetic and is focused on the tasks at hand. Regardless if it offends your fragile sensibilities. The left is bitter and mainly on the negative. Every time I see one of your spokesmen on cnn, it sounds like the whinings of some bigcrybaby who just got beat up in the schoolhouse playground and is proceeding to tattle. Get over it. and instead of being such finger pointers,try being patriotic and supporting your president. Now that would be a novel idea eh?

Hogan
11-10-2004, 12:00 PM
give it a rest lefto's . He won by 4million votes. The people of this country are sick of the nonsense dribble and negativity of the left and have raised their middle fingers to you. Bush has stuck to his word. Is a man of honor, and is bringing the fight to the enemy. He is unapologetic and is focused on the tasks at hand. Regardless if it offends your fragile sensibilities. The left is bitter and mainly on the negative. Every time I see one of your spokesmen on cnn, it sounds like the whinings of some bigcrybaby who just got beat up in the schoolhouse playground and is proceeding to tattle. Get over it. and instead of being such finger pointers,try being patriotic and supporting your president. Now that would be a novel idea eh?

That's pretty funny. They CAN'T ! The democrats are incredably self-centered and arrogant, believing they know what's best for all and seemingly unable to come to grips with those that don't see things there way.

Nice thought, you had, though....

Hogan
11-10-2004, 02:23 PM
Hmmm, maybe bringing freedom to the Mid East WILL work....

"Despite the belief that poverty nurtures terrorism, a new study shows that there is no link between the two.

The study, however, did find that — with the exception of totalitarian regimes — the more political freedom a country affords, the less likely it is to be hit with terrorism.

The study — conducted by an associate professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and outlined in a school newspaper — examined the nearly 1,800 reports of domestic and international terrorism last year with respect to a number of variables, and found that political freedom was one of the only variables that related to levels of terrorism."

deepsoup
11-10-2004, 05:51 PM
and is bringing the fight to the enemy.
Not half as fast as he's bringing new enemies to the fight.

Demetrio Cereijo
11-10-2004, 06:00 PM
...The study — conducted by an associate professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and outlined in a school newspaper — examined the nearly 1,800 reports of domestic and international terrorism last year with respect to a number of variables, and found that political freedom was one of the only variables that related to levels of terrorism."

The link: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.04/05-terror.html

vanstretch
11-10-2004, 06:48 PM
John ,that is pure horseshit. Dont start quoting some hawvawd professor either. Look at the US ;poverty sticken areas are riddled with crime and most of the criminal element live in these dumps, there is a direct correlation. Im not here to walk on eggshells for you or anyone else, so please gimme a break with that study conducted nonsense. Higher education? New Study? Try a ride-a-long and look deeper into "tried and true" studies. But hey, what do I know?

Taliesin
11-11-2004, 03:48 AM
Daniel

Bush - A Man of Honor??? Focused on the tasks in hand??? (like hunting down Osama Bin Laden, or do you mean ensuring profits for the Oil companies).

OK he won and we have to deal with the consequences. But PLEASE try to remember things like FACTS and EVIDENCE. You might also remember that your country was founded on complaints against the injustices of the then current administration.

By the way Patriotism is lover of your country. That means being prepared to make criticisms to make it a better place. Jingoism is "my county right or wrong". And you don't seem to be able to reach even that standard.

Hogan
11-11-2004, 08:07 AM
John ,that is pure horseshit. Dont start quoting some hawvawd professor either. Look at the US ;poverty sticken areas are riddled with crime and most of the criminal element live in these dumps, there is a direct correlation. Im not here to walk on eggshells for you or anyone else, so please gimme a break with that study conducted nonsense. Higher education? New Study? Try a ride-a-long and look deeper into "tried and true" studies. But hey, what do I know?

I take it you don't agree with it, then....

Hogan
11-11-2004, 08:08 AM
The link: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.04/05-terror.html

Thanks for the link !

vanstretch
11-11-2004, 09:59 AM
That piece of useless trash Michael Moore should bow his head in shame. The lefts instigating,bitter, sore-loser, attitude has only contributed to the divisiveness we have had up to now. How about supporting your President? Every one of you that find reason against President Bush have merely sounded like whining crybabys. That includes your talking heads on cspan. It sickens me that you who do so, forget that a Man of Honor and Honest Dignity is bringing the war to those that attacked us. I dont take lead from some armchair liberal up at Harvard,I take lead from the guy in the trench. Today is Veterans Day. Show some respect!!

vanstretch
11-11-2004, 10:01 AM
Hell, from now on-everyday is Veterans Day!

mj
11-11-2004, 11:23 AM
It's called Remembrance Day. It's f all to do with 'veterans'...it's to commemorate all who die in all wars....don't try to dirty it with your nasty little reconstructionism.

Thoroughly nasty little man. Can't even address people with common decency.

deepsoup
11-11-2004, 11:33 AM
It sickens me that you who do so, forget that a Man of Honor and Honest Dignity is bringing the war to those that attacked us.
I guess you're one of the majority of republican voters who still think Saddam Hussein was somehow involved in the Sept 11 atrocity, after even Bush himself has had to admit there has never been a shred of evidence of collaberation between Saddam and Bin Laden.

Invading Iraq to "take the war to those who attacked us" makes about as much sense as if Roosevelt had bombed Sweden in response to Pearl Harbour.

I'm not even going to bother responding to "Honor and Honest Dignity". Though I do at least have to admit that Bush is a little brighter than I thought - he's at least an averagely bright American, in the sense that half the US population seem to be even dumber than him.

Sean
x

Neil Mick
11-11-2004, 12:31 PM
I guess you're one of the majority of republican voters who still think Saddam Hussein was somehow involved in the Sept 11 atrocity, after even Bush himself has had to admit there has never been a shred of evidence of collaberation between Saddam and Bin Laden.

You got it, Sean: he even said as much, at one point.

Please, folks: don't feed the troll. Just put him on ignore, and let him go eat thread-lock, somewhere else.

vanstretch
11-11-2004, 01:37 PM
No troll, just speaking my mind, as you do Neil, Your love of orating your bile goes way too far. You Mick should show much more respect for others than you do. Our vets are doing a great job. Its pointless arguing with you because its so circular and insaine. I will continue to make my points as you do. I dont need you nor care if you opt to ignore or not. There are many others that agree with what Bush is doing and what I am saying. How dare you take position as thread manager. You remind me of a grown up tattletale.The nerd with the slide ruler. Everyone hates that kinda guy. You could do better, try.

vanstretch
11-11-2004, 01:38 PM
And Mick, I'm not going anywhere-and i hope that chaps your ass!

mj
11-11-2004, 01:46 PM
You remind me of a grown up .... Indeed.

akiy
11-11-2004, 01:52 PM
Hi folks,

Please watch your tone in your postings. Thank you.

-- Jun

vanstretch
11-11-2004, 02:07 PM
Look, I am not here to try to get anyone to agree with me. This is an open forum and I will exercize my ability to speak my mind. I am not in a battle with anyone either. I am frustrated with the armchair quarterbackers who go on in their long threads,citing stories/bits that try to prove their points. Hey lets quote this Harvard professor,or that news bit,that'll make our arguement stronger. Debating doesnt do much good. We may disagree on many points.Thats a given. I support what W is doing and had been doing,before all this division began. I dont like whining and it seems the left is doing the bulk of that. I'll work on keeping name calling in check. It just pisses me off that you left side folks dont support or want to come together and be part of a great nation of people comming together.we are at war and bringing the fight to those that attacked us. It is so easy to point out anothers faults. Hell, thats simple, I dont like myself when I do it and I deplore it in others as well. I was a soldier and a police officer and I will speak, and continue to speak in support of President Bush, he is doing the best he can and I am certain his tasks are very difficult as are his decisions.

Kevin Leavitt
11-11-2004, 02:32 PM
Many of the so-called left may not like the direction we are headed as a nation, but they still are american's and support america. Maybe not quite the way you like.

I think we are all frustrated as a nation on both sides of the house, and there is fault to be found on both the left and the right, as much as there is good on both sides.

I believe it to be much more important to discuss how we can best resolve our issues and reach peace than to get caught up in emotions and result to personal attacks and name calling. It certainly is not in the spirit of Aikido for sure.

There are those on the right that don't want to come together anymore than some of those on the left. Our leaders have moved on past the election...it is probably time all of us do to and figure out ways to address our problems.

Your role in society be it a soldier, police officer, peace corps worker, or green peace volunteer, does not give you a sense of entitlement that you are more of an american than those that do not share your views or opinions...All are americans. We should rejoice on this Veteran's day that we have the ability to have opinions and freely discuss them!

vanstretch
11-11-2004, 02:41 PM
Well Kevin, I think it does. I think that ones role in society does show and prove(through actions) that some of us are much more patriotic and american than others. Hey, if you opt to whine and complain about everything and take a victim mentality then that speaks volumes about you. From what I have been hearing on this particular thread, I question the very americanism/patrioitism of many of the left-side posters. It is of great concern.

Neil Mick
11-11-2004, 04:23 PM
Daniel makes his reasons for posting quite clear, here:

Debating doesnt do much good

It's not about debate, or presenting his view. He doesn't even get why he's on my Ignore list--he confuses disrespect, with dissent, and dissent with disrespect. He believes that criticizing one's President during wartime is unpatriotic (as if. I wonder what aphorisms of virtue he spouted during Clinton's regime, when we've been at a CONSTANT state of war since the late 50's, so going by his logic: it's unpatriotic to criticize ANY President, for ANYTHING).

Just the other day, I had a Sensei in my dojo come up to me and congratulate me on my posts about the election. Some ppl find my views insightful, and my links informative.

Thank you Sensei, and all the others who hold this view. That's the reason I post. But, ppl such as Daniel V., JMcG, et al: get this weird idea that their posts are equivalent to defending the Consititution, or whatever.

Two words for ya: grow up. I have no problem discussing issues with anyone, so long as they don't get directly personal. Call my ideas treasonous bunk, say that I fill my head with garbage, suggest that my posts are endangering the troops, or any other kind of vitriol you wish to dump on my views. My views are not me, and they're open-game.

Insulting me, personally, however: is crossing the line of respect.


Many of the so-called left may not like the direction we are headed as a nation, but they still are american's and support america. Maybe not quite the way you like.

I think we are all frustrated as a nation on both sides of the house, and there is fault to be found on both the left and the right, as much as there is good on both sides.

Good to hear from you again, Kevin. Nice post.

Yes, there IS some good on both sides. I might also point out that there are more than two sides, in this debate. Kerry was not "my" candidate, and my response to his announcement that he's going to run in '08, is "thanks, John: but you bailed on us, in your promise to hold firm till the last vote was counted. Why should we trust you now?"

I believe it to be much more important to discuss how we can best resolve our issues and reach peace than to get caught up in emotions and result to personal attacks and name calling. It certainly is not in the spirit of Aikido for sure.

Yes.

There are those on the right that don't want to come together anymore than some of those on the left. Our leaders have moved on past the election...it is probably time all of us do to and figure out ways to address our problems.

Sorry, you lost me here. The election has been rigged, and the only question is how extensive, was the rigging. THe American public have a right to know if the election was their true voice, or if it was selectively altered, to fit the Party du jour.

Your role in society be it a soldier, police officer, peace corps worker, or green peace volunteer, does not give you a sense of entitlement that you are more of an american than those that do not share your views or opinions...All are americans.

:cool: :cool: Thank you! Round of applause! Coming from a soldier, this sentiment means a lot. I get SO tired of hearing "I am/was in the military, so k-ss my a--" nonsense. How disrespectful to all of the teachers, doctors, artists, firemen, police officers, honest politicians (yeah, there are a few), and so many others that are the good, of this country.

It's just a shame that our leaders wash away all that is good, and bring Abu Ghraib, Falluja atrocities, and Gitmo extraditions to the forefront, of the American vista.

We should rejoice on this Veteran's day that we have the ability to have opinions and freely discuss them!

I'll rejoice, when we get our gov't back, and we leave Iraq, and this sham of a "war on terror," behind. Until then: I mourn, I protest, I present my views, and (offline) I organize.

vanstretch
11-11-2004, 04:56 PM
hypersensitive arent we neil? You have a knack for twisting every word and not necessarily hearing/listening to anything that does not suit you. You are certainly not the innocent one here either my Dear Mr. Mick.You have slung as much,maybe more mud, than the rest of these here posters.You, to me , appear to be a very close-minded individual. This is not a personal attack, it is my observation of how you answer most anyone who disagrees with you. You say "My views are not me", what..what does that mean?

mj
11-11-2004, 06:00 PM
hypersensitive arent we neil? You have a knack for twisting every word and not necessarily hearing/listening to anything that does not suit you. You are certainly not the innocent one here either my Dear Mr. Mick.You have slung as much,maybe more mud, than the rest of these here posters.You, to me , appear to be a very close-minded individual. This is not a personal attack, it is my observation of how you answer most anyone who disagrees with you. You say "My views are not me", what..what does that mean?
And do you have any point to make at all on the topic?

Kevin Leavitt
11-11-2004, 06:02 PM
Well Kevin, I think it does. I think that ones role in society does show and prove(through actions) that some of us are much more patriotic and american than others. Hey, if you opt to whine and complain about everything and take a victim mentality then that speaks volumes about you. From what I have been hearing on this particular thread, I question the very americanism/patrioitism of many of the left-side posters. It is of great concern.


Well I am certainly glad I earned my "patriot points" today! BTW...Where are they redeemable?

Neil Mick
11-11-2004, 06:22 PM
You say "My views are not me", what..what does that mean?

I still have you on ignore, but since in mj's quote you ask a valid question, I'll respond.

No, I'm not hypersensitive...at least, I don't think so. What I get up in arms about is personal insults.

Now, you do go on about my "insults to others," but go back and look again: notice? I am making hay of the person's opinions, not the actual person.

It's one thing to say: "That's the craziest idea I have ever heard;" quite another to state that the other person is insane, or crazy. Sometimes, the distinction is subtle, but there IS a definite line, and too often: you cross it.

This is why you are on Ignore.

Taliesin
11-12-2004, 04:43 AM
Daniel

You have implied that criticising a Commander in Chief who has betrayed his own troops is somehow patrotic. You attemt to justify the larged armed robbery (of Iraqi Oil) on the basis of ' taking the fight to the enemy'. And ignore the fact that, he's totally ignoted Osama Bin Laden and conconcentrated of securing oildl supplies. You can't claim to be surpriesd when you brandish such ignorance that other posters have differing views. You haven't even managed to take into account the things called facts and evidence.

You seem to think supporting a President is enough. Would you still support your president if he decided to Nuke LA. (an extreme example I know). If not then your argument that patritism means supporting your President no matter what (which didn't work for Nixon) collapses, and criticism of your President remains patriotic as it is your countries best intersts .

You are entitled to your own opinion but you should bear these in mind before your knee-jerk reation that criticising the President must be unpatriotic.

Neil Mick
11-12-2004, 06:02 PM
Daniel

You are entitled to your own opinion but you should bear these in mind before your knee-jerk reation that criticising the President must be unpatriotic.

I'm still wondering if he was entirely uncritical of Clinton, during wartime (as, we have been in a constant state of war, since '59).

I wonder if he measures up to his own yardstick? Somehow, I doubt it.

Neil Mick
11-12-2004, 06:03 PM
Well I am certainly glad I earned my "patriot points" today! BTW...Where are they redeemable?

200 patriot points and 59 cents gets you a nifty Patriot antenna-flag at K-Mart. ;)

mriehle
11-12-2004, 07:32 PM
Okay, here's one of those "devil's advocate" points.

Criticisism of the leader of our country is not intrinsically treasonous, even in times of war. Treason is, in the strictest sense, an active betrayal of your country. This implies compromising the security of the country in some way. By this standard it is possible for criticism of the government to cross over into treason. Has someone crossed that line? Explain to me how.

By that same standard it is possible for the leader himself to commit treason. If the actions of the leader lead us into a dangerous and unjustified course of action, this could be construed as treason. Has Bush crossed that line? Is he simply incompetent? Or is he really doing the best he can?

Those are the questions that are important here.

But, here's another thing to consider. If Bush has crossed the line or even if he is simply incompetent and you believe this to be true, then not criticising his actions could be construed as treasonous.

When you start questioning people's patriotism, you start down a very slippery slope. It's a place not to be entered lightly. Can you justify your position with facts? Not innuendo and supposition, but facts. If not, then it is simply your opinion, to which you are entitled. Moreover, if, in your opinion, a real danger to the security of your country exists you are remiss in not expressing your opinion, right or wrong.

For what it's worth, I believe our current President to be the most dangerous leader our country has ever had. I worry that his true goal is complete dominance of our country's government, though I have no proof to offer that this is, in fact, the case. I believe that he has already worked to undermine the power of our constitution and will continue to do so. That's my opinion and I will continue to voice it.

There is very little else I can do about my opinion, but I can hope that someone who agrees with me will be in a position to do more. Without crossing over into treasonous action.

Kevin Leavitt
11-13-2004, 02:53 AM
Good post Michael. I like the way you explain the concepts!

Neil Mick
11-13-2004, 10:10 PM
Good post Michael. I like the way you explain the concepts!

Yes, I agree. Good post!

mriehle
11-14-2004, 12:08 PM
Good post Michael. I like the way you explain the concepts!

Well, thank you, but...

...looking back over my post I realized I erred in one spot where it's kind of important. I said that treason would imply compromising the security of the nation. That's not strictly correct.

For a crime to be committed, there must be intent. My statement didn't address that. So it would be more correct to say that treason is an intentional effort to compromise the security of the nation.

This may seem a small point, but go back and read the bit about treasonous actions by the leader of the country and notice how it makes more sense when intent is accounted for.

BTW: I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV. I happen to know some things about generalities in criminal law. These are things I've picked up in my travels. They are mostly correct as far as I know, but you wouldn't want me defending you in court. :eek:

Kevin Leavitt
11-14-2004, 12:31 PM
No need for technicalities...I understood your overall intent!

Neil Mick
11-16-2004, 04:29 PM
Gosh, awfully quiet from Daniel V's quarter: all those questions his way, and nary a reply.

Mayhap he's at a loss, when he needs use rational argument, over invective? Stay tuned. ;)

Neil Mick
11-16-2004, 10:46 PM
Fallouja.

The name itself invokes a lot. At least one war-crime has been committed, and it could well be the tip of the iceberg. Why has the US Army been so tight on the media?

Why the capture of the hospital, with the excuse of it being a source of propaganda??? Yeah, the propaganda, meaning "accurate civilian body count..." :(

But what do I know? Maybe it really WAS a "brilliant" tactical military move, conviently timed after the election to bring about freer elections, to Iraq (*holding down gorge, as I type*),,,maybe I AM just a misguided radical.

But this "misguided radical" sees a televised war-crime, sees a media blackout of the city, sees a denial of medical aid to Falluja, and has to wonder: how many war-crimes were committed, off-camera?

vanstretch
11-16-2004, 11:20 PM
There is no rational arguement with neil mick. Every time anyone says anything that is against his left wing ideology he proceeds with the same nonsense that only the lefto's can come up with;-finger pointing, petty fault finding, useless tidbits of no use but to somehow attempt to prove his lame points. I do not care for micks opinions and have zero use for him on this thread. he is merely a limp-wristed instigator and just loves to think hes right. Oh, no -I'm on micks ignore list-ohhhhh,ouch. Misguided radical? more like arrogant balding ectomorph,debate team captain, and most likely to be friendless due to the vomitous diatribe that you emit from your factpacked melon. Sincerely; President Bush, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ted Nugent, G.Gordon Liddy, Rush Limbaugh,Eric Haney, and yours truly. Hey-what do they all have in common?=They all are trailblazers,are unapologetic, are true american patriots, true american heroes, and could care less about a few left wing whiners like Neil Mick and his ilk.

mj
11-17-2004, 07:20 AM
Yet again you stand up and make a speech which is nothing but a personal attack, followed by a list of names.

Yet again you fail to make a single point relevant to the topic or to address the questions put to you.

Regardless of your political persuasion...if you don't start giving some more positive input you will find yourself being ignored by more than just Neil.

Taliesin
11-17-2004, 07:25 AM
Daniel

I note you have conspicuously failed to take my advice and consider that Patriotism is significantly more that blind support for a leader. The concept is explained very well in further threads, So claiming to be patriotic without understanding what patriotism is makes you look like a moron.

I also like your "There's no rational argument with Niel Mick" line. Niel's argument was, we know that one unarmed individual was shot dead at close range, we know there has been a media blackout in Fallujah, we know that it was impossible to get casualties to the hospital because of the US Blockade, we know the US occupied the Hospital. It what we don't know that worries us (Neil, me and others). Given the history of US Forces the question of what US troops did when there were no camera's or witnesses is a serious question indeed. One the needs to be answered (by the way a reply is not the same thing as an answer). Or to put the question another way, how many of the dead in Fallujah were 'insurgents' before they were shot dead???

However given your apparent inability to appreciate the meanings of several words in the English language (EG Patriot, reply, answer, rational ) perhaps we could club together and buy you a dictionary.

Hogan
11-17-2004, 08:30 AM
.......you will find yourself being ignored by more than just Neil.


I like it how you people just ignore and run from people that don't agree with you.....

Why do democrats do that ? Really, serious question. Why are democrats, as a whole, seem arrogant and feel they "know it all", and think that people who don't agree with them are idiots ?

Witness the latest Mike Moore rant:
"Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information (in this election), and we want to educate and enlighten them. They weren't told the truth."

Well, excuse me, but just maybe they DIDN'T lack information, just MAYBE they WERE educated and enlightened. Maybe they felt they WERE told the truth. Just MAAAYYYBE, they LIKE Bush.

Just because people don't agree with you democrats, don't assume they need to "taught" a lesson.

vanstretch
11-17-2004, 08:35 AM
david, david,david, lets cool out with the corrections until you can spell Neil. I do have a good understanding of what a patriot is because I am one, . I have served my country and support what my president is doing, you don't. God forbid if Kerry was running this show or Gore for that matter. We would be toast if our leader went to ask UN permission to enter into any conflict. This is one of many problems I have with turds on the left. Further, Micks persistent pius know-it-all,arrogance and pseudo-intellectual babble attempt to shoo people he disagrees with off the thread.Have you bothered to read the entire thread dude? I am certain that many are in agreement with what I say. I have no problem standing up to whining liberal goofs like Mick and his ilk. The US troops are doing the best they can under very difficult and dynamic ever changing conditions and how dare anyone point the finger from on high. Be thankful that these soldiers are in the process of bringing the fight to those that attacked us. I think your deductions are moot. And make you look like the idiot.

Taliesin
11-17-2004, 09:15 AM
Daniel

Since I not necessarily agree that spelling and rational reasoning are the same thing, and I do admit to a typo (sorry NEIL). You still haven't managed to appreciate that patriotism is NOT "my country right or wrong" - the word for that is Jingoism. As far as how matters would have occurred in Gore had been President - I very much doubt the September 11th attacks would have taken place, as I have no doubt President Gore would have taken steps to prevent Islamist terrorists from hijacking planes in response to the intelligence reports rather than ignore them and claim the attacks were unanticipated and unpredictable

You also claim you have no problem standing up to 'liberal goofs like Mick and his ilk" but you have HUGE problems in responding to the points they make. In fact all you have done is try to substitute self righteousness and abuse for rational argument.

As far as military service is concerned I think you will discover that armies serve their Governments not necessarily their countries.

You claim you soldiers are "bringing the fight to those that attacked us" does that mean you have forgotten who was held responsible for the planning of the 11th September attacks, (Clue: It's the guy who sent you a videotape to remind everyone he's still about).

And finally, the difference between us is that I stated you look like a moron because you use the word patriotic without considering what patriotism actually is. You are calling me an idiot simply because you disagree with me.

Still we'll both be able to assess opinion by the responses to our posts.

akiy
11-17-2004, 10:11 AM
Hi folks,

This is my last warning on the tone of the posts in this thread. I don't care to see any more inflammatory words here. Thank you.

-- Jun

mj
11-17-2004, 11:56 AM
I like it how you people just ignore and run from people that don't agree with you.....

Why do democrats do that ? Really, serious question. Why are democrats, as a whole, seem arrogant and feel they "know it all", and think that people who don't agree with them are idiots ?....

I'm not a Democrat I am a Scot. And I said that Danny should, instead of just throwing abuse, take part in some of the discussions.

Now...as to running....remind me....are not the Black Watch, a Scottish Regiment, currently south of Falujah risking their lives and in some cases dying at this very moment? I certainly hope you are not insinuating that I am a coward, or that 'my people' are cowards...while sitting behind your computer desk :p

Jun, may I point out that some people here are trying to have discussions that although sometimes heated...are well within the bounds of civility. I hope the whole thread will not be trashed because of the deliberate actions of a few. However I well understand your exasperation.

Hogan
11-17-2004, 12:37 PM
I'm not a Democrat I am a Scot. And I said that Danny should, instead of just throwing abuse, take part in some of the discussions.

Now...as to running....remind me....are not the Black Watch, a Scottish Regiment, currently south of Falujah risking their lives and in some cases dying at this very moment? I certainly hope you are not insinuating that I am a coward, or that 'my people' are cowards...while sitting behind your computer desk :p

Jun, may I point out that some people here are trying to have discussions that although sometimes heated...are well within the bounds of civility. I hope the whole thread will not be trashed because of the deliberate actions of a few. However I well understand your exasperation.

Who says I am behind a desk ? I am currently flying dangerous missions in .... nevermind.

Mark, my comment was a general question to democrats about democrats; if you're not one, then my question doesn't apply to you, unless you want to answer for the dems - since the dems really don't understand themselves, they can't really answer anyway.

vanstretch
11-17-2004, 12:52 PM
Jun, you've been following this entire thread. The patterns are obvious. Mick will say something in a manner to stir everyone up. then when he gets responses he doesnt fancy, he will proceed to write his lengthy garbage in vain attempt to prove his righteousness. I will say what I think just as Mick does. That said, its not a me vs mick. Its me saying what I think and then mick trying to discount it. It seems he does that to everyone. This guy is so obviously self-important and abrasive a persona that his halo is on too tight, and /or he would do well to keep his ego in check. I shall continue to state how I think about the war and continue to support my president, his father, Reagan, and the US military and the forward movement they are making in attempting to root out our enemies and surgically eliminate(kill) them and keep killing them until they are all dead. Just as they did to us. That is war. So sad too bad, if that chaps the lefty's hides.Bush said soon after 9/11 that this would be a lengthy war fought on many levels and not an easy war with a definite finish date tagged to it. I do believe that President Bush is doing his ever best to accomplish the mission. The regions of Afg,Iraq,Iran,etc(middle east) have always hated us and have always had terrorist training camps within, and with that I am certain that this long hunt for OBL, and his ilk will continue. As for WMD, a 10yr old raghead with an AK could be a WMD, if payed 10k by Jihad to kill our troops. so after junior dies he will go to allah and be with his 7virgins, but his dirt poor family will be rich. There is one of many problems. I am certain we will root out the Jihad and crush them. Support President Bush and the war on terror!

deepsoup
11-17-2004, 03:16 PM
As for WMD, a 10yr old raghead with an AK could be a WMD, if payed 10k by Jihad to kill our troops.
A ten year old what?
Daniel, you're entitled to your opinions, and you have the right to express them. But I find your use of overtly racist language profoundly offensive.

mj
11-17-2004, 04:34 PM
Who says I am behind a desk ? I am currently flying dangerous missions in .... nevermind.

Mark, my comment was a general question to democrats about democrats; if you're not one, then my question doesn't apply to you, unless you want to answer for the dems - since the dems really don't understand themselves, they can't really answer anyway.
This is the problem mate isn't it...Jun is asking us to be more respectful or the thread will be closed.

mj
11-17-2004, 04:41 PM
As for WMD, a 10yr old raghead with an AK could be a WMD, if payed 10k by Jihad to kill our troops. so after junior dies he will go to allah and be with his 7virgins...!
This is just unacceptable.

Neil Mick
11-17-2004, 04:45 PM
Hi folks,

This is my last warning on the tone of the posts in this thread. I don't care to see any more inflammatory words here. Thank you.

-- Jun

OK, I have taken Daniel's responses off ignore this once, in order to respond and to clear up a blatant falsehood, he keeps repeating.

I need to stress (as this is the nature of the falsehood) that this is not a personal attack, or inflammatory post. I apologize to Jun if he felt that my last post was inflammatory, but how do you express outrage in a manner that is non-inflammatory, to all? Or, should Jun just ban outrage from being expressed on aikiweb?

I also like your "There's no rational argument with Niel Mick" line. Niel's argument was, we know that one unarmed individual was shot dead at close range, we know there has been a media blackout in Fallujah, we know that it was impossible to get casualties to the hospital because of the US Blockade, we know the US occupied the Hospital. It what we don't know that worries us (Neil, me and others). Given the history of US Forces the question of what US troops did when there were no camera's or witnesses is a serious question indeed. One the needs to be answered (by the way a reply is not the same thing as an answer). Or to put the question another way, how many of the dead in Fallujah were 'insurgents' before they were shot dead???

Very well said, and precisely my perspective. Nice work.
Now, onto the heart of the matter.

Jun, you've been following this entire thread. The patterns are obvious. Mick will say something in a manner to stir everyone up. then when he gets responses he doesnt fancy, he will proceed to write his lengthy garbage in vain attempt to prove his righteousness.

You call it "garbage:" I call it proof. Until you can come up with a fact or source (which, I often do) to prove otherwise, all you have is name-calling.

I will say what I think just as Mick does.

Say what you like: without respect behind it, it's simply grade-school slur.

That said, its not a me vs mick. Its me saying what I think and then mick trying to discount it. It seems he does that to everyone.

Wrong again. See my recent discussion with DanielR, regarding Palestine and Israel (and no, Daniel: I have not forgotten you). No name-calling, no trying to shoo him off the thread. At one point--I even asked him to come back for more discussion.

No: I have no problem with dissenting opinion. But as I recently heard in a talk-show: it's not what you say, it's how you say it. I couldn't care less that you disagree with me; but I do care that you cannot seem to respectfully discuss issues, without resporting to slurs.

y is so obviously self-important and abrasive a persona that his halo is on too tight, and /or he would do well to keep his ego in check.

See what I mean? Personal insult, proving nothing.

continue to state how I think about the war and continue to support my president, his father, Reagan, and the US military and the forward movement they are making in attempting to root out our enemies and surgically eliminate(kill) them and keep killing them until they are all dead.

Good. You do that. No disrespect intended, but I firmly believe that ppl should not interfere with the religious beliefs, of others.

But since you cannot discuss an issue with respect or present documentation or sources: that's all you have...is belief.

Just as they did to us. That is war.

Which, is exactly the justification for the Japanese Internment Camps...remember them? "Gotta put THEM in camps, because they might be spying on US."

So sad too bad, if that chaps the lefty's hides.

Your beliefs do nothing to my hide. Your disprespect, OTOH: limits discussion and threatens thread-lock; which, I suspect, is your real reason for the disrespect.

Neil Mick
11-17-2004, 04:49 PM
This is just unacceptable.

I completely agree. And respectfully, Jun: I request that you consider booting Daniel V off the thread until he learns to abide by the guidelines. AFAIC, he seems to be the major source of the abuse.

Again, I have no problem with anyone participating on this thread, so long as they leave the personal, and racist (as above), remarks out of it.

vanstretch
11-17-2004, 05:08 PM
Sean .look deeper into yourself before pointing the finger. The so called "racist" term raghead is used throughout the military in reference to our enemy OBL. He is wearing a rag isnt he? Oh so sorry to offend you. I walk on eggshells for no one. An our enemy is essentially the Islamic Jihad Militant Muslims who hate us-and just so happen to wear the towels or rags or whatever on their heads. Hell, it makes and easier target if you ask me. But thanks for your valuable insights.

vanstretch
11-17-2004, 05:14 PM
Mick you make it personal all the time. check your tone and look at how you respond. Your whole tone is know-it-all and reeks of your arrogant attitude. that is the problem I have always had with you Mick. You are pompous and your tone is also full of attitude. Jun I ask that you remove mick for these reasons.

akiy
11-17-2004, 05:18 PM
I request that you consider booting Daniel V off the thread until he learns to abide by the guidelines
Jun I ask that you remove mick for these reasons.
Please leave the moderating decisions up to me. Thank you.

If you two need to work things out, please do it in private off of these forums.

-- Jun

DanielR
11-17-2004, 05:25 PM
See my recent discussion with DanielR, regarding Palestine and Israel (and no, Daniel: I have not forgotten you).FWIW, while participation in this and similar discussions on a public forum does demand considerable self-restraint, I do agree that it's at least theoretically possible. As for the recent exchange, frankly I was already expecting to see Jun's classic "I don't care who started it. Both of you, go to your rooms!". :)

Timi Cone
11-17-2004, 07:07 PM
as someone who has had family and friends defending this great country of ours against the ***** across the seas --- I would have to say that I completely agree with many of the points that Daniel V. has voiced. Thank -you Daniel for attempting to open so many of these closed eyes and minds.

vanstretch
11-17-2004, 07:28 PM
no problem Timi, thanks.

Timi Cone
11-17-2004, 10:32 PM
Anytime Daniel --- I feel that there is a time to talk and a time to sit back and listen. I have been sitting back as a guest and watching you and Neil go at each other for quite some time now. WHY my man --- as you appear a very well spoken person -- do you allow someone to get under your skin as you do him? Self -control. I understand and agree that he enjoys pushing your buttons -- only because you afford him that luxury. Don't misunderstand my words here please, I do agree with what you say --- But look within yourself and find out why you allow yourself to become so hostile towards someone that is obviously enjoying the power he has over you in that aspect. Yes Bush is a terrific President --- the man stands behind everything he says --- but why allow Neil the luxury of seeing you lose control of your composure in here? My brother and two brother-in-laws were over in Baghdad. I am not happy at all with some of the views Mr. Neil has put out there -- but you know what? He is the one that will one day wish that he had stood up taller for what all the boys over there are doing. Take it easy.

vanstretch
11-18-2004, 12:17 AM
Timi, thanks, and you are right, I have let him push my buttons. I have also soldiered myself overseas and have policed in the US and am very proud of my service. Yet its time for me to sit back and not get into it with him, it is truly an exercize in frustration. I do appreciate your kind words and will drive on in a more positive direction. Thanks. Daniel

Timi Cone
11-18-2004, 12:22 AM
anytime Daniel

Neil Mick
11-18-2004, 02:51 AM
Please, folks: don't feed the troll. Just put him on ignore, and let him go eat thread-lock, somewhere else.

And so, we come full-circle:

I do believe that President Bush is doing his ever best to accomplish the mission. The regions of Afg,Iraq,Iran,etc(middle east) have always hated us and have always had terrorist training camps within, and with that I am certain that this long hunt for OBL, and his ilk will continue

Your whole tone is know-it-all and reeks of your arrogant attitude.

You are pompous and your tone is also full of attitude.

We are here for different reasons. You have a religion; I am here to express my opinion, and to debate.

I do not debate religious beliefs. And so, I leave you to yours.

In Bush You Trust...Amen.

Meanwhile, Ignore--here you come (*click*).

. WHY my man --- as you appear a very well spoken person -- do you allow someone to get under your skin as you do him? Self -control.

Oh, my god: I think that that was the funniest thing I've ever heard. I laughed so hard, I fell off my chair! :D :D :D

Welcome, Timi! God, too funny. :D

Please leave the moderating decisions up to me. Thank you.

-- Jun

Just a request, Jun: apologies if I seem to have overstepped.

Neil Mick
11-18-2004, 03:01 AM
Back to the topic.

Or to put the question another way, how many of the dead in Fallujah were 'insurgents' before they were shot dead???


I've heard the Red Cross state that there are min. 800 civilian casualties. The Army states that it killed 1400 insurgents...and NO civilians! Wow! Is it not amazing how efficient, our Army is? :eek: Amazing! Nary a single civilian casualty! Gosh.

My feelings about Falluja is this is a microcosm of the war on terror. We locate a target, bomb it and fill it with munitions ("light it up"), stomp it to pieces, and the insurgents/terrorists/bad-guys melt away, reform and strengthen their numbers. Six months from now, I'm guessing the insurgents will reclaim Falluja, as the US stomps on another city. IMHO, nothing will be accomplished, militarily or in bringing free elections to Iraqi's.

How could anyone expect free elections in ANY country while under foreign military occupation, in any case?

Taliesin
11-18-2004, 04:08 AM
Timi

I hope you were joking when you told Daniel that he was "attempting to open so many closed eyes and minds". At the moment all he is saying, and I'll use the phrase again "my country right or wrong".

That the American (and British) troops are in a difficult situation is unarguable. That it justifies what appear to be war crimes is something else again. After all the entire point of military training is to be able to do the right thing in very difficult circumstances. One would think that given our training is to maintain form and posture, no matter how knackered we are and to maintain concentration, should have given you some small inkling that troops are supposed to be trained to react properly in "very difficult circumstances". ( I do emphasize the term some small inkling).

Daniel

The terrorist training camps were in Libya. Afghanistan was too full of waring parties (against the Soviets and supported by the US) for terrorists to train there. Besides Moslem's were the preferred targets of Islamic terrorists - go look at what the GIA did in Algeria. I appreciate you support your President. What I don't understand is why you apparently believe that is an adequate answer to the points put to you.

Jun

I appologise if my explaination that claiming Patriotism without appreciating what patriotism is is not the most intellegent Act in the world offened you or indeed anyone else on this thread.

Timi Cone
11-18-2004, 07:06 AM
Well -- first of all DAVID -- our troops are trained to answer the call when our commander in chief calls on them ---- they do defend our country, whether they feel what they are fighting against is right or not. and yes i do believe it is our country or theirs. I will not back down from that stand. I will not apologize or feel I need to explain that to anyone. I am very proud to live here and will always be. And that subject will not be debated by me. Many of our troops would rather be home with their families than over in Iraq looking in the face of a child or a mother that is holding a weapon in their face. My brother faced this more than once in his 19 month tour over their -- so you see alot of these "civilian" casualties could be avoided if the civilians would leave the weapons alone.Oh and Neil -- glad you had a nice laugh on my account -- I enjoy bringing humor to peoples lives.

mj
11-18-2004, 08:12 AM
...so you see alot of these "civilian" casualties could be avoided if the civilians would leave the weapon alone.....

I'm sorry..who's country is it?

Can I come over to your country and tell you to disarm or a foreign army will kill you? Will you throw your weapons down if you are invaded? Will you accept a cuckoo government filled with people loyal to the enemy?

Or will you do anything you can to get rid of them?

Or do these rights only belong to certain.....colours/religions/countries/politics?

I understand that your family has served in the military, no-one is attacking your family or you.

Dulce et decorum est

Timi Cone
11-18-2004, 09:28 AM
It is sweet and right to many to fight and die for their country MJ --- and I believe you misunderstood the concept of my last post -- Many of the encounters that my brother had were NOT from within their homes the young and the women were the ones attacking in the fields of combat. Yes, I agree that our troops need to come home, but you know as well as I that that is NOT going to happen until we rebuild the place -- and that is NOT going to happen as long as THEY keep blowing up everything that we redo.

Taliesin
11-18-2004, 11:05 AM
Timi

As far as Duce Et Decorum Est Pro Patria Mori is concerned I'm with Wilfred Owen

You appear to share with Daniel an ability to fail to reply to points made. Such as arguing that difficulty of circumstances is not an adequate defense to apparent war crimes given troops are supposed to be trained to deal with these circumstances. Maybe that's why the British Troops don't seem to have the same problems. (Although to be fair we didn't go out of our way to incite the local population into rebellion against us).

Claiming that they are trained to "answer the call when our commander in chief calls upon them". isn't actually a point given that all troops from all countries are trained to do that. You do seem to be sliding very close to an attempted defense of "they were only following orders".

Britain also has troops who would rather be with their families, so that doesn't give you any ground either.

I don't mind you disagreeing with me. You'd just be a much better advocate for your position if you could provide a clear counter-argument. Yes the Troops are Serving their Commander in Chief, yes they would rather be at Home, yes they are in very difficult circumstances. None of that answers the point that Troops are trained to deal with combat, so they cannot claim combat as a defense. By the way my country right or wrong, is not a question of your, or my country or somebody else's - its an assertion that whatever someone does no matter how unlawful, or horrific is justified on the basis that it was done by 'my country'. Which is a totally different concept to "my country or theirs."

By the way loved your bit about "THEY keep blowing up everything that we redo". Do I take it you didn't notice anything about what happened in Fallujah. Or do you think that all those US Warplanes are there just to decorate the sky.

Timi Cone
11-18-2004, 12:01 PM
So David am I to assume that we are to pick up where Daniel and Neil seem to have left off? I won't allow that to happen. I am not trying to argue anything. I simply stated what I know my family went through over there. And no I am not saying that our forces have made 100% correct decisions. And they do have to assess the situation. But when your platoon leader has just been killed by a 12 - 13 year old child and that child is now coming at you -- you are gonna take him out. Many times my brothers troop was ordered to NOT return fire when being fired upon in transport. This is a decision he had to make as he was in charge of them. It wasn't just go kill 'em all. So if that is what you feel I am saying here I am not portraying my words well. I know there are many opinions on this subject. Yes everyone has a right to theirs. This is mine. Fallujah was a terrible tragedy -- I feel for all that was lost there -- :( .Yes we without a doubt messed up. But how many other times have they tore everything up that we have rebuilt? As I said earlier Dear David, I do not wish to argue. I would rather our boys come home where they belong --- but until they can -- I will continue to defend them and what they are doing.

Timi Cone
11-18-2004, 12:12 PM
Do you David know anyone that has been placed in one of those difficult positions that you seem to feel would be so easy to make? The way that you are speaking I fear that you do not. Has anyone you know ever looked down the end of a barrel being held by a pregnant woman? Had to decide how to save their life and not jeopardize the life of an unborn child? Those are the "civilians" that I was referring to in my post earlier when I said there would be a lot less loss if they would leave the weapons down. And how are the guys to be trained for that? See you have fact from the news reports -- I have fact from the actual battle field. Which do you thinnk is more accurate?

Timi Cone
11-18-2004, 03:07 PM
And speaking of Fallujah --- Did you see they have found a terrorist school in the rubble? So what would your suggestion have been on getting to that? Just curious David......If not through normal military means.

Kevin Leavitt
11-18-2004, 03:47 PM
It is easy to be an arm chair quarterback when you are not involved. Also easy to point fingers from the outside looking in.

It certainly is not easy to make decisions...and certainly making optimal decisions in these situations is next to impossible.

I just hope that all involved can make the best decision they can.

One thing I can say for certain, all politics aside is that I really believe that our soldiers are trying to do what is right as best they can.

How many times have you done an aikido technique (or meant to do one) and messed it up in the stress of the situation...maybe you popped uke in the nose moving in fast?

Certainly killing people is much more serious than aikido...but certainly the same type of correalation exist in stress and combat. We should all be proud of the fact that we are using ground troops and willing to go house to house for most part. It says a tremendous amount about our commitment.

If we didn't care, we would use distance based weapons more than we are, or would cause even more suffering by starving them out, etc.

Optimally, we wouldn't be in there at all, but we are there, and I know our troops are doing the best they can.

Timi Cone
11-18-2004, 06:24 PM
Point well spoken and taken Kevin. Yes, I am very proud of what our men are doing and how they are making the effort to lesson the casualty count. According to some of our other post mates --- we should just leave and not attempt to do anything. Not care -- not do a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g. Thank you Kevin.

Neil Mick
11-19-2004, 12:08 AM
According to some of our other post mates --- we should just leave and not attempt to do anything. Not care -- not do a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g. Thank you Kevin.

Wrong. Leaving would be an excellent start, to doing something. Fighting has now broken out all over Iraq. The so-called "foreign" insurgents in Falluja only came to about a dozen, of the 1000 prisoners we took. We broke int'l law invading Iraq, we arguably committed genocide with the sanctions, and we are now turning Falluja into a hellhole, all in the name of "free elections" (never minding, of course: that about 80 political parties are going to boycott the elections, in protest of the Falluja action).

We did what Saddam didn't do--we turned Iraq into a place teetering on the edge of civil war. We laughingly pretend to export "democracy," when we cannot even seem to get our own voting process right.

You know, Tim: this "what must we do?" question conjures in my mind the image of a drug-dealer, high on crack, who cannot sleep because of the neighbor's barking dog.

Just like many in the USA, he tosses and turns, sweating out his drugs, asking himself: "What MUST I DO, to shut that dog up," as he nervously eyes his shotgun.

Well, Tim: there are many other measures in diplomacy, besides violence. Yet, our society is addicted to it. Our military-industrial complex is tightly wound into our economy.

We cannot afford peace. If the USA dismantled all of its weapons, our economy would collapse. But even so, there are many alternatives to violence. Hussein was about as much a threat to the US, as Mexico (none at all).

And, to tell you the truth: I worry far less about terrorism, than I do about getting hit by a car. It's a lot more likely. Yet, our highway infrastructure is decaying, and BushCo is spending like its Xmas, borrowing about $1.6B/day, with no plan to pay it back.

So pardon me, if I look askance at all the brave, heroic calls to "support our troops." Frankly, I DO support them: I support them coming home, instead of engaging in mass-executions, in Falluja.

But, here's another thing to consider. If Bush has crossed the line or even if he is simply incompetent and you believe this to be true, then not criticising his actions could be construed as treasonous.

I agree with this statement. I find it my patriotic duty to defend the Constitution and protest this war, to the best of my ability. Tim, the fact that you hold an opposing view is what makes this country great...NOT the fact that we also excel, at killing.

Timi Cone
11-19-2004, 06:58 AM
Yes Neil --- As I said I to believe the troops should be home--- but they aren't are they?! Yes Fallujah has become a bloodbath -- no argument --

But for you to say that terrorism is not a threat is way off base my man. It threatens our very existence daily. No I do not go around thinking about it but the threat is there. And the day that Saddam was captured was a grand day.

And yes Neil -- it is your right to protest this war -- as it is my right to ask --- what then would it take for you to defend --- god forbid -- a terrorist attack that affected someone you know? Would then you feel it right to wipe out the forces that provoke?

And yes Neil I agree -- there are many measures other than violence -- and I am quite positive that many of the boys over there have tried everything they possibly could prior to invoking violence. But as I have said before -- when you are faced with nothing but violence you quite often have to resort to violence.

Have you ever been placed in a situation that you have to make such a decision? If you haven't then you really don't know what you would do -- do you?!

But I still stand 100% behind our troops over there Neil -- They are there because they have to be. They are doing their jobs. Just as you go to work everyday and do. I will never abandon them or look down on them.

Taliesin
11-19-2004, 07:06 AM
Timi

The problem with your argument is that the decision to shoot an unarmed and injured individual dead at point blank range, is materially different to to a 'snap' self-defense situation not mater what the characteristics of the attacker. Supporting your troops without imposing any standards of conduct upon them simply gives license for such matters to continue. You have also failed to respond to the points that most of the destruction caused in Iraq has been by American, bombing and missile attacks. The General of the US Marines stated that they are held to the 'highest possible standards'.

Failure to do that undermines any argument about establishing rule of law of democracy in Iraq, so if you wish to continue down the road you are traveling you will need to be clear whether you support the view of a Marine Corps General in Iraq or are you going to argue, as you appear to be that anything done by US Troops is justified simply because they are US troops and in combat.

It is also unclear what you are trying to establish in Iraq, aside from huge profits for American companies. It does not appear to be security for the Iraqi people, it certainly isn't respect for human rights in Iraq, and the assertion it is to establish democracy seems very dubious indeed.

I don't actually think we are carrying on where Neill and Daniel left of. I do respect the fact that you have limited yourself to arguing your point, instead of using personal abuse. I hope I do the same.

Kevin

The problem with your armchair quarterback, and your point that we all make mistakes in training is that external examination of actions is necessary to ensure all those unfortunate incidents are reasonable mistakes. Thats why it is the duty of instructors to supervise classes to ensure that these 'accidents' are accidents and not part of a pattern. And I do clearly oppose the knee-jerk defense of stresses of combat as an automatic shield from any examination or criticism of soldier's actions. Following that line it would be impossible to hold soldiers to any standards at all, let alone the highest.

Hogan
11-19-2004, 09:35 AM
...The problem with your argument is that the decision to shoot an unarmed and injured individual dead at point blank range, is materially different to to a 'snap' self-defense situation not mater what the characteristics of the attacker. Supporting your troops without imposing any standards of conduct upon them simply gives license for such matters to continue. You have also failed to respond to the points that most of the destruction caused in Iraq has been by American, bombing and missile attacks. .

David
Does the fact that the insurgents had been and still are booby trapping dead bodies, so when the american troop comes in to move them they are either killed or wounded ? Does this allow one to give the american soldier some slack ? What would you do in this situation where you are fightin without sleep for 24 hrs a day, when the bodies you think are dead come back to bit you and your friends in the ass ? Do you even understand what combat is like ?

Also, I saw recently WWII color footage of americans fighting the japanese in the pacific. One of the shots had an american approach a japanese soldier who had been hit and was face down. The american soldier walked up, saw him move and proceeded to fill him with slugs from his machine gun, into his back. You can see the life leave the body. Was he wrong to do that, or was it OK because it was "The Good War' ? Point is this happens in war, and for anyone to assume differently is wrong. For anyone to hold troops to standards "they" think is right when they haven't experienced intense combat themselves is wrong. And for anyone to hold us to standards the enemy is not held to is also wrong and hypocritical.

And I suggest that the damage done to Iraq under Saddamy and his decades in power will never approach what the damage was done under the war. Bombed out buildings and infrastructure can be repaired, but the damage done by living under a dictator and mass murderer and terrorist supporter for decades will be hard to overcome.

Timi Cone
11-19-2004, 10:44 AM
Thank you John --- David and others seem to think that our troops are senslessly killing anyone that moves without reguard for the sanctity of innocence. I know that this is not the way it is. Yes they are there to "secure " the area. And they will do what they feel is necessary. I have the utmost confidence that they Do Not shoot at the first thing that moves David. I am sorry that you feel this way --- As I said earlier --- many times I know for fact --- troops have been ordered to stand down against incoming fire. But of course this doesn't make headlines on CNN so you wouldn't know about such acts would you? Did you not see where I spoke of this:

Has anyone you know ever looked down the end of a barrel being held by a pregnant woman? Had to decide how to save their life and not jeopardize the life of an unborn child

Now does that sound like a SNAP decision?

Put yourself in their shoes --- How would you survive? Go into hiding? Wait the war out? Be a deserter? These boys should be praised for freeing that country from the brainwashing dictatorship they have endured for too many years. And there are MANY natives over there that feel the same way. Many that are aiding in the fight or are you not recalling this?

I am not saying that the troops should not have a standard of conduct -- Never one time did I say this David. I did however say that I can understand what they are going through. If I had a hostile in my face --- point blank --- it would be me or them. I find it hard to believe you would enter into debate with them.

And no David I will not resort to name calling -- not my style..... On ward.

Taliesin
11-19-2004, 10:56 AM
John

Perhaps you should pause and consider before responding. You have not tackled the points about external consideration being necessary to ensure that troops are held to the highest standards. The problem is the only defense that has been put forward has been on the he was stressed and in combat therefore he should be exempt from criticism or examination of his actions. I do not accept that is automatically an acceptable defense. I think the individual circumstances should be properly considered.

And if you want to go down the history route perhaps you can explain the verdict on the American Troops with regards to their actions in Mei Lai (sorry if my spelling is wrong) in Viet Nam. This is not about automatically criticizing troops it is about ensuring that there is a clear understanding of what is acceptable and what isn't. And the fact that there were such clear steps taken to prevent independent witnesses and observation does nothing to reassure me that unarmed civilians were not unnecessarily killed. I am worried about the maths in the Fallujah situation. Prior to the assault it was estimated at approximately 600 insurgents. Total dead 1400, Red Crescent estimates of civilian casualties 800. 800 + 600 = 1400. Military Reports 1400 insurgents dead. When you add in a refusal to allow anyone into the area, it does not paint a a very pretty picture.

As far as your point that "for anyone to hold us to standards the enemy is not held to is also wrong and hypocritical". I don't understand how you can claim entitlement to ethical superiority without being held to higher standards.

As far as your implication that you are only destroying property. "Bombed out buildings and infrastructure can be repared". You are not just damaging property, you have been found to be violating Iraqi's Human Rights, you don't even know how many Iraqi's you have killed because as one of the spokesmen said "we don't count Iraqi dead" . And you are denying any independent investigation into what happened. All of which severely damages the credibility of any claims that only insurgents were killed or that the United States is not trying to establish it's dictatorship over Iraq.

As far as experience is concerned mine is through meeting scores of refugees and people whose human rights have been abused because they were attacked by soldiers who were not subject to external review of their actions and acted with total impunity. As far as I'm concerned there is nothing wrong in trying to protect the fundamental human rights of the vulnerable by holding troops to account for their actions. Anything else is a license to commit atrocities. Please consider that before your next post. I'm not asking you to automatically agree, but PLEASE think about it.

Hogan
11-19-2004, 11:59 AM
John

Perhaps you should pause and consider before responding.


Daivd - please don't assume I have not done so. One of the reasons I do not like the "typical" democrat is when someone offers a counterpoint, the democrat says, well, you have done this or that, if you had done so, you would agree with me. I mean this as a helpful criticism....

I think the individual circumstances should be properly considered.
I agree, and the 24-hr non-stop stressful fighting IS a circumstance that should be considered.



As far as your point that "for anyone to hold us to standards the enemy is not held to is also wrong and hypocritical". I don't understand how you can claim entitlement to ethical superiority without being held to higher standards.
I don't think I have claimed ethical superiority. My point is if they shoot at us, then we shoot back. If they want to kill us and its war, then we shoot to kill. Kill them, not them kill us, before or after they shoot at us. And now, in this day and age where there are hardly any "uniformed" enemy, where the enemy are people that dress like civilians and fight without following the rules of war, there are bound to be people (civilians) that are caught in the middle. I think, however, that the "problem" is no where near as bad as it once was. Now we have video to see ourselves, back in the day, atrocities were commited regularly without notice. I also think the way to avoid these things in the future is to take care of the enemy sooner rather than later, and not let a dictator flout international law and the UN for 12 yrs. Perhaps if the world and the UN stood up to Saddamy 12 yrs ago, we wouldn't be in this situation. Perpahs if Germany, Russia and France would have told Saddam we were serious about invading, instead of telling him we weren't to protect the oil for food illegal profits, we wouldn't be in this situation.

As far as your implication that you are only destroying property. "Bombed out buildings and infrastructure can be repared". You are not just damaging property, you have been found to be violating Iraqi's Human Rights,.
David - whether we have been violating human rights is debatable, and I am not going to do so now, but where is your outrage at the human rights violations of Saddam ? Are you of the opinion that, well, he wasn't bothering us, so whatever he does to his own people and neighbors is OK ? Where is your outrage of the violations of human rights of terrorists, who behead women and other civilians willy nilly ?

Have you previously supported NATO or US action to prevent mass killngs and human rights violations, such as Kosovo or Somolia ? If you have, then there is no way anyone can convince me they should not support the overthrow of Saddam, putting aside the threat to the US and terrorist supporter reasons for invading.

As far as experience is concerned mine is through meeting scores of refugees and people whose human rights have been abused because they were attacked by soldiers who were not subject to external review of their actions and acted with total impunity. As far as I'm concerned there is nothing wrong in trying to protect the fundamental human rights of the vulnerable by holding troops to account for their actions. Anything else is a license to commit atrocities. Please consider that before your next post. I'm not asking you to automatically agree, but PLEASE think about it.

My experience is meeting scores of people that have been victims of Saddam and his cronies around the world, who have been freed by the forces of the US and the NATO. Yes, I have considered all sides, but I guess we come from different sides of the tracks.

Neil Mick
11-19-2004, 08:58 PM
But for you to say that terrorism is not a threat is way off base my man. It threatens our very existence daily. No I do not go around thinking about it but the threat is there. And the day that Saddam was captured was a grand day.

I never said that terrorism is not a "threat;" but I do not think that waging war upon an abstraction is the way to go.

Take a look at Afghanistan. Did we eradicate terrorism there? No: we're still over there trying to "find" OBL. The "war on terror" will fail for the same reason that the "war on drugs" did, for the same reasons that Prohibition failed--you cannot successfully wage war upon an abstraction. There are other ways to deal with it. And frankly, the news heralding Putin's "new" nuclear bomb doesn't fill me with great hope for world peace, in any case.

And yes Neil -- it is your right to protest this war -- as it is my right to ask --- what then would it take for you to defend --- god forbid -- a terrorist attack that affected someone you know? Would then you feel it right to wipe out the forces that provoke?

Nope. But: I WOULD want the offenders to be brought before justice. Wars on terror, drugs, or the Islamic faith (which, in the end, is what this "war" is turning into, for many---a crusade) do not "solve" anything.

If you want vengeance: go ahead---bomb and invade countries in the ME. If you want results, then the approach needs to be completely different, from war.

And yes Neil I agree -- there are many measures other than violence -- and I am quite positive that many of the boys over there have tried everything they possibly could prior to invoking violence.

Sorry, but I don't see this. The insurgency in Iraq started when US troops fired upon a peaceful protest, last April.

But as I have said before -- when you are faced with nothing but violence you quite often have to resort to violence.

See my example of the crack dealer, above. You KNOW you're in trouble, when you think you only have one choice.

Have you ever been placed in a situation that you have to make such a decision? If you haven't then you really don't know what you would do -- do you?!

"I" am not my US gov't.

But I still stand 100% behind our troops over there Neil -- They are there because they have to be. They are doing their jobs. Just as you go to work everyday and do. I will never abandon them or look down on them.

I only look down upon the ppl who mindlessly follow orders, when those orders violate in'tl law and the Geneva Conventions (and even then, they deserve a fair trial). But, more to the point: when I look at the pic's of Abu Ghraib, and I feel shame.

Neil Mick
11-19-2004, 09:08 PM
Thank you John --- David and others seem to think that our troops are senslessly killing anyone that moves without reguard for the sanctity of innocence.

I was just listening to a tape recording of the inside of the Sunni Mosque that was raided today, in Baghdad. It's supposed to be the most important Sunni mosque in Iraq, possibly the whole ME. There were at least 20 gunshots (all from Americans...sorry, but last I checked: ppl don't carry their guns into mosque, when they pray) counted in the audio. No warning, no concern for innocent lives. 4 dead, 20 wounded.
Once again, the Army refused to allow the Red Crescent into the mosque.

The "sanctity of innocence" didn't seem to do the worshipers much good.

I know that this is not the way it is. Yes they are there to "secure " the area. And they will do what they feel is necessary. I have the utmost confidence that they Do Not shoot at the first thing that moves David.

800 dead Fallujan's might disagree with you: if they could speak.

Sorry, Tim: war is hell and all that, but the question is not what this or that soldier had to do to survive--it's what rules of engagement the Army established, in Falluja and elsewhere.

Timi Cone
11-19-2004, 10:44 PM
Well Neil --- Nice of you to admit that you are NOT our government. Or even the voice of such.

And do you not think that there has never been a hostile hiding inside a mosque or a church or any other sanctuary? Are you sure all the shots came from American weapons? After all --- it was an audio tape Neil -- you only know what you are being told is on the tape. You can not be 100% positive. And please --- news reports are not accurate -- you have to agree on that point.

How Neil do you suggest we get results? Ask them to play nice?

Rules Of Engagement? How can you dictate what the rules of anything should be when you have never stepped up to defend your country. You are good at throwing numbers Neil. Now add some first hand account and I may-( MAY) listen harder to what you say.


Oh and Neil --- My name is T i M i not Tim --- as in a female !!!

Neil Mick
11-20-2004, 04:55 PM
Well Neil --- Nice of you to admit that you are NOT our government. Or even the voice of such.

I make this distinction, becuase many of your questions ask what "I" would do, given such-and-such a situation. I am not casting judgements upon individual members of the Army, unless they break int'l law. My beef is with the breeches of int'l law perpetrated by our gov't, and the questionable rules of engagement.

And do you not think that there has never been a hostile hiding inside a mosque or a church or any other sanctuary? Are you sure all the shots came from American weapons? After all --- it was an audio tape Neil -- you only know what you are being told is on the tape. You can not be 100% positive. And please --- news reports are not accurate -- you have to agree on that point.

Apology, apology, apology.

This line of thinking reminds me of a fellow that tried to "apologize" away Rachel Corrie's death (how do we KNOW he did it on purpose? Was the scoop lowered, or raised, etc, ad nauseum). I'm guessing that the armed guards of Abu Hanifa wouldn't let its AK-47-toting worshipers into the mosque...call me a twinkle-eyed idealist, but I'm guessing that the absence of comments of the witness present regarding the lack of return-fire is also sufficient. The Army surrounded the mosque, came in blazing and came out with their target, under arrest. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

But, I suppose you think the Army's denying the Red Crescent entry into the mosque to care for the wounded was for the same reasons they gave for denying them entry into Falluja...(that, they could care for the wounded themselves, just fine...??) :eek:

How Neil do you suggest we get results? Ask them to play nice?

Pulling out of an illegal occupation would be a good start.

Rules Of Engagement? How can you dictate what the rules of anything should be when you have never stepped up to defend your country. You are good at throwing numbers Neil. Now add some first hand account and I may-( MAY) listen harder to what you say.

(Somehow, I doubt it)

What, do I have to engage in a crime, to acknowledge how wrong it is?? If I see a crime being committed, do I have to be a policeman to state that such a crime is wrong??

The Geneva Conventions of War are writ plainly for everyone to see. I don't need to engage in war to understand that this is international law.

Next!

But, FYI: I HAVE stood up for my beliefs, risked arrest, and defended the Constitution. I'm sure that it lacks the "Timi-seal-of-Red-Badge-of-Courage-Approval," but there you are. We cannot all measure up to each other's yardsticks.

Oh and Neil --- My name is T i M i not Tim --- as in a female !!!

(you sure it's not "Rend Shakir??" Just kidding). Sorry, you're the first "Timi" I've ever encountered. Interesting name.

DanielR
11-20-2004, 10:27 PM
This line of thinking reminds me of a fellow that tried to "apologize" away Rachel Corrie's death (how do we KNOW he did it on purpose? Was the scoop lowered, or raised, etc, ad nauseum)Without considering the merits of the case: given that the only official investigation (granted, conducted by a branch of the Israeli judiciary) indeed concluded this was an accident, I can understand how someone would question the claim it was a premeditated murder.

Timi Cone
11-21-2004, 12:46 AM
Mr. Neil, Mr. Neil, Mr. Neil -----

Apology???? I don't see where you could [I]possibly[I] deduce an apology anywhere in what I wrote.


And also dear --- no one has the authority to adjudicate over me what is right or wrong, unless they have been duly sworn. So the answer to that question my man is hell yes!!! You have not been given the right to cast judgment on anyone Neil. No matter what YOU feel their crime has been.

You think what we are doing over there is so bad and act like Saddam had everything under control --- such a GOOD leader. Are you forgetting about the complete town that that freak gassed to death with MUSTARD GAS in the 80's? Now --- WHAT WAS HIS REASON FOR THAT???? oh yeah ---- NOW I remember -----they were against his rule. Imagine that Neil. How many Iraqi's did Saddam kill with no regard for his own people? hmmm? So please Neil ---- Make sure you include all the mass graves that the great dictator contributed to when you add up your numbers okay?

Neil --- How many times have you heard the expression ---
ALL"S FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR
Well guess what buddy -- THIS IS WAR so stop all ready with the illegal occupancy -- we are there -- do you think we gonna turn and tip toe back out the door? NO! We are going to continue to fight.

You say you have risked arrest to defend your constitution-- well in my opinion --- you haven't. You have exercised your rights as set forth in the constitution -- as you are right now. But you have not fought for them. Them men on the fields are the ones that have fought to defend YOUR right to say the things you are saying here today. Your right to bad mouth them, and they have to continue doing so --- because that is what it means to defend the Constitution.

Don't bother trying to achieve "TIMI'S RED BADGE COURAGE" it takes a very "special" type to come any where near it and you got a long way to go --- The "Rend" crack put you behind the starting line --- Onward..

Neil Mick
11-21-2004, 01:47 AM
Without considering the merits of the case: given that the only official investigation (granted, conducted by a branch of the Israeli judiciary) indeed concluded this was an accident, I can understand how someone would question the claim it was a premeditated murder.

Don't get me started, Daniel. :freaky:

Neil Mick
11-21-2004, 02:25 AM
Mr. Neil, Mr. Neil, Mr. Neil -----

Apology???? I don't see where you could [I]possibly[I] deduce an apology anywhere in what I wrote.

When you start off with "well how do you KNOW that no one fired back?" in the midst of a mosque-service, well...what else do you call it, but an apology for a senselessly violent raid?

But I suppose that you're next going to state that they denied the Red Crescent entry because they were afraid that the RC would pass secret messages, written on the bandages. :rolleyes:

And also dear --- no one has the authority to adjudicate over me what is right or wrong, unless they have been duly sworn.

Absolute nonsense. You HAVE heard of jury-trials, right? While I may never be in a position to sit in a court and pronounce judgement over a soldier who broke the Geneva Convention, I CAN look at said laws, look at said actions, and say: yes, those laws have likely been broken.

answer to that question my man is hell yes!!! You have not been given the right to cast judgment on anyone Neil. No matter what YOU feel their crime has been.

Sorry, but I know legal, from illegal, so: yes I can.

You think what we are doing over there is so bad and act like Saddam had everything under control --- such a GOOD leader. Are you forgetting about the complete town that that freak gassed to death with MUSTARD GAS in the 80's? Now --- WHAT WAS HIS REASON FOR THAT???? oh yeah ---- NOW I remember -----they were against his rule. Imagine that Neil. How many Iraqi's did Saddam kill with no regard for his own people? hmmm? So please Neil ---- Make sure you include all the mass graves that the great dictator contributed to when you add up your numbers okay?

I just so love it when Con's pull the old "Hussein was an evil dictator. See what he did in the '80's?" routine. It's as if you get tunnel-vison and forget that while he was doing the worst of his atrocities, he was under the support of the US.

SO touching, how concerned you are for human lives...20 years' too late.

Yeah, Hussein was an evil megalomaniac; but so are many dictators in the world---many of them are our allies. It's not our job to go in and topple them all. In fact, we do a splendid job of enacting "regime-change" over elected leaders, replacing them with puppets eager to serve, until they get too uppity and need to be replaced, yet again (Hussein, (http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html) for instance. HE was "our boy," until he got greedy).

And, Hussein didn't cause instability to the region.

Neil --- How many times have you heard the expression ---
ALL"S FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR

And that's all it is...an expression. There are legal, and illegal, actions in war. Otherwise, "we" are no better than "they." (see the Geneva Conventions. BTW, the USA is the primary enforcer of the Geneva Conventions...at least, until Gonzales...now our AG...decided that torture and abuse, was the main rule of the day).

Well guess what buddy -- THIS IS WAR so stop all ready with the illegal occupancy -- we are there -- do you think we gonna turn and tip toe back out the door? NO! We are going to continue to fight.

And, in so doing, we slip further and further down the road, to folly.

You probably don't realize how eerily similar you sound, to the main defenders of the last great folly we engaged...the Vietnam War. They said almost exactly the same thing, word for word.

In fact, all the "great conquerers" of that region tend to use the same terminology...Napoleon said he was there to "liberate" the people; next the British; and now, the US. My guess is that we shall meet the same fate as they.

You say you have risked arrest to defend your constitution-- well in my opinion --- you haven't.

Sorry, but that's exactly what I was doing. The invasion was illegal by the laws of the Constitution, and I stayed on past the dreaded "order to disburse," along with 12 other compatriots. My arrest-citation is still hanging on my wall--I'm very proud of it. I have never been arrested before...not the sort to run afoul of the law (unless the law is wrong, or immoral).

You see (or maybe not): defending the Constitution takes many forms. You seem to think that it only involves picking up a gun and shipping yourself abroad, to fight in foreign lands. The people who sat in on diners in the '60's, which posted "whites only" signs, were also defending the Constitution, IMO. As did Mother Jones, who led a march of thousands of children to the home of Theodore Rooselvelt, when she was protesting child labor. Defence takes many forms.

You have exercised your rights as set forth in the constitution -- as you are right now. But you have not fought for them. Them men on the fields are the ones that have fought to defend YOUR right to say the things you are saying here today.

You have a LONG way to go, to explain how an invasion in Falluja is "defending my right to say" what I am saying here today (men defending my right to type on the internet? HUH?? lol).

Your right to bad mouth them, and they have to continue doing so --- because that is what it means to defend the Constitution.

Sorry, Timi: wrong again. As I said earlier: I do not harbor grudges toward individual soldiers doing their jobs...it's the policies of the Army, the rules of engagement, and when some (certainly, not all) of those soldiers BREAK the law--that's where I take issue.

Don't bother trying to achieve "TIMI'S RED BADGE COURAGE" it takes a very "special" type to come any where near it and you got a long way to go --- The "Rend" crack put you behind the starting line --- Onward..

Well, since I'll never get close to making your special merit-badge: let's just put me at the "permanent zero" mark, and call it even. :P

DanielR
11-21-2004, 08:51 AM
Don't get me started, Daniel.There's a certain amount of controversy surrounding the case you used in your argument. It seems reasonable that a person who didn't witness the incident would consider all possibilities, and given that most analyses available on the Internet are quite partisan, I cannot imagine such person could reach a conclusion beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I feel that use of that analogy weakens your argument, and, being a controversial subject to some, is liable to be challenged. Please do not take my last two posts to mean that I would like to debate the merits of the case with you, especially after your last retort.

Neil Mick
11-21-2004, 02:35 PM
There's a certain amount of controversy surrounding the case you used in your argument. It seems reasonable that a person who didn't witness the incident would consider all possibilities, and given that most analyses available on the Internet are quite partisan, I cannot imagine such person could reach a conclusion beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I feel that use of that analogy weakens your argument, and, being a controversial subject to some, is liable to be challenged. Please do not take my last two posts to mean that I would like to debate the merits of the case with you, especially after your last retort.

OK, I'm going to try to respond, without getting into a full-blown debate.

Contrary to what you might think, I do not get all my news from the internet: most of it comes from the radio (the internet comes second, followed by printed media. Very little comes from TV). But, in this case: I listened to the testimony of the witnesses present, looked at the pictures of the event (including and esp: the one's showing the rear-view of the bulldozer which had a full-on view of Corrie...the ones the mainstream press here DIDN'T publish); and finally--a fellow whose job it is to investigate auto-insurance claims noted, after looking at the photos, in his opinion, that if the driver wasn't guilty of homicide, he was certainly negligent (PaulH, are you reading this? Chime in, if you are).

Is it worthy of a "conclusion beyond all reasonable doubt?" In my mind, yes. In a court of law, no. Did this investigation stand up against the series of "how do you know that...etc?" Certainly, the questioner himself, thought as much. So, there you are.

Mark Uttech
11-21-2004, 03:01 PM
war is simply hard to believe.

DanielR
11-21-2004, 04:21 PM
Is it worthy of a "conclusion beyond all reasonable doubt?" In my mind, yes. In a court of law, no. Did this investigation stand up against the series of "how do you know that...etc?" Certainly, the questioner himself, thought as much.Yet the questions remain valid, so the doubt in the minds of some regarding the matter is understandable. As is your opponent's willingness to provide a fair measure of benefit of the doubt to the US troops.

Neil Mick
11-21-2004, 05:08 PM
Yet the questions remain valid, so the doubt in the minds of some regarding the matter is understandable. As is your opponent's willingness to provide a fair measure of benefit of the doubt to the US troops.

We'll just have to agree, to disagree. A raid upon a famed Sunni mosque, leaving 4 dead and 9 wounded (no US soldiers/Iraqi soldiers wounded), with no aid given to the worshipers and no eyewitness account of return-fire, is enough for me to state that there was likely no return-fire in the mosque (the last point being the most salient).

By the same token: a biased Israeli investigation of Corrie's death (not even a disciplinary rebuke, to her murderer...he was back in the saddle again, in 4 days--he even drove by in a bulldozer at the site of her death, where a vigil was being held, in memorium), with no corresponding US investigation and plenty of eyewitness testimony and photodocumentation as to his guilt, is enough for me.

Does it stand up in court? No, but this forum is not a court of law.

Neil Mick
11-21-2004, 05:09 PM
war is simply hard to believe.

Truer words, were never spoken.

DanielR
11-21-2004, 05:35 PM
Does it stand up in court? No, but this forum is not a court of law.Indeed. However, since you routinely make srong statements and pass judgement on very complex issues of highly controversial nature, a higher standard seems in order.

Neil Mick
11-21-2004, 06:25 PM
Indeed. However, since you routinely make srong statements and pass judgement on very complex issues of highly controversial nature, a higher standard seems in order.

Perhaps we should call in an independent arbitor? Maybe ask AG Gonzales to weigh in, with his views? How about Ashcroft? He's probably got some time on his hands.

With respect, Daniel: I think your problems with my "standards" being "controversial" have less to do with my process of decision-making (and, isn't it funny, tho? I was right about NO WMD's, about this war not being a "cakewalk," about the humanitarian crises that would ensue, etc), and more about your own assessments, of my "controversial judgements," which are not in keeping, with your own.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

DanielR
11-21-2004, 07:19 PM
Perhaps we should call in an independent arbitor?Please, not on my account. Besides, I have little hope it would be of any help.
Of course I disagree with some of your statements on this thread. In this case however, my addition to the thread had to do with the fact that you chose to present an issue in a light convenient to your argument rather than in a more objective manner. The issue is related to our ongoing debate, so I thought it would be fair to offer some perspective, to compensate a little for the overwhelming abundance of sarcasm that makes it rather hard to follow this conversation.

Neil Mick
11-21-2004, 10:18 PM
Please, not on my account. Besides, I have little hope it would be of any help.
Of course I disagree with some of your statements on this thread. In this case however, my addition to the thread had to do with the fact that you chose to present an issue in a light convenient to your argument rather than in a more objective manner. The issue is related to our ongoing debate, so I thought it would be fair to offer some perspective, to compensate a little for the overwhelming abundance of sarcasm that makes it rather hard to follow this conversation.

There is no such thing, as "objectivity." To suggest otherwise is to deny reality. There IS such a thing as "truth," but, as a seminal "History of Ideas" teacher once opined: the truth is often hard to ascertain.

And, sorry for the overabundance of sarcasm...consider it a genetic flaw, inherent in my family. ;) (we banned family reunions out of a sense of survival, YEARS ago)

Seriously, tho: I don't think you'd be so quick to judge my modes of gathering information, were I in agreement with you, more often. If I felt as you did regarding Israel, I believe that I could use tea leaves and tarot cards (pardon the sarcasm), and it wouldn't make a difference, to you.

But back to the topic: since there are NO reports of return fire (even by the US Army): I also look dubiously at your claim that I am presenting the issue "in a manner convenient to my argument." But at this point, the whole discussion has wandered afield.

My head hurts: can we talk about issues that are on firmer ground, like "the evils of war," rather than "apologies and objectivity?" :crazy:

Taliesin
11-22-2004, 11:02 AM
John

Nice try. Unfortunately my entire post is on record and the bit you carefully left out is still there, particularly the bit where I state "You have not tackled the points about external consideration ..". It a bit difficult to argue you consider points if you appear to be ignoring or disregarding them. That is a conclusion based on fact not an assumption.

However I do apologize for my conclusion that you believe American Troops should be held to higher standards than 'insurgent terrorists'

As far as you claim that "violating human rights is debatable". I suppose you could debate that it isn't a a violation of human rights if you call it something else. But you call call an elephant a butterfly if you want. That doesn't make it so. Going by Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights "Torture or Inhuman or Degrading Treatment" is a violation of Human Rights. I believe your constitution prohibits "Cruel and unusual punishment". The fact you have a nice euphemism for it doesn't change the fact. (In Cameroon they call it Coffee)

As far as motive for invasion is concerned there is only one politician I am aware of who argued for invasion on the basis of Saddam's Human Rights record before invasion Ann Clwyd MP - everyone else claimed WMD or supporting terrorists. To be honest if you had tied your colors to the mast, you might be able to legitimately argue that point. You might even have been able to argue it if troops had acted to reestablish order before securing oil wells. You certainly can't argue it while you are bombing an entire city into rubble and killing it's inhabitants. Yes I did support military intervention for humanitarian reasons in Kosovo, but observers weren't so blatantly excluded.

As far as where is my outrage. It's always been there, whether I was representing Arab Iraqis, Iraqi Kurds, Irananians, Zimbabweans, Congolese, Cameroonians, Nigerian's, Sierria Leonian's, Kosovans, Albanians, Sri Lankan Tamils, Czech or Polish Roma or Vietnamese. But don't try and tie these two things together. You were happy to ignore Saddam's Human Rights abuses, your government and mine both continued to support Saddam Hussein after he was caught gassing Kurds - so you don't have any ground there.

That is totally separate to a death toll of 800 more than the number of estimated insurgents, In circumstances where no independent witnesses were allowed and in an area they are still excluded from. If you want to claim any ethical high ground then excluding independent examination and arguing the stresses of combat is an automatic defense, is the worst possible way to do it.


Timi

You may be happy to take things on blind trust. I'm not. And you still haven't answered my point about what was videoed was not a snap, adrenaline high, incident. Nor have you answered the point that a lack of independent witnesses and active exclusion of them, does not help to promote trust, or establish the highest standards, particularly given your treatment of prisoners. And it certainly does not explain how many or few unnecessary 'accidents' took place.

John & Timi

And to put the exclusion of independent witnesses into perspective did you know that Robert Mugabe has now banned all Human Rights Organizations in Zimbabwe in order to stop all reporting of human Rights abuses there. For me that's an extremely worrying parallel.

I am sure you will both consider these points, but it would be nice if you both gave some indication, either by stating you disagree or providing counter arguments rather than ignoring them and later stating you have considered them. Otherwise it looks like you are just ignoring points you don't have an answer to.

Hogan
11-22-2004, 01:28 PM
John

Nice try.

Uhhhh... nice try about what ?

However I do apologize for my conclusion that you believe American Troops should be held to higher standards than 'insurgent terrorists' [/quote
Apology accepted. If the opponent is not a party to the geneva conventions, then no rules other than they die.

[quote]I believe your constitution prohibits "Cruel and unusual punishment". The fact you have a nice euphemism for it doesn't change the fact. (In Cameroon they call it Coffee)
Good thing terrorists playing dead in order to trick and kill us aren't governmed by our consititution.



As far as motive for invasion is concerned there is only one politician I am aware of who argued for invasion on the basis of Saddam's Human Rights record before invasion Ann Clwyd MP - everyone else claimed WMD or supporting terrorists.
Well I will name another: Gge. 'Dubya' Bush. Read his speaches for the entire year leading to the invasion and the UN debate.

while you are bombing an entire city into rubble and killing it's inhabitants.
Well, there it is. I believe we didn't bomb the entire city into rubble. And how much rubble was already there from Saddamy ?

Yes I did support military intervention for humanitarian reasons in Kosovo, but observers weren't so blatantly excluded.
Good for you. But I didn't remember the cameras there as there are now. And does this mean you would have supported the Iraq invasion on these grounds if observers were included in numbers more to your liking ?

As far as where is my outrage. It's always been there, whether I was representing Arab Iraqis, Iraqi Kurds, Irananians, Zimbabweans, Congolese, Cameroonians, Nigerian's, Sierria Leonian's, Kosovans, Albanians, Sri Lankan Tamils, Czech or Polish Roma or Vietnamese. But don't try and tie these two things together. You were happy to ignore Saddam's Human Rights abuses, your government and mine both continued to support Saddam Hussein after he was caught gassing Kurds - so you don't have any ground there.
I am sorry. I never ignored his abuses, so please don't judge my right to voice opinions contrary to my past governments.


John & Timi

And to put the exclusion of independent witnesses into perspective did you know that Robert Mugabe has now banned all Human Rights Organizations in Zimbabwe in order to stop all reporting of human Rights abuses there. For me that's an extremely worrying parallel.

Would you support, then the US or others invading that country, even though he wasn't a direct threat to others than his own people ?
What if Gee Dubya invaded tomorrow ? Or if he gave Mugabe an option to get out like he did Saddamy and Bin Laden ?

Otherwise it looks like you are just ignoring points you don't have an answer to. .... always assuming the worst. I may answer what I like and igniore what I like.

Timi Cone
11-22-2004, 08:20 PM
It's a strange little fact that --- you know -- the Iraqi goverment told everyone in Falluja --- oh -- about 2-3 weeks prior to the attack -- to leave the city. The majority did -- didn't they Neil - and - Taliesin?( at least that's what the BBC News said today) So they were forwarned -- if they chose not to heed the warnings -- what more can we do? -- If someone told me to get out - I do believe I would have gone.

And did you see where they found a couple more torture houses? Nice places aren't they -- but hey -- just leave them there -- right? They only use them to torture you for so long don't they?

And yes - Neil - I know you are gonna bring up the bus that got fired upon -- so I BEAT YA TO IT! It would not have happened had they stopped at the checkpoint or even stopped after the warnning shots had been fired -- Sounds kind of suspicious doesn't it? Hey -- Were you gonna mention the Nationa Guards that were ambushed by the insurgents on Sunday? 8 dead, 18 injured. You always mention what the US troops do, but fail to mention what is done to us.

Taliesin--

To our treatment of prisoners --- you know I really am not there. --- But I tell you what ----- We don't execute them on national TV.......... enough said?

Understand that if I chose to speak on a subject -- I will -- Otherwise --- you will not hear from me.
More probs than just that with Mugabe.

deepsoup
11-23-2004, 05:36 AM
It's a strange little fact that --- you know -- the Iraqi goverment told everyone in Falluja --- oh -- about 2-3 weeks prior to the attack -- to leave the city. The majority did -- didn't they Neil - and - Taliesin?( at least that's what the BBC News said today) So they were forwarned -- if they chose not to heed the warnings -- what more can we do? -- If someone told me to get out - I do believe I would have gone.

I find this a little odd. I've gotten into a few 'gun control' threads here and there (one here just recently). And I've gotten the impression that under similar circumstances there are a great many Americans who most definitely would not have abandoned their homes. Indeed, I've been told its precisely so they can form ad hoc militias to defend themselves and their homes against something like this that so many Americans insist on the right to own so many weapons.

Can it really be true that these people would be willing to abandon their homes, their land and all their possessions, hand in their weapons and meekly become refugees because a goverment installed by a foreign power tells them to? The gun nuts I've gotten into discussions with seem pretty sincere to me, I think quite a few of them would stay, and would be prepared to fight to defend their homes if necessary. Would they be wrong to do so? Should they be counted among the "terrorists", "insurgents" or whatever the foreign power said they were trying to counter? And would they even have been fighting anyone if their city hadn't been invaded, their homes destroyed and their friends and relatives killed in such a heavy handed way?

Sean
x

Timi Cone
11-23-2004, 03:16 PM
Sean -- Not talking about gun control -- but as with them also -- if you chose to stay -- you chose to face the concequenses. If you know you are entering into a battle field -- be prepared to fall -- it's a definate possibility. If you chose to stay and defend your home and possessions rather than save yourself -- that is your choice. You have to be responsible then for the outcome. When entering into a war zone everbody knows -- it's not a pretty site -- come on people -- IT'S A WAR. If my government told me that we were coming under attack- that I was being advised to leave because my safety was being jeopardized --- and I was not able to stand and defend my country --yes I would high tail it. See Ya.

So, yes Sean -- let them form their little militias --that is their right -- I am just tired of hearing all the b/s when our troops defend against the "little militias" when they ambush, or attempt to. Okay?

Neil Mick
11-23-2004, 11:01 PM
It's a strange little fact that --- you know -- the Iraqi goverment told everyone in Falluja --- oh -- about 2-3 weeks prior to the attack -- to leave the city. The majority did -- didn't they Neil - and - Taliesin?( at least that's what the BBC News said today) So they were forwarned -- if they chose not to heed the warnings -- what more can we do? -- If someone told me to get out - I do believe I would have gone.

I'm with Sean on this one. Also, I am in no position to judge a city's residents, of which I know very little.

Neither, I might add: are you.

And did you see where they found a couple more torture houses? Nice places aren't they -- but hey -- just leave them there -- right? They only use them to torture you for so long don't they?

So, it's our job now to seek out torture everywhere and stamp it out,,,so long as its not OUR sanctioned torture (see Abu Ghraib, or the specially chartered planes that we use to send "special" prisoners from the US to other countries which use torture). :hypno:

And yes - Neil - I know you are gonna bring up the bus that got fired upon -- so I BEAT YA TO IT! It would not have happened had they stopped at the checkpoint or even stopped after the warnning shots had been fired -- Sounds kind of suspicious doesn't it?

No...actually I wasn't. Yanno, I don't jump on EVERYTHING the US does wrong.

Hey -- Were you gonna mention the Nationa Guards that were ambushed by the insurgents on Sunday? 8 dead, 18 injured. You always mention what the US troops do, but fail to mention what is done to us.

Perhaps if we weren't involved in an illegal occupation, so many things WOULDN'T happen, hmmm?

To our treatment of prisoners --- you know I really am not there. --- But I tell you what ----- We don't execute them on national TV.......... enough said?

Not YET. :P

deepsoup
11-24-2004, 11:01 AM
So, it's our job now to seek out torture everywhere and stamp it out,,,so long as its not OUR sanctioned torture (see Abu Ghraib, or the specially chartered planes that we use to send "special" prisoners from the US to other countries which use torture). :hypno:
It amazes me that our leaders are getting away with the "Well he had to go anyway because he was a bad man." justification for the war, the sheer hipocrasy of it is breathtaking.

The US government (the UK too) has a history of dealing quite happily with vicious dictators when it suits them, including both Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. Saddam had all of the repellent habits back when he was Donald Rumsfeld's buddy that he had more recently, the attutude of the US and the UK seemed to be "we dont care that he's a psycopath, he's our psycopath".

Its tempting to look back over the US's history of preferring to do business with oppressive dictators, but I'm going to resist the temptation to bang on about Pinochet again. Lets stay right up to date.

Saudi Arabia doesn't have a very good record on human rights, does it. Yet its not criticised in any meaningful way by the US, even though the majority of the perpetrators of the more recent 9/11 atrocity were Saudi. Turkey is a bit wobbly on the whole human rights thing, but what about Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan?

I'll pick one, Uzbekistan. If this war is justified on Saddams human rights abuses alone, then how come Islam Karimov gets to be a respected ally. This particular dictator has the rather charming habit of having people boiled alive, thats pretty nasty even by Saddam's standards.

Yet when British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, publicly criticised Karimov's egregious record on human rights (and specifically the case of a mother who was imprisoned because she had the nerve to complain about her son being tortured to death) he was immediately withdrawn from his post and suspended. Certainly doesn't seem like the actions of a British goverment willing to embroil itself in a messy war simply to rid the world of an unpleasant dictator to me.

Sean
x

Taliesin
11-25-2004, 04:36 AM
John

Unlike you I do not accept ignoring points, whilst your right as an individual, is valid in a debate. It looks like your just avoiding points you can't answer.

As far as belief is concerned you implied argument that 'insurgents' don't care whether or not they kill innocent civilians means the US , UK and other occupying forces are entitled to the same.

GWB (AKA the Corpses for Votes President) Argued, Saddam's support for OSL, WMD, and most ironically of all 'upholding international law'(I have to admire hypocrisy of that magnitude) and only argued Regime change for Human Rights after invasion when all of those arguments collapsed, Ann Clwyd MP stated invasion for Human Rights situation BEFORE invasion and stuck to those points. Or was this another matter you exercised your right to ignore?

What would I do if the US proposed invading another country to secure regime change for Human Rights reasons?I would carefully consider the situation and the likely damage military intervention would do. Although the idea that GWB would worry about a country without any natural resources his supporters could profit from is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. In fact for anyone who has considered GWB's actual record including deliberate violation of the 2nd Geneva Convention, it is impossible to trust him, either to his motives, or to ensure troops are held fairly and properly accountable. That is something else i would have to consider.

No Iraq was not in rubble from Saddam's regime - Ugly and evil as it was, he didn't habitually bomb his own cities.

As far as your argument about playing dead. They guy was still unarmed, and I Don't think injured people are in any position to booby trap themselves. But hey's if that the only excuse you've got.

Oh I almost forgot, as far as my point about observers is concerned. My observers point is that the more independent observers the more chance of preventing human rights abuses on our side. Besides in Kosovo, there was no regime change, just UN sanctioned intervention, Same as the UN and the rest of the world supported you action in Afghanistan.

TIMI

We also have a difference of belief. You appear to believe an argument that "some of the people we were killed were insurgents" is an acceptable defense. I don't. You also also imply that 'they shouldn't have been there, therefore it was OK to kill them. Did you ever consider, that there may be people unable to move, people unwilling to lose everything, people who felt unable to leave infirm relatives. People who were too ill, or weak or old to leave themselves.

Or are you going to just stand by your 'we killed some insurgents, it doesn't matter about the other we killed they shouldn't have been there".

You clearly think that it is reasonable to blame people who were shot rather than the people with guns. How would you , as a woman, feel about arguments that women deserve to be raped because they "were asking for it" by going to nightclub, dressing in a sexy manner etc. . Because if that is not an acceptable view, then neither is yours.

Hogan
11-25-2004, 10:19 AM
John .... It looks like your just avoiding points you can't answer.
That's your assumption.

As far as belief is concerned you implied argument that 'insurgents' don't care whether or not they kill innocent civilians means the US , UK and other occupying forces are entitled to the same.
No, it just means that civilian casualties happen in war. The US is the only country now that tries to avoid it as best they can. Certainly not the terrorists. But the best way to avoid it 100% is to kill the terrorists and put an end to it all, don't you think ?

GWB (AKA the Corpses for Votes President)
Cute...

GWB...argued ...for 'upholding international law'...and ...Regime change for Human Rights after invasion when all of those arguments collapsed, Ann Clwyd MP stated invasion for Human Rights situation BEFORE invasion and stuck to those points. Or was this another matter you exercised your right to ignore?
No, just don't agree with your interpretation about GWB. And I am not going to waste time trying to convince you otherwise. But cheers to Ann.

...They guy was still unarmed, and I Don't think injured people are in any position to booby trap themselves. But hey's if that the only excuse you've got.
It's called the survivors booby trapping the dead ones. Happens all the time and is happening now. Dead man doesn't have to be alive to do it himself - he's got his "friends" that'll do it. And because he is not "armed" with a gun doesn't mean he isn't "armed" with a booby trap.

.... Besides in Kosovo, there was no regime change, just UN sanctioned intervention, Same as the UN and the rest of the world supported you action in Afghanistan.
I was under the impression that Clinton went to the UN, didn't happen and so he used NATO. The UN for 12 yrs has told Saddam to comply or else; sounds like world supprt to me. And there are more countries in this coalition than Gulf War 1, despite the efforts of people like you that dismiss their help with comments like "coalition of the bribed", etc.... Just because the oh so important French & Germans & Russians were not providing forces doesn't mean it's not correct in my view. Besides, ther were busy worrying about saving their Oil For Food illegal profits and bribes.

Taliesin
11-26-2004, 04:51 AM
It's not an assumption if it is based on coherent analysis. Now whether you follow Occam's Razor (The simplest explanation of the facts is most likely to be correct) or Sherlock Holmes's dicta (If you eradicate the impossible, than whatever left must be the truth) my conclusion as to your lack of response to points I made in this discussion/debate is not an assumption.

Actually I think you'll find the UK and other coalition forces are taking far more care to avoid civilian casualties than the US are at the moment. And yes civilian casualties do occur in war, that is not a justification for excluding external observation or not reviewing of soldiers actions to ensure that atrocities or war crimes are not committed. Or if committed that they are not just automatically excused. After all Justice must be done AND BE SEEN TO BE DONE.

I don't agree with you as to your proposed solution given that as far as I can see terrorism inevitably stems from a sense of injustice. That is the foundation terrorism is built on, that is the fuel it runs on. A simple 'Just Kill them all' approach to paraphrase your view would probably generate martyrs, creating a Hydra effect, even if you could guarantee you only kill the bad guy's which you clearly can't. It also means that the best way to tackle terrorism is low key intelligence based operations rather than blow everything up, kill everybody and hope that some of the dead are bad guys. A much more difficult and complicated, less publicized and less vote generating approach. Although I believe more effective. If of course it is not terrorism, but insurrection, than the British approach of going house to house, using 'flashbangs' and entering one at a time, appears to be to be more effective than driving around in armored cars, waiting to be shot at and returning overwhelming fire in the general direction of the shots.

As far as your "it's survivors booby trapping dead ones" point. That doesn't work as the whole concern is that the guy wasn't dead. He was unarmed and shot dead, in circumstances where the stresses of immediate conflict are not applicable as a defense.

As far as your faith in GWB is concerned I find blind faith in any leader worrying. Such faith that GWB has any concern about human rights (the guy wasn't even prepared to ensure a fair trial in capital cases when he was Governor of Texas) is very worrying indeed. But I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

Taliesin
11-26-2004, 04:56 AM
PS

UN Resolutions. Picking and choosing which resolutions require enforcement and which don't at whatever time is convenient is not by any stretch of the imagination 'upholding international law'. Lets see some of the resolutions against Israel enforced.

And when it comes to either GWB or the Secretary General of the UN's judgment on international law. I know who I think is likely to be right (and it ain't the Guy who says the Geneva Convention doesn't count)

Timi Cone
11-26-2004, 10:36 AM
Rape and war the same thing???? Okay, if you say so.. --- first of all --- when a woman goes out expecting to have a good time --- regardless of how she is dressed --- she is NOT knowingly entering into a battle field, unlike the residents of Falluja that chose not to leave the city. But I will tell you one thing --- any woman who has gone through that horrific experience has learned two things my dear man --- how to defend and how to survive. So now when she encounters ANYONE who may pose a threat to her she will know how to protect herself.

Now -- the weak and the ones unable to leave on their own volition?--- I am sure everyone has friends and family that are/were willing to assist in relocating them to a more safe and secure area. What about their all holey government? As for the people that are unwilling to give up material possessions I am sorry -- but that is just ridiculous. Would you? --

Please understand -- I do feel for what is happening over there -- really I do -- but I am tired of everyone dogging on our troops for surviving. They have families to come home to. We want to see our sons and husband, brothers and uncles again.

You don't think that our troops have been going door to door? Hate to enlighten you but-----

You all are finding everything that we are doing to LIVE outrageously heinous but when the insurgents in turn booby trap their dead bodies and kill our troops you find no problem in this act. some of you sit here and call yourselves patriotic Americans, yet you continually seem to defend what the enemy is doing to kill our troops. I am sorry but that is the furthest thing from patriotic that I can define.

Taliesin -- I never said it's okay as long as we got "some" of the insurgents. I said that the civilians were warned that the city was coming under attack. Anyone that chose to stay knew the consequences. I still say this.

And hey Neil -- Yes I do feel that we should stamp out torture houses, especially as long as they are being used to torture OUR TROOPS. How can you in good conscience sit there and possibly say that it is none of our business that they have torture houses that are being used daily? They are inhumane.

Hogan
11-26-2004, 11:44 AM
It's not an assumption if it is based on coherent analysis. Now whether you follow Occam's Razor (The simplest explanation of the facts is most likely to be correct) or Sherlock Holmes's dicta (If you eradicate the impossible, than whatever left must be the truth) my conclusion as to your lack of response to points I made in this discussion/debate is not an assumption.

Ahahha.. OK, whatever you say Sherlock.

Actually I think you'll find the UK and other coalition forces are taking far more care to avoid civilian casualties than the US are at the moment.
While British troops are indeed "sensitive", I find it hard to believe the UN troops are doing anything, especially after they have been accused of mass rapes in Rowanda.

And yes civilian casualties do occur in war, that is not a justification for excluding external observation or not reviewing of soldiers actions to ensure that atrocities or war crimes are not committed. Or if committed that they are not just automatically excused. After all Justice must be done AND BE SEEN TO BE DONE.
Well, we differ. I do believe more than enough observers are there; however, I will never be convinced the media should be in war. If there were independent media in WWII, we'd never would've won.

I don't agree with you as to your proposed solution given that as far as I can see terrorism inevitably stems from a sense of injustice. That is the foundation terrorism is built on, that is the fuel it runs on.
There was a study recenty that stated that terrorists and their supprters don't come from poverty or a sense of injustice. For the life of me, I cannot remember where I saw it, but if I do I will post it for you.

A simple 'Just Kill them all' approach to paraphrase your view would probably generate martyrs, creating a Hydra effect,
Aaaaand killing more terrorists is a bad thing ?

Although I believe more effective. If of course it is not terrorism, but insurrection, than the British approach of going house to house, using 'flashbangs' and entering one at a time, appears to be to be more effective than driving around in armored cars, waiting to be shot at and returning overwhelming fire in the general direction of the shots.
I think both courses of action serves a purposes.

As far as your "it's survivors booby trapping dead ones" point. That doesn't work as the whole concern is that the guy wasn't dead. He was unarmed and shot dead, in circumstances where the stresses of immediate conflict are not applicable as a defense.
I didn't see the body move.


As far as your faith in GWB is concerned I find blind faith in any leader worrying.
Where have I said I have blind faith ?

Hogan
11-26-2004, 11:45 AM
PS

UN Resolutions. Picking and choosing which resolutions require enforcement and which don't at whatever time is convenient is not by any stretch of the imagination 'upholding international law'. Lets see some of the resolutions against Israel enforced.

And when it comes to either GWB or the Secretary General of the UN's judgment on international law. I know who I think is likely to be right (and it ain't the Guy who says the Geneva Convention doesn't count)

No I agree, lets enforce them all. Let the fun begin.

And you favor Annan ? Mr. Corrupt ? Mr. ignore the UN problems ? Okay, Sherlock.

Neil Mick
11-26-2004, 02:26 PM
Now -- the weak and the ones unable to leave on their own volition?--- I am sure everyone has friends and family that are/were willing to assist in relocating them to a more safe and secure area.

You assume an awful lot, for a place (I assume) you've never visited.

What about their all holey government?

You mean: the "US-selected" gov't? The one endorsing the "raid??" Is that the one you mean?

As for the people that are unwilling to give up material possessions I am sorry -- but that is just ridiculous. Would you? --

There are a number of reasons that a person, family or group would refuse to leave, in the wake of an invasion. You'd find the same pattern of behavior HERE, no doubt. So please: stop trying to second-guess a group of ppl that you have likely not met...or have you?? Have you gone to Falluja?

You are finding everything that we are doing to LIVE outrageously heinous but when the insurgents in turn booby trap their dead bodies and kill our troops you find no problem in this act.

Umm...riiight. You and John Hogan both find it quite fine to ignore certain leading questions that you cannot answer (yes: CANNOT); and yet you get in high dudgeon when we do not express outrage when the Fallujan rebels engage in violations of the Geneva Convention.

Well, I'll go you both one better: it IS wrong for the rebels to engage in GCoW violations. But, WE are the one's supposed to "bring democracy" over THERE. As such, doncha think it's simple COMMON SENSE, that "we" abide by int'l law? And, WE are occupying illegally, already. Sorry, but we torture, hide prisoners from the Red Cross, engage in systematic abuse, and all kinds of behaviors that "we" call "necessary to survive," when this is clearly not the case. "We" do not need to engage in abuse, to survive. "We" do not need to bulldoze houses (mirror to the illegal Israeli occupation), kill livestock, and other behaviors that manage to sidestep the Pentagon Press Corps, AKA the mainstream media.

some of you sit here and call yourselves patriotic Americans, yet you continually seem to defend what the enemy is doing to kill our troops. I am sorry but that is the furthest thing from patriotic that I can define.

See my comments, above. I'm sorry, but IMO, it IS "patriotic" to protest (verbally and otherwise) when our Army violates the law. Does it mitigate this violation, when the other side ALSO violates the law? I don't think so.

Imagine if the police acted this way, in your local town? "Sorry, your honor: yeah, we DID violate the citizen's rights--torched her house, busted in without a warrant, "questioned" her without legal counsel (I hear that she's healing nicely from it...and we DID send her flowers! :crazy: ), but she WAS breaking the law!"

Taliesin -- I never said it's okay as long as we got "some" of the insurgents. I said that the civilians were warned that the city was coming under attack. Anyone that chose to stay knew the consequences. I still say this.

More apologizing.

And hey Neil -- Yes I do feel that we should stamp out torture houses, especially as long as they are being used to torture OUR TROOPS.

Since I have yet to hear about OUR TROOPS getting tortured, can you either provide a source, or cease with the imaginative storytelling?

How can you in good conscience sit there and possibly say that it is none of our business that they have torture houses that are being used daily? They are inhumane.

NOTHING like OUR torture-houses, huh? THEIR'S are INHUMANE: while OUR'S are clean, well-lighted places of interrogation.

Oh, brother... :freaky:

Taliesin
11-27-2004, 08:49 AM
John

How can any supported of GWB accuse anyone else of corruption. And by the way. a philosophy of support without any consideration of his actions is blind support by definition.

BTW. There was independent media in WWII including independent journalists in the front line including a certain Wynfred Vaughn-Thomas, who went to Rome ahead of the troops from the Anzio beachhead.

By the way do you understand what I mean when I talk about a 'Hydra Effect". Because your reply doesn't reflect that. (Hydra Effect - when you kill one you generate two more). That why I disagree with your philosophy.

BTW. I think the study you referred to stated poverty was not a cause of terrorism.

TIMI

An argument that women who dress in a certain way dress in an attractive manner, deserved to be raped because they choose to look attractive is materially identical to your argument that the civilians 'should have moved' and 'knew what to expect'.

By the way I suggest you read some of the earlier posts about Patriotism before you start using the word. Uncritical support in all circumstances is called Jingoism not patriotism. By the way I'm Welsh so I don't describe myself as a patriotic American.

According to the BBC News Reports American tactics involve driving around in armored cars, waiting to be shot at and then returning fire with overwhelming force. There also appears to be a far greater reliance on aerial bombardment and use of missiles. (Which are only smart in comparison to GWB).

Nor can you argue about what your troops are doing to live in circumstances where they are shooting dead unarmed individuals, or where they are the ones doing the majority of attacking.

As far as finding torture houses - wonderful you found some empty buildings, you certainly haven't found the ones committing the torture and now you have a population more prepared to help them.

Neil has covered the rest of your points, and as far as I can see extremely well.

Timi Cone
11-27-2004, 12:25 PM
Hey David -- maybe YOU should check out previous posts because I said SOME of you that call yourselves patriotic ---not all.....DUH!!!

Let's see here --- getting fired at --- yeah -- I too would return fire --- and more of it if I had the means available. That's called survival of the fittest. Ever heard of it? That's the objective of a war -- to WIN.

As for shooting dead unarmed bodies -- I believe John has broached this subject more than once --- THE TROOPS CAN'T BE SURE THEY ARE DEAD AND NOT BOOBY TRAPPED!!!!

Timi Cone
11-27-2004, 10:45 PM
Neil ---
So please: stop trying to second-guess a group of ppl that you have likely not met...or have you??

Sounds like good advice for you too-- where our troops are concerned. Don't ya think?

And no, I do not get enraged when you do not express outrage when the Fallujan rebels engage in violations -- I get upset when you continually point the finger at the U.S.troops for every little dirty thing that is done. Comprendas?

Does this look like storytelling to you -- taken straight out of the paper -- you know that thing that comes out every morning ---
___________________________________________________
WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 — The Bush administration is seeking to block a group of American troops who were tortured in Iraqi prisons
commondreams.org

___________________________________________________

POW Jessica
was tortured

Tip from Iraqi led to hospital room
___________________________________________________
wow ---there's another.

How's that Neil? Will that suffice or do you want me to give you a couple more?

Oh, and by the way darlin -- until you see the words I'M SORRY-- there is no apology coming from my mouth.

The Marines are starting to pull out of Falluja -- that means that we will soon start to rebuild -- agreed? -- Guess what else it means -- They will start bombing what we rebuild AGAIN.

Next...

Bill Danosky
11-28-2004, 09:46 AM
My zen answer for all the world's problems is progressive idealism. Get rid of the hatred, anger and attachment to the material. Sufficiently promote peace, love and altruism and the guns, bombs and WMD will start rotting on the shelves.

I'm aware how of Pollyanna that sounds, but it's my belief that world peace is between everyones ears!

Hogan
11-28-2004, 05:21 PM
John

How can any supported of GWB accuse anyone else of corruption.
Cute.

BTW. There was independent media in WWII including independent journalists in the front line including a certain Wynfred Vaughn-Thomas, who went to Rome ahead of the troops from the Anzio beachhead.
Okay, there were a few. But not like today. And if you think WWII media was more open and less restricted, you're crazy.

By the way do you understand what I mean when I talk about a 'Hydra Effect". Because your reply doesn't reflect that. (Hydra Effect - when you kill one you generate two more). That why I disagree with your philosophy.
By the way, I do understand, thank you very much. My answer of "Aaaaand killing more terrorists is a bad thing" is quite easy to understand.

BTW. I think the study you referred to stated poverty was not a cause of terrorism.
Quite right. Injustice, poverty, some people say they mean the same thing. But what quides these nuts is a hatred of the US given down to them by idiots who promise 72 virgins in the after life. Not injustice. The US is the biggest conrtibutor of aid to the reagon - this means we gove more money and material support than any country in the world. This tells me something other than "injustice" is at work. Do they hate us becuase we believe different things than them and support Isreal. Ohhhhhh, hmmm, yeah, "lets kill people because they believe opposite of us" - some guiding force those terrorists have,,,,

According to the BBC News Reports American tactics involve driving around in armored cars, waiting to be shot at and then returning fire with overwhelming force. There also appears to be a far greater reliance on aerial bombardment and use of missiles.
Cool !

Neil Mick
11-29-2004, 10:33 PM
Neil ---
So please: stop trying to second-guess a group of ppl that you have likely not met...or have you??

Sounds like good advice for you too-- where our troops are concerned. Don't ya think?

Fine. I won't try to second-guess a group of ppl I haven't met, if you don't.

But, I CAN say (with some assurance, and no second-guessing, at all): that ANY ppl, no matter their nationality, do NOT like to be made homeless, have their city made into a disaster-area, be forced to live in refugee-camps with little potable water, food, or medical aid (and THEN have their medical supplies destroyed by...you guessed it: the US "liberators."

Just a few days ago, the Army let in a few (i.e, 2 or 3) Red Crescent ambulances into Falluja. Wow! The humanitarian effort STUNNINGLY underwhelms me.

Call me psychic, but I am betting that the Fallujan's aren't happy...what d'ya think?

And no, I do not get enraged when you do not express outrage when the Fallujan rebels engage in violations -- I get upset when you continually point the finger at the U.S.troops for every little dirty thing that is done. Comprendas?

Yeah, comprendas. But, here's my world-class shrug (*shrug*). They murder on my dime: they get my dissent. Comprendes?

Does this look like storytelling to you -- taken straight out of the paper -- you know that thing that comes out every morning ---
___________________________________________________
WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 — The Bush administration is seeking to block a group of American troops who were tortured in Iraqi prisons
commondreams.org

___________________________________________________

POW Jessica
was tortured

Tip from Iraqi led to hospital room

(you gotta be kiddin' me. PLEASE tell me you're not referring to Jessica LYNCH, who was given better treatment than other Iraqi's, given water when they had almost none, AND the Army, in their "daring" rescue made a media show out of, locking up the Iraqi hospital Admin who showed them where she WAS?? :O)
___________________________________________________
wow ---there's another.

How's that Neil? Will that suffice or do you want me to give you a couple more?

PRAISE THE INTERNET GODS! A CONSERVATIVE WHO ACTUALLY POSTS LINKS! *THE CROWD GOES WILD!!!*

Thank you for the links. Does it exonerate the troops from committing artrocities, because "they're doin' it, too?"

I think not.

Oh, and by the way darlin -- until you see the words I'M SORRY-- there is no apology coming from my mouth.

Noo...I thought not.

The Marines are starting to pull out of Falluja -- that means that we will soon start to rebuild -- agreed?

No, I do not. Sorry, but if you look at the Army's claim that they're "rebuilding" in other places (such as Sadr City): and you see how truly specious this is. Sorry, but no cigar.

-- Guess what else it means -- They will start bombing what we rebuild AGAIN.

And, we will invade and raid and kill,,,AGAIN, and they will bomb and kill, and we...etc, ad nauseum. And the dance of folly goes on and on...until our side, wises up.

Because if history is any guide: they WON'T.

Next...

Yes, "next." But, you've so far proven zilch.

My turn...NEXT!

Neil Mick
11-30-2004, 01:16 AM
Yet, let's not forget why we're over there. It's for the people of Iraq, right?

"We Are Living a Disaster" (http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000141.php#more)

Traffic jams form often when military patrols rumble down the street…cars stacked up behind them, nobody daring to venture too close to the heavy machine guns wielded by soldiers with their faces covered by goggles and masks. Already today 2 soldiers were killed and three wounded by a roadside bomb in the northwest section of the capital. Also, up near Kut in eastern Iraq, another soldier was killed and two wounded in a "vehicle accident."

The fuel crisis is driving the cost of everything up-vegetables, fruit, meat, you name it.

"We are living a disaster," says Abu Abdulla, an unemployed engineer at a kebob stand today near the so-called green zone, "The price for benzene is 10 times now what it was on the black market, but there are 10 times less jobs and who is making 10 times as much money?"

Yep, everything's going great: the Army, which is telling everyone everything that happened (because they have nothing, to be ashamed of): is doing a heck of a job, at respecting human rights.

US army blocks aid convoy for Falluja (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F0A47D67-7D17-4140-A992-2AEC1CF0624A.htm)

US forces have stopped the convoy from entering the city
ICRC blasts 'inhumanity' of Falluja battles

The US military has prevented an aid convoy from reaching the besieged city of Falluja, a doctor based in Baghdad who accompanied the convoy says.

"There is a terrible crime going in Falluja and they do not want anybody to know. I transferred four injured people from the Jordanian field hospital to a hospital in Baghdad.

"They told me that there is a crime in there; chemical weapons are being used. The corpses don't have traces of gunshots but black patches.

You see, I'm not putting down individual soldiers who follow their orders, when I say this (so long as they aren't violating human rights). I'm not pointing any fingers at anyone, specifically: because I do not know whom they are. But THEY do. And, someone is following orders which (IMO) violate the GCoW.

Meanwhile, the DoD makes these promises, on Nov.12th:

DoD Defence Briefing (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/11/mil-041112-dod01.htm)

There is a medical team is going to arrive, to Fallujah, and to take a look on the hospital and what the needs of the hospital are, how can they support the medical issues over here in Fallujah.

Another team too is coming to Fallujah and to Anbar and to estimate the reconstruction of Fallujah. And the prime minister decided to start with the reconstruction as soon as the crisis in Fallujah will start or -- cool down.

nominate like about a hundred million dollars for the reconstruction of Fallujah. And there is many projects already in hand that -- we are going to start with it as soon as possible.

Sorry, but this was 16 days ago, and it took them nearly TWO WEEKS, TO LET IN A FEW AMBULANCES, AFTER BLOCKADING THEM for two weeks!!

Taliesin
11-30-2004, 04:00 AM
Timi

How can shooting an unarmed man be justified on the basis that "they are booby trapping dead bodies"? (assuming that has happened - because so far nobody has reported such actions).

And how does returning fire apply to that. BTW. There is a huge difference between shooting back at the person firing at you and just launching an avalanche of bullets in their general election - just ask any American cop.

Neil has covered POW Jessica tortured. And if you are talking about torture in Iraqi prisons - that sure ain't current news.

Still at least you have a valid (if irrelevant point) about saying some call themselves patriotic. It's a pity you still haven't bothered to consider what the word patriotic means though.

You get upset that US troops have to act legally. You think they should be unaccountable. Do you really want to Christen your troops "Atrocities 'R' Us. Because that's where unaccountability leads. (Guess you missed that point).

Mr Spencer's "Survival of the fittest" concept. is an argument that doesn't work since it is based on the adaptability of individuals or animals raised and living in a particular environment. It doesn't work for military assault where you already have fire power and protection advantages.

There's a point to a war to WIN - Win what, win how - with a greater body count, increasing numbers of enemies, Genocide of the 'enemy'. I thought the purpose of a War on Terror was to eradicate terrorists not multiply them.

Hogan
11-30-2004, 08:24 AM
Timi

How can shooting an unarmed man be justified on the basis that "they are booby trapping dead bodies"? (assuming that has happened - because so far nobody has reported such actions). ....


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041116/ap_on_re_us/marine_shooting

To whit:

"The shooting happened Saturday, one day after the Marine, who has not been identified, was wounded in the face and after another man in his unit was killed by the booby-trapped body of an insurgent."

Type "booby trapping bodies in Iraq" in Google, and enjoy the reading.....

Taliesin
11-30-2004, 09:36 AM
That half of the question aswered. Nowh ow about why shooting an unarmed individual makes their body any safer (if they are such a threat dead).

Hogan
11-30-2004, 01:19 PM
That half of the question aswered. Nowh ow about why shooting an unarmed individual makes their body any safer (if they are such a threat dead).

Well, possible because when you shoot someone that is alive, the jerking motion just might trigger whatever "booby trap" that lies beneath. Traps go off upon any movement. Just a guess.

Neil Mick
11-30-2004, 10:50 PM
It's a strange little fact that --- you know -- the Iraqi goverment told everyone in Falluja --- oh -- about 2-3 weeks prior to the attack -- to leave the city. The majority did -- didn't they Neil - and - Taliesin?( at least that's what the BBC News said today) So they were forwarned -- if they chose not to heed the warnings -- what more can we do? -- If someone told me to get out - I do believe I would have gone.

And you know something? Sometimes I re-read a question, and I get "another thought" to respond. So here's my "other thought:"

OK, so imagine that YOU get an order from a foreign Army surrounding YOUR city, that you have about 2 weeks to get out. So, imagine that you may, or may not, have family outside of the city, but for whatever case or reason, you head off to be one of the many families, refugee's at your local refugee-camp (which is probably located at your local stadium, or something like it), located at your capital city (wherever that may be).

So, you go there, you're camped out in the stadium (with Red Cross trucks and triage units, hovering carefully nearby) in whatever ramshackle thing whatever the city (aid group, or what have you) can throw together as a shelter, barely getting by as the city itself is in the midst of several crises, at the moment; but suddenly this Army announces that it needs to seek "terrorists" in your midst, and proceeds to bust up some of your needed medical supplies. A shortage occurs, and...worse, your capital city suffers from clean food and electricity shortages (10 hours a dayof electricity, on a GOOD day...AND, it's now getting very cold, in your capital).

So NOW what? Well, after a few weeks, you might ask the Army "how's the war going? How they're doing, ridding the world of terrorists, etc?" I mean: you KNOW that there are insurgents moving around in your capital (you even have a sneaking admiration for them), but you want to know that your sacrifice hasn't been in vain, right? That your property and probable livelihood hasn't been obliterared for nothing, right?

So, what are you told? This Army forstalled medical aid, and instituted a media blackout on the area.

And you really think that you'd believe it, if this army promises reconstruction, and restitution? I certainly wouldn't. They've been roaming around my country, using DU weapons, harassing me and my family and friends at every turn, constantly lying and suppressing information, shooting into crowds at demonstrations, raiding mosques and arresting ppl who disagree with them...

No, I doubt I'd trust them, at all. Trust is definitly not the emotion, that I would feel. Something more like anger, and outrage would be more like it.

Neil Mick
11-30-2004, 11:36 PM
And, on a side-note:

The Center for Constitutional Rights and four Iraqis who were tortured in U.S. custody have filed a complaint with the German Federal Prosecutor’s Office against high ranking United States civilian and military commanders over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere in Iraq.

We are asking the German prosecutor to launch an investigation: since the U.S. government is unwilling to open an independent investigation into the responsibility of these officials for war crimes, and since the U.S. has refused to join the International Criminal Court, CCR and the Iraqi victims have brought this complaint in Germany as a court of last resort. Several of the defendants are stationed in Germany.

Defendants include Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, former CIA Director George Tenet, Lt. General Ricardo S. Sanchez, Major-General Walter Wojdakowski, Brig.-General Janis Karpinski, Lt.-Colonel Jerry L. Phillabaum, Colonel Thomas M. Pappas, Lt.-Colonel Stephen L. Jordan, Major-General Geoffrey Miller, and Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone.

Please take a moment to sign the petition, here:

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/whatsnew/action/actionAlert2.asp

Taliesin
12-01-2004, 06:58 AM
John

Are you saying that your US Marine endangered himself by shooting that unarmed individual? Or are you admiting you cannot explain why shooting him would have made him safer.

Still, looking forward to your next attempt.

Hogan
12-01-2004, 09:08 AM
John

Are you saying that your US Marine endangered himself by shooting that unarmed individual? Or are you admiting you cannot explain why shooting him would have made him safer.

Still, looking forward to your next attempt.

Excuse me ? I will try to explain this in the simplest terms for you.... when a body is booby trapped and you move it, you move the body FROM the device, thereby OPENING YOU TO THE EXPLOSION. IF, however, you don't move the body and just shoot it to see if it sets it off, the body ABSORBS the explosion, becuase it is STILL OVER THE DEVICE.

And if I was there, he would've been shot more than once.

Taliesin
12-01-2004, 10:27 AM
John

Congratulations, you have finally managed to put forward a reasonable argument. How will you celebrate this unique achievement. (At least on this thread). Of course you are still left with the problem that it's the dead who are booby trapped and not the living. And the whole point is your US Marine still shot an unarmed and alive individual. For myself shooting to see if you trigger an explosion is hardly a reasonable point. Or are you now saying the 'insurgents' booby trapped their injured as well. (If so please provide evidence)

We still don't know what happened in Fallujah, and aid is still excluded. Which brings us back to the question what happened that we didn't see. Or to put it another way What are we being prevented from finding out.

Lets hope any US troops accused of violating human rights don't have you defending them. Because the entire point is fair examination of evidence to establish whether or not there are violations of international law, the Geneva Conventions. Rather than simply saying they're our troops therefore everything they did must have been justified.

Still looking forward to your next attempt to argue all US troops are living saints.

Hogan
12-01-2004, 04:13 PM
.... Or are you now saying the 'insurgents' booby trapped their injured as well. (If so please provide evidence)
You are assuming, of course, that the crazy insurgents that care nothing of themselves or their comrads lives would NOT booby trap someone they left near death. You know, "sacrafice for allah" and all that - they DO have to get to their 72 virgins, you know....


Still looking forward to your next attempt to argue all US troops are living saints.

Well, how about this, any soldier, man or woman, fighting for this country and putting it all on the line, in a volunteer military no less, IS a living saint - for they are the true amercans, not like us who sit in front of their computers playing monday morning quarterback who know nothing of real combat. And for anyone who sits and disparages any of our servicemen and women should be ashamed.

Timi Cone
12-01-2004, 05:24 PM
You go John --- did you know you were going to need a law degree to enter this thread?

My dear Neil -- It was NOT OUR army that told them to leave --- but you knew that -- you've re-read it many times. You've kicked that dead horse many times -- move on. You know my opinion.

You know something else David? I know what my brother went through over there --- and my friends in the SF's those eyewitness accounts means more to me than ANYTHING YOU WILL READ IN YOUR NEWSPAPER. I know how many times they WERE faced with the boobytraps and the supposed "unarmed" innocent civilians. And yes Neil -- how many times friends of mine in the SF's would send pictures home of parts of cities the troops WOULD be rebuilding one week -- to turn around and have THEM blow the crap out of it the next week -- That is enough to make OUR troops not want to give a crap about right or wrong. They bust their humps to make life a little more bearable for the Iraqis that have been uprooted from their homes--- and get **** on for it. Sorry for you all ----- but I will always support OUR TROOPS !!!!!!!

And David --- I do know what patriotic is ---- Thank you very much.

Neil Mick
12-02-2004, 01:02 AM
My dear Neil -- It was NOT OUR army that told them to leave --- but you knew that -- you've re-read it many times. You've kicked that dead horse many times -- move on. You know my opinion.

Please tell me that you think there is a difference, btw what Allawi decrees, and what the Army wants, don't you? I mean, the man has his speeches written by Bush's speechwriter, fer pete's sake!

And yes Neil -- how many times friends of mine in the SF's would send pictures home of parts of cities the troops WOULD be rebuilding one week -- to turn around and have THEM

..."them??" You mean, the eevel Islamo-fascist network? The Iraqi insurgents? The Army, needing to plow a hole through someone's home? The terrorists who came into Iraq, to fight the American's?

blow the crap out of it the next week -- That is enough to make OUR troops not want to give a crap about right or wrong.

Exactly. You see how it works? We start not to care, about right from wrong. Then, our morals slip, we gotta "show 'em we mean business," and more innocent ppl progressively suffer.

They bust their humps to make life a little more bearable for the Iraqis that have been uprooted from their homes--- and get **** on for it.

Yeah, all that touching concern for the Iraqi's, the Army is showing...well, in some cases, yes. But in a lot of other ways, definitely not.

Sorry for you all ----- but I will always support OUR TROOPS !!!!!!!

No, no problem. We just disagree on term "support." See: I support the troops, too.

Support, however: does not mean mindless, slavish fawning over a group, which does not understand or appreciate right, from wrong.

Timi Cone
12-02-2004, 05:09 PM
Hey Neil ----- Read away my friend....

Marines Find Alleged Iraqi Torture Chamber

By KATARINA KRATOVAC

FALLUJAH, Iraq (AP) - Down a steep staircase littered with glass shards and rubble, U.S. Marines descended Thursday to a dark basement believed to have been one of Fallujah's torture chambers. They found bloodstains and a single bloody hand print on the wall - evidence of the horrors once carried out in this former insurgent stronghold.

``We had sensed that there was a pure streak of evil in this town, ever since the first days of engagement here,'' said Maj. Wade Weems.

The basement, discovered while Marines fought fierce battles with Fallujah insurgents last month, is part of the Islamic Resistance Center, a three-story building in the heart of this city 40 miles west of Baghdad.

Maj. Alex Ray, an operations officer with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, said all evidence indicates the 15-foot-by-20-foot space was used by insurgents to imprison and torture their captives.


``Based on the evidence we have found here, we believe people were held here and possibly tortured - we have found enough blood to surmise that,'' Ray told reporters shown the basement Thursday.


On the wall adjacent to the hand print, human fingernails were found dug deep into the porous gravel around a hole in the wall - evidence, the Marines say, of a tunnel-digging attempt.


Although most of the evidence had been taken away, there was enough to suggest ``they tried to dig their way out,'' Ray said.


No bodies or human remains - except for the fingernails - were found when the Marines discovered the underground chamber on Nov. 11, but they found ``plenty of blood,'' he said. Marine experts have collected samples for forensic and DNA testing.


``This is tangible proof how horrific they were,'' Weems, of Washington, D.C., said of the insurgents, shuddering as he gazed at the bloody hand print.


Although unmarked, the center was a known base of operations for the insurgents who ruled Fallujah with terror and fear until U.S. forces and Iraqi troops captured it last month.


The assault was launched Nov. 8 to wrest Fallujah from the control of radical clerics and fighters who seized it after the Marines lifted a three-week siege of the city in April. The city fell after a week of fierce battles and overpowering airstrikes which reduced many of the buildings to rubble.


Two weeks later, Marines continue to fight sporadic gunbattles with holdouts as they clear streets, homes and buildings of weapons caches and rubble. More than 350 weapons caches have been found so far.


As Weems' troops inspected the Islamic Resistance Center on Thursday, gunshots and small arms fire reverberated from Fallujah's northeastern Askari neighborhood. The Marines said it was a sign the insurgents are still active.


On the Islamic center's first floor, the Marines discovered a weapons-making factory at the back of what appeared to be a legitimate computer store.


It contained boxloads of empty shotgun shells and a primitive-looking reloading machine on one of the tables. On the second floor, they found a sack of gunpowder and numerous mortar launcher cases.


Elsewhere in Fallujah, the Marines have discovered DVD recordings of beheadings, as well as a cage and chains bearing traces of human blood. They say it was ``apparent the cage was not holding animals.''


``It's the combination of the chains, the cage, the blood - there were not nice people here, that's for sure,'' Ray said. ``They certainly didn't have the morals I would expect in a human society.''


Reporters were not taken Thursday to the other sites, many of which have been cleared of evidence and the buildings destroyed by the Marines.


Maj. Jim West, a Marine intelligence officer, has said Fallujah's ``atrocity sites'' were used by the insurgents to imprison, torture and kill hostages. In some, knives and black hoods, many of them blood-covered, have been found.


More than 30 foreign hostages have been killed by their captors in Iraq this year, including three Americans. Many of the victims have been beheaded and their deaths shown on grisly videos posted on the Internet. Iraqi police and other security forces have also been killed after their capture by insurgents.


``We believe the majority of the hostages were held in Fallujah because it was such an insurgent haven,'' said Ray.


The military says an estimated 1,200 insurgents and more than 50 Marines have been killed in the assault on Fallujah.

___________________________________________________

How's about it? In a little o computer sto. hmmm.

Hey David --- How's that for recently?

Asta Luego ....... :blush:

Taliesin
12-03-2004, 08:59 AM
Timi & John

Loved the bit about "they bust their humps to make life a little more bearable for the Iraqi's who have been uprooted from their homes." Isn't that a bit rich coming from the person who was arguing so vehemently that everyone should have left their homes in Fallujah. Also love the way you fail to consider who was doing the uprooting.

Don't see how your report shows Us Troops were being tortured or even my point about having a population even more prepared to support these insurgents against the US is a good thing. Particularly since you apparently didn't get any of them.

Yes the troops are in a terrible situation. Yes it appears that your leaders are choosing the wrong tactics and further alienating the population. But none of that is enough to support a view that 'anything our troops did must have justified'. And ignoring the counter-effective results of all these actions is not going to help anyone. Nor are assertions that we should provide blind unquestioning support no matter what. BTW that is not Patriotism it's Jingoism.

John

The problem with that assumption is that it requires someone to sacrifice their own life to get their reward. It requires the killing of infidels. But it certainly doesn't include murdering your fellow Moslem's. So whilst they may not care about their own lives and do want to kill their enemies it is a huge step to concluding they would booby trap their own injured colleagues. Or didn't you think it was helpful to try and understand how your enemies think.

Nothing the insurgents have done has been crazy. It has been horrifically rational. Rather than US actions whose tactics do appear to made without any consideration of consequences or reactions.

Such as the fact that US forces are preventing independent bodies like the Red Crescent into Fallujah to see what did happen there.

Personally I would think that if you want to secure peace the first thing you would want to do is establish a certain level of trust with the local population. Go out of your way to show that they matter. Investigate all allegations of wrongdoing clearly and publicly. And demonstrate that you have nothing to hide. But then I think creating more enemies is a crazy way to bring peace to a country.

Here's hoping you can come up with something better than another assertion that we should all just accept that US (or indeed British) Troops cannot be criticised whatever they do.

Hogan
12-03-2004, 09:03 AM
..John..The problem with that assumption is that it requires someone to sacrifice their own life to get their reward. It requires the killing of infidels. But it certainly doesn't include murdering your fellow Moslem's. So whilst they may not care about their own lives and do want to kill their enemies it is a huge step to concluding they would booby trap their own injured colleagues. Or didn't you think it was helpful to try and understand how your enemies think. .....

Well, I think there is the difference. I don't think these terrorists have enough of a conscience to care about their fellow terrorist who is near death anyway. As long as the americans are killed, they dont't care who gets in their way. THAT is how the enemy thinks.

deepsoup
12-04-2004, 04:10 PM
Hi All,

There was a very interesting short essay (10 minutes) on Radio 4 last night, about the Patriot Act, civil liberties and other stuff. If you have Real Player, you can listen to it online, on the BBC's "listen again" streaming audio thingy, at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/ram/fri2050.ram
It'll be up until next Friday (I think).

Sean
x

Taliesin
12-05-2004, 09:10 AM
John

Since I don't believe in the powers of telepathy (particularly yours ) your reply doesn't make much sense. It does however raise the question of why these terrorists/insurgents want to kill Americans so badly?

Looking forward to your answers although I do ask you spare me the Bush esq they hate us for the wonderful saintly lives we lead and try and come up withsomething plausable.

justme1290
12-05-2004, 01:42 PM
David --

The same question could be asked of WHY the pilots chose to sacrifice their lives at Pearl Harbor, Yes? It seems that the insurgents are quite closely following these same trends. So maybe, just maybe, they are sacrificing themselves and their fellow "" for the sake of their insatiable appetite for violence? That is the only explanation that seems plausible when it comes to terrorists. They want to see violence, pain, horror, and disarray brought to ANYONE and anything that stands in their way or that disagrees with the slightest thing they want. This of course, is my view on the subject.



A few here have brought up over and over the attack on the mosque, how horrid it was. Yes, it was a shame that the Armed Forces were forced to penetrate a religious facility. Though, few of you have admitted what was found in that same building. The weapons, the equipment to make more, the materials, and the passage to other parts of the city that the insurgents escaped through. So you see -- in addition to being a place of worship for the people of ; it was also a front for the insurgents; a strong hold where they felt they were able to hide what they were doing. If you want to place facts on the table here, place them all. Not just the ones that the point that you want to argue. That makes you no better than the ones that are keeping this war going.

Neil Mick
12-05-2004, 03:32 PM
That is the only explanation that seems plausible when it comes to terrorists. They want to see violence, pain, horror, and disarray brought to ANYONE and anything that stands in their way or that disagrees with the slightest thing they want. This of course, is my view on the subject.

Too simple.

Believe it or not, some terrorists have a justifiable beef with the US. In fact, Osama bin Laden's last tape basically stated: "Don't mess with the security of Arab's." Al Jaharwi's latest tape in November said essentially the same thing, even tho he also opined that the US gov't won't listen.

Even the Pentagon has released a study, critical of the President's approach toward the Arab community.

The difference lay with the terrorists feeling that the ends, justify the means. Al Qaeda obviously felt that 911 was an appropriate response to all the injustices meted out to Arabs, by the US.

A few here have brought up over and over the attack on the mosque, how horrid it was. Yes, it was a shame that the Armed Forces were forced to penetrate a religious facility. Though, few of you have admitted what was found in that same building. The weapons, the equipment to make more, the materials, and the passage to other parts of the city that the insurgents escaped through.

Source, please? I have yet to hear of all these great "finds." And, if it came from the Army: it's a questionable source. They have been caught openly lying, since the last raid on Falluja.

If you want to place facts on the table here, place them all. Not just the ones that the point that you want to argue. That makes you no better than the ones that are keeping this war going.

Again, sources would be nice. But even so: just as with the terrorists...the ends do not justify the means. You employ the same rationale that the terrorists used to bomb NY. It's OK that they raided a mosque because they found weapons and "passages through the city" (altho I'm betting that this is mostly Army-spin. We'll see, after you produce those sources). The four dead and nine wounded in the raid, well---they were just casualties in the fight against terror. Nothing to mourn, or be concerned, about...they might have even been terrorist supporters, after all...the "ends justify the means..."

And when the Army refuses to let the Red Crescent enter into Fallujah, or when they invaded and seized the Fallujah Hospital (a war crime): it's OK, too, because we found a torture chamber, with blood on the walls and everything (or, so they tell us)! :freaky:

It's all good: because the ends justify the means. And so we slide down that slippery slope, until we become indistinguishable from the terrorists (except for the uniforms, of course).

justme1290
12-05-2004, 06:34 PM
You'd like sources? How about CNN? Here is a little more for you. You seem to be very much a sympathizer with the insurgents. Well read on:

Insurgents Kill 21 Iraqis North of Baghdad

By Andrew Marshall

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Guerrillas shot dead 17 Iraqis working for the U.S. Army and killed a National Guard commander and three bodyguards in attacks north of Baghdad on Sunday that took the toll from three days of violence to more than 70.

Insurgents have launched a series of attacks in Sunni areas since Friday, mainly targeting Iraqi security forces and civilians working with the U.S. military.

The U.S. 1st Infantry Division said gunmen in two cars opened fire on two civilian buses carrying Iraqis to work at an arms dump outside Saddam Hussein's home town of Tikrit on Sunday. As well as the 17 killed, 13 Iraqis were wounded.

A suicide car bomber detonated his vehicle beside a National Guard convoy in the rebel stronghold of Baiji, north of Tikrit, killing local National Guard commander Mohammed Jassim Rumaied and three of his bodyguards, colleagues said.


On Saturday, a suicide bomber targeted a bus carrying Kurdish Peshmerga fighters in the city of Mosul, 240 miles north of Baghdad, killing 16 people, Kurdish officials said. The Peshmerga have been helping secure Mosul since most of the city's police fled after an insurgent onslaught last month.


Two suicide bombers also struck at a police station just outside the fortified Green Zone in Baghdad on Saturday, killing seven people and wounding more than 50.


On Friday, a suicide bomb outside a Shi'ite mosque in Baghdad killed 14, and 11 Iraqi police were killed in a guerrilla assault on a police station in the capital.


At least six U.S. troops have also been killed since Friday. Two were killed in an ambush in Mosul on Saturday, two by separate roadside bombs earlier in the day, and two Marines were killed by a suicide car bomb at the Jordanian border on Friday.
__________________________________________________

Or how about Reuters:



TIKRIT, Iraq, Dec 5 (Reuters) -- Guerrillas killed 17 Iraqis and wounded 13 on Sunday in an attack on buses that were taking them to work at a weapons dump near the town of Tikrit north of Baghdad, the U.S. army said.


A spokesman for the 1st Infantry Division said gunmen in two cars opened fire on two civilian buses as the workers were being dropped off at the site. He said the Iraqis were employed via a civilian contracting company called Bushmaster Inc, which is involved in disposal of unexploded ordnance.


Insurgents have killed more than 60 Iraqis in a series of attacks over the past three days.

________________________________________________

Now you wonder why the troops feel they need to check out the mosques also? Here may be the reason: (also from CNN)



Six U.S. soldiers have been killed since Friday as well. That number includes two soldiers slain Saturday during a patrol in Mosul's Palestine neighborhood, when they came under fire from insurgents shooting from two mosques and other buildings in the area, according to spokeswoman Capt. Angela Bowman. The U.S. military and Iraqi forces later raided a mosque and detained three

________________________________________________-_

Now after reading this Neil --- how can you sit there and say that the attacks are not justified? That the troops have no reason to believe that there is anything in the buildings that they are invading? Apparently the insurgents don't really care if they kill the American troops or their own Iraqi. And you feel that we should hold back anything in trying to rid not only Iraq, but the world of such life forms? Please Mr. Mick.

Neil Mick
12-05-2004, 07:12 PM
You'd like sources?

***

Now after reading this Neil --- how can you sit there and say that the attacks are not justified?

Excuse me? Perhaps you didn't read my question correctly. Allow me to assist...you said:

Yes, it was a shame that the Armed Forces were forced to penetrate a religious facility. Though, few of you have admitted what was found in that same building. The weapons, the equipment to make more, the materials, and the passage to other parts of the city that the insurgents escaped through.

And, I asked for sources. You know...where did you HEAR that weapons were found in this mosque, how many, the so-called "passages that lead throughout the city," (perhaps they lead down, underground, to Hussein's "secret underground chemical factory, eh? Remember that one?), etc. I wanted to know your source.

As to whether or not the attacks were "justified," is an entirely different question. And so, I repeat: Can you provide a source, for this "secret passages found in mosque" claim?

You seem to be very much a sympathizer with the insurgents.

Whether or not I "sympathize wih the insurgents," you avoided considering the question. The ends do not justify the means.

And you feel that we should hold back anything in trying to rid not only Iraq, but the world of such life forms?

Murder, torturing innocents, using weapons of mass destruction, starving millions of people, bulldozing homes, jailing journalists, bombing their hotels, and well-documented offices; siezing hospitals and refusing to allow medical aid, suppressing free speech, assembly, and the access of the press?

Yeah, there's a whole lot, that we should be "holding back." Otherwise, what makes "us" different from "them?"

justme1290
12-05-2004, 08:24 PM
Excuse me -- I did tell you -- uummm-- CNN !! and Reuters both had the story last week. So please don't assist me -- please -- reread before you jump okay? Now let me clarify one other thing for you also -- the Red Crescent is pulling out of it's current base and leaving --- of it's own accord. They have chosen to do this all on their own -- after all the fuss of getting in to assist the remaining inhabitants --- they are turning tail and leaving. Source of this? CNN . But of course - they have left the final 100 or so families in Fallujah enough commodities to last for about a week. Of course the troops that you are so quick to rundown and bad mouth, are the ones that will be responsible for distributing these rations. Oh -- let me guess -- you don't think the "terrible US Armed Forces" will allow the inhabitants to have them?!

Avoided considering the question??????
Whatever .......

Please -- do not try to insult my intelligence. You will be quick to learn that "try" is as far as you will get.

I feel that yes -- the ends do justify the means -- there is always sacrifice before the ultimate end can be achieved. I also feel that the Iraqi people will be far better off once they are rid of the remaining resistance. As soon as they are free to make decisions for themselves as a free country not under a dictatorship.

aikischmid
12-06-2004, 12:13 AM
Wow.
What is the best that could come of our actions and philosophies regarding the Middle East right now, in your opinion? Why are we doing what we're doing?
I have this crazy picture in my head - a world populated with little Americas everywhere, consuming nature like ravenous aphids. These newly "modernized" countries build factories and jobs at the behest of the world's so-and-so many largest corporations, who of course hold no allegiance to the US and "outsource" jobs. If this empirical attitude (disguised as "liberation") is even in part built around corporations that would like a friendlier, cheaper Middle Eastern job force, then ultimately would this not be a detriment to America? Corporations friendly with our present government outsourcing jobs? I just see it getting worse and worse. But then of course, everything happens for a reason, and if a more unified "family of humanity" is the goal which we all seek, then who is anyone to stop it from happening, forcefully or not? You will be my friend or I will kill you.
I believe the purpose of life is to seek happiness. It's just too bad that so many people (American or not American) have such different ideas of happiness. Perhaps contentment might be a better word.

Neil Mick
12-06-2004, 04:28 AM
Excuse me -- I did tell you -- uummm-- CNN !! and Reuters both had the story last week. So please don't assist me -- please -- reread before you jump okay?

No, sorry: not good enough. Please don't ask me to do your homework for you. Please give the exact link, or admit that there is no story. I'd expect no less, if you were to ask me. So, in short (and with respect): "put up or shut up."

Now let me clarify one other thing for you also -- the Red Crescent is pulling out of it's current base and leaving --- of it's own accord.

I'm sorry, but this statement is not in accordance, with our reality. Being ordered to leave, and then having your HQ raided, is hardly "leaving of its own accord."

Ah, the blithe un-cares, of apologists...


after all the fuss of getting in to assist the remaining inhabitants --- they are turning tail and leaving. Source of this? CNN .

Clearly, you think that vaguely waving the initials "CNN" around, is quoting a source...newsflash, it isn't.

Here: allow me to assist, again.

Cut and paste the link of the story. Like, say: this one-- (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1631448,00.html)

Baghdad - The Iraqi Red Crescent said on Sunday that it had left Fallujah on US military orders after the aid agency was told the former insurgent stronghold was not safe.

"Multinational forces asked the IRC to withdraw from Fallujah for security reasons and until further notice," the organisation's spokesperson Ferdus al-Ibadi told AFP.

Ibadi, speaking in Baghdad, had said earlier that the agency left of its own free will, but she said she was only informed after the IRC left the city that it had been told to do so by US marines

Quite a bit more complex, than your suggested "they turned tail and ran" nonsense.

Of course the troops that you are so quick to rundown and bad mouth, are the ones that will be responsible for distributing these rations.

The "troops that I am so quick to badmouth," ordered the RC out of Fallujah. As such, only a few supplies could get delivered.

Gosh, isn't the world a complicated place, when you widen that lens?

Oh -- let me guess -- you don't think the "terrible US Armed Forces" will allow the inhabitants to have them?!

Avoided considering the question??????
Whatever .......

Yeah. They TOLD THE RC TO LEAVE, get it?

Yeah, "whatever" fits it, to a "T."

Please -- do not try to insult my intelligence. You will be quick to learn that "try" is as far as you will get.

I am still waiting to see it displayed. So far, all I've gotten has been a misdirection to my essential question, vague references to CNN, for sources, and sarcasm. Not that I'm unsurprised, mind: but intelligence would be a welcome change.

I feel that yes -- the ends do justify the means -- there is always sacrifice before the ultimate end can be achieved.

Eerie, how much like Madeleine Albright (Secty of State, Clinton) this sounds. She said that "getting rid of Hussein was 'worth the price' of over a million children dead, by the Sanctions."

Amazing, how glib, both you and she are, in bargaining off the lives of others. YOU don't have to make the "sacrifice" of having your neighborhood turned into a battlezone, flattened and cut off from medical aid, I imagine!

I also feel that the Iraqi people will be far better off once they are rid of the remaining resistance. As soon as they are free to make decisions for themselves as a free country not under a dictatorship.

Gosh, how nice, your concern for the Iraqi's. How touching. Funny, how your concern arrives 20 years' too late: when Hussein was "our man in the MidEast," when he did the worst of his atrocities, under our approving noses.

So, now: after 12 years of Sanctions, bombing, and invasions: YOU come along and tell them that vicious raids and destruction are, well, necessary to "guide them into the light" of democracy, and at some indetermined time in the future, they'll be "capable" of governing themselves...uh,,,if they're very good, they give us their oil, and they let us keep the major rebuilding contracts, that is.

Gosh, what humanitarians we are...sort of makes me all misty. :crazy: :rolleyes:

Taliesin
12-06-2004, 04:32 AM
Justine

Welcome to the thread. As far as your argument about the insurgents having "an insatiable appetite for violence." America isn't in the best position to throw any stones on that basis - just look at your own murder rate.

Besides that point, it doesn't work, since the violence didn't flare up immediately after 'liberation' and only flared up in the mainly American region. If you want to have a reasonable debate you must ask why. As far as why people would die to kill US troops. As I stated before maybe it's the injustice or perceived injustice. maybe it's the fact that responses to insurgent attacks are indiscriminate. To draw a parallel with Sri Lanka's civil war - most of the 'black tigers' (suicide bombers) were men and women who had lost family and relatives. Most of the fighting was being about treated as second class citizens with other peoples values imposed upon them, with people being arbitrarily dragged into detention where their human rights were violated. Does any of that sound familiar???

Now as far as the end justifies the means. Whether the end justifies the means always depends upon what the end is and what the means are in every circumstance. As far as your reasons for attacking the Mosque. The problem you have is even if it was justified, it still leaves the question as to why only pro-American matters are being reported, and what are the matters that are not being reported, and what happens when reporters are excluded. Otherwise you end up with a local population seeing injustice's committed and ignored, or even worse disregarded, and the perpetrators attempting to justify their actions on the basis of the necessary 'good work' they are doing. This is a brilliant way to incite hatred against any force which does that. Again the question is does any of this sound familiar?

Which leads to the conclusion, it is only by having, being held to and being seem to be held to the high test standards can you hope to establish peace. A simple lets kill the insurgents and not worry about 'collateral damage' (that innocent civilians/bystanders) to create peace isn't working, It's just creating a Hydra effect.

Neil Mick
12-06-2004, 04:36 AM
Wow.
What is the best that could come of our actions and philosophies regarding the Middle East right now, in your opinion? Why are we doing what we're doing?
I have this crazy picture in my head - a world populated with little Americas everywhere, consuming nature like ravenous aphids. These newly "modernized" countries build factories and jobs at the behest of the world's so-and-so many largest corporations.

With a McDonald's and a Wahlgreen's, on nearly every corner in the big cities; huge maquiladora factories, in the counties.

It's a "brave new world..." :dead:

Hogan
12-06-2004, 08:26 AM
John

Since I don't believe in the powers of telepathy (particularly yours ) your reply doesn't make much sense. ....


I guess english isn't your first language, then.

Taliesin
12-06-2004, 10:12 AM
John

As usual your guess is wrong. Maybe it would help if you understood that a sentence makes no sense if it does not demonstrate any rational argument. And any argument based on an apparent belief you have infallible understanding of another's mind, without any evidence does not make any sense. It's simply an ignorant assumption.

Guess you couldn't come up with a plausible response to the rest of my post.

Hogan
12-06-2004, 12:47 PM
John

As usual your guess is wrong. Maybe it would help if you understood that a sentence makes no sense if it does not demonstrate any rational argument. And any argument based on an apparent belief you have infallible understanding of another's mind, without any evidence does not make any sense. It's simply an ignorant assumption.

Guess you couldn't come up with a plausible response to the rest of my post.

I understand perfectly, but you, apparantly do not.
Go back to school to learn to communicate, rather than making arrogant (and incorrect, as usual) assumptions. Or is your democratic mind so small you cannot fathom the arguments of those that are in opposite ? Yes, I think that is the case. Typical democrat ....

mj
12-06-2004, 01:14 PM
I understand perfectly, but you, apparantly do not.
Go back to school to learn to communicate, rather than making arrogant (and incorrect, as usual) assumptions. Or is your democratic mind so small you cannot fathom the arguments of those that are in opposite ? Yes, I think that is the case. Typical democrat ....
Talking about going back to school...maybe you could learn how to use commas properly :)

Hogan
12-06-2004, 02:32 PM
Talking about going back to school...maybe you could learn how to use commas properly :)

How is this ?

"I understand perfectly but you, apparantly, do not."

Or

"I understand perfectly, but you, apparantly, do not."

Or

"I understand perfectly but you apparantly do not."

Or

"Why don't you mind your own business, MJ, as I wasn't talking to you."

Or

"Go back to Scotland, you English slave". Ahaaha, I like that one. Is Braveheart your favorite movie ?
(These last two are in total jest; don't be offended and get all "Neil Mick" on me).....;)

justme1290
12-06-2004, 02:46 PM
Neil --- here's your link -- R.C. leaves of it's own accord:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/05/iraq.redcrescent/index.html

Read it. Oh --- by the way --- It's WALGREEN'S.....

David -- I have felt the loss in Iraq -- My fiance gave his life over there -- so I feel I have every right to say that there is sacrifice before the end is achieved. Oh -- by the way -- it was by one of those so called non existent BOOBY TRAPPED bodies. You know the ones I'm talking about --- the ones you claim the insurgents don't do? Is that enough proof for you? Or would you like to see his death certificate?

Sorry -- but it's not just American troops that the Insurgents are killing on their suicide missions as I stated in my last post. But here-- I will give you the link also:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/05/iraq.main/index.html

I copied the whole story for you there.

David - not only pro-American matters are being reported as I see it, concerning the mosque invasion. Quite the opposite actually. There has been many, many anti-American reports flying around. Just ask Neil -- from what I have read in the previous posts here -- he pretty much has found them all. I do believe that there needs to be better planning in the strategies over there yes indeed. But in time of war you must agree that at times there is little time for a sit down decision making pow wow. Sometimes it is a right now decision that has to be made.

Neil -- you are a bitter man -- I never asked you to do any research for me -- I DO keep up on EVERYTHING that goes on over there. I would be willing to bet that if I handed you the actual reporter that wrote the story -- you would call him a liar also. I also ask of you -- where did you get your info of the RC being ordered to leave and their base being raided? I certainly do not see you posting a link.

As for my intelligence Neil -- let's not start name calling.

This thread seems to be more about name calling and cutting people down than any other Aikido forum thread I have entered before. This is definitely NOT what aikido is about -- at least not what I have learned from it. wow. :rolleyes: I hope that I have better self control than some of you in here seem to portray.

You all seem to want everyone to know all about the casualties that have occurred to the Iraqi -- here is a link to the casualties that have occurred to the American Troops. 1278 Americans killed, at least 9552 wounded. Report these numbers Neil -- you are an American -- worry about your fellow Americans over there that are dieing everyday.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/


I visit this site daily and say a silent thank you to each and everyone of these men that gave the ultimate gift to try and free a country from a dictatorship. And for people like you to sit thee and belittle their memory really makes me feel sorry for you. I know that not all of you on here are American's -- I am not speaking to you right now -- There are families of over 138,000 American troops right now praying daily that their loved ones come home. How do you think those families feel about what you and others like you are saying about their loved ones, that are doing what they have been trained to do? When they entered the armed forces they swore to defend democracy -- and to answer the call without asking questions--- and you are trying to wrong them for that!

Have you ever been placed in a situation where you had to watch someone, that you placed your life in the hands of, die in front of you? Then have to decide what to do to save your own? I fear not-- Because if you had -- you may have the slightest inkling of what these men go through daily.Being depraved of sleep for days on end and then coming face to face with a woman carrying a child in one arm and a weapon in the other? What would you do Neil? These are the decisions that these men are faced with daily. Please don't argue that no one wants the US over there because there were many families that invited my fiance and his friends in for meals and that they got to know very well while he was stationed outside Baghdad.They were very thankful that we are over there.

Thank - you for the welcome David.

mj
12-06-2004, 05:25 PM
How is this ?

"I understand perfectly but you, apparantly, do not."

Or

"I understand perfectly, but you, apparantly, do not."

Or

"I understand perfectly but you apparantly do not."

Or

"Why don't you mind your own business, MJ, as I wasn't talking to you."

Or

"Go back to Scotland, you English slave". Ahaaha, I like that one. Is Braveheart your favorite movie ?
(These last two are in total jest; don't be offended and get all "Neil Mick" on me).....;)
OK you obviously haven't gotten the hang of commas yet....

....let's work on spelling 'apparently' :)

Neil Mick
12-06-2004, 09:56 PM
Neil --- here's your link -- R.C. leaves of it's own accord:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/05/iraq.redcrescent/index.html

Read it. Oh --- by the way --- It's WALGREEN'S.....

Yeah, I did. At last, you provide a link. I thought I was going to have to beg, next.

And, I did read it. If you'd have read the article yourself: you'd have found that

1. The interviewer was primarily asking the Army for info;
2. The article makes no mention of the Army's telling the RC that they cannot enter Falluja...a war-crime, all by itself;
3. Since, at least: the start of the 2nd Fallujah raid: the Army has knowingly lied to the press, on CNN. This is not a good sign for the veracity of the Army's testimony.
4. Sometimes, you have to look past the cursory headlines that agree with your estimate. Consider, from your own article:

is suspending its work for two days because of security searches to be conducted in the same area where the organization set up its headquarters

And WHO is setting up those "security searches?" Why, whaddaya know: the Army. But it's just an accident, that these searches disrupt the IRC's operations, right? I mean: even tho the Army seized the hospital, jailed some of its doctors, and next REFUSED to let in the RC, after the raid...we can trust them, when they say that they are handling all human rights concerns in Falluja, right?

Riiight.

Guess I should be happy that you supplied a link. Now, what about those links about these "underground tunnels," hmm?

Hey, do ya think they'll find Hussein's "Top-Secret-Underground-James-Bond-Chemical-Factory, too?

Gosh, I sure hope so. At this point: they're more likely to find Bush's plummetting international credibility, as it burrows downward, in search of the earth's core. :rolleyes:

Just ask Neil -- from what I have read in the previous posts here -- he pretty much has found them all.

No, not all...just the ones that bring credibility and balance to the issue--a quality wholly lacking, in the mainstream media.

I do believe that there needs to be better planning in the strategies over there yes indeed. But in time of war you must agree that at times there is little time for a sit down decision making pow wow. Sometimes it is a right now decision that has to be made.

My, how apologetic of you.

Neil -- you are a bitter man

It is dangerous to opine a person's motives or opinions, when you have never met him. How about you leave the psychologizing to Michael Neal over in the Voter-thread, and try less to suggest something, about which you know nothing.

"Bitterness" is not my motivation...."Outrage" is.

-- I never asked you to do any research for me -- I DO keep up on EVERYTHING that goes on over there. I would be willing to bet that if I handed you the actual reporter that wrote the story -- you would call him a liar also.

A bet, on its face: that you'd lose. But if your reporter said that everything's coming up roses in Iraq, and the Army's doing a bang-up job, and I look into his reporting and find that the bulk of his time in Iraq was spent as an embedded reporter, barely ever outside the green zone....well, there's your answer right there, isn't it?

And, I'm so glad that you will do your own homework. Less of a burden upon me. ;)

I also ask of you -- where did you get your info of the RC being ordered to leave and their base being raided? I certainly do not see you posting a link.

Then, you obviously didn't see my last link, in my last post.

This thread seems to be more about name calling and cutting people down than any other Aikido forum thread I have entered before. This is definitely NOT what aikido is about -- at least not what I have learned from it. wow. :rolleyes: I hope that I have better self control than some of you in here seem to portray.

Politics, being what it is, is often a divisive topic. I've chatted at non-Aikido threads that would curl your hair, and they make this one look like a ladies' tea-social. It's not perfect, often messy: but overall, ppl here mind their P's and Q's.

You all seem to want everyone to know all about the casualties that have occurred to the Iraqi -- here is a link to the casualties that have occurred to the American Troops. 1278 Americans killed, at least 9552 wounded. Report these numbers Neil -- you are an American -- worry about your fellow Americans over there that are dieing everyday.

My fellow American's are dying (note spelling) everyday in a COUNTRY WHERE THEY DON'T BELONG, in a war where much of the other side is fighting for their freedom, from a foreign tyrant.

And sorry: but the numbers for the dead American's is plainly evident for all to see. In fact, their names were read by Dan Rather (for those stations that chose to air it, that is).

The Iraqi dead? Well, the US Army doesn't "do body counts." And so, neither do I, for American's. We are the foreign agressors: we are employing torture and destruction to attain our goals....we have lost the moral high-ground. The numbers in my sig are a testament to those who died in this war, and whom the Army and the mainstream media would prefer to forget. I find it no accident that these numbers are often found controversial, by Con's here...it reminds them that this war is not some high-tech, sanitized operation for liberation.

I visit this site daily and say a silent thank you to each and everyone of these men that gave the ultimate gift to try and free a country from a dictatorship.

Then you must be referring to some other country besides Iraq.

And for people like you to sit thee and belittle their memory really makes me feel sorry for you.

Let's take this really simply, as you're having some difficulty with the concept.

CRITICIZING AN ARMY'S ACTIONS DOES NOT =

BELITTLING THE MEMORY OF SOLDIERS WHO HAVE PASSED AWAY

How do you think those families feel about what you and others like you are saying about their loved ones, that are doing what they have been trained to do?

SOME of them appreciate my posts. I have gotten a letter from a fellow stationed in Iraq who pretty much agreed with my points (he had to be really cautious, as he didn't want to say anything negative about the Pres, while still in the service).

There are tons of letters from the soldiers, who are openly critical about this war. Some of them have returned and started groups to protest the war. Here's one: (http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/willtheyevertrustusagain/index.php?id=9)

When my unit was activated in February I think I was the only one in my platoon to speak openly against the war and the president (and the cowards in congress, big business, etc). It has been a pleasure watching as people started realizing what a sham this entire war has been.

Although my duties have varied somewhat (I spent 3 months over the summer working at a police station, for instance) I have spent the bulk of my time patrolling various neighborhoods in the eastern half of the city. While many Iraqi citizens (the majority perhaps) are indeed thankful that we "liberated" them, I have noticed resentment growing the longer we are here. No one wants a foreign occupational force in his country. I believe we've even worn out the welcome from most Iraqis who celebrated our arrival in the spring.

So sorry: but the "stop criticizing the troops" argument falls pretty flat, when the troops are criticizing the same points about this war, as I.

When they entered the armed forces they swore to defend democracy -- and to answer the call without asking questions--- and you are trying to wrong them for that!

Nope. The soldiers I of which AM critical, are the one's following orders that disobey international, and humanitarian, law. Please don't try to twist the argument, to something else.

Have you ever been placed in a situation where you had to watch someone, that you placed your life in the hands of, die in front of you? Then have to decide what to do to save your own?

Have YOU ever had to watch someone you trust knowingly commit a crime...repeatedly...and then do nothing about it?

I fear not-- Because if you had -- you may have the slightest inkling of what these men go through daily.Being depraved of sleep for days on end and then coming face to face with a woman carrying a child in one arm and a weapon in the other?

I already answered this question earlier,,,"Timi."

Please don't argue that no one wants the US over there because there were many families that invited my fiance and his friends in for meals and that they got to know very well while he was stationed outside Baghdad. They were very thankful that we are over there

You may not know this, but this is a form of Arab hospitality. Thomas Friedman, NY Times writer, mentioned the same thing: Arabs in the ME would hotly criticize him for his opinions, and then invite him over for dinner.

In and of itself: what your fiance saw is only one piece of the puzzle.

But, respectful condolences for your loss. :ai: :ki: :do:

Neil Mick
12-06-2004, 10:15 PM
I also ask of you -- where did you get your info of the RC being ordered to leave and their base being raided? I certainly do not see you posting a link.

Then, you obviously didn't see my last link, in my last post. But here's another for you. (http://www.turkishpress.com/world/news.asp?id=041206133814.tkbwzyou.xml) Notice the nationality? Here in the US: we don't bother with silly things such as "details:"

In Fallujah, Iraqi Red Crescent (IRC) said the US military had asked them to withdraw "for security reasons" until further notice, while the US military said the IRC itself had decided to leave and asked for a military escort out

Now, someone's lying, right? So: who is it? A human rights organization that has been shot at, by said Army: or the said Army, which was caught lying about the recent raid, on CNN?

You decide: I already have my answer...

Neil Mick
12-06-2004, 11:36 PM
But, you requested something positive, be said about the "troops:" well, here ya go: (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marine6dec06,1,219594.story)

Sgt. Rafael Peralta is dead, but the story of his sacrifice to save fellow Marines will live long in Marine Corps lore.

In the fierce battle for the Iraqi town of Fallouja, Peralta, with gunshot wounds to his head and body, reached out and grabbed a grenade hurled by an insurgent, cradling it to his body to save others from the blast.

The explosion in the back room of a house injured one Marine, but four others managed to scramble to safety.

Karen Peralta, 13, knows how she will remember her older brother. "As a hero," she said.

Does his heroism make it easier to accept that he is gone?

"No," she said quietly, her eyes downcast and filling with tears.

Sue Hammerich
12-07-2004, 01:48 AM
Justine - I'm sorry about your loss. I sense that all of you, on each side of this argument, are coming from a place of concern for your fellow human. Your compassion - and your passion - is strong. Now give each other a big hug....
Seriously, tho - you all seem to be coming from a selfless place, and I wanted to say that I appreciate it.

Taliesin
12-07-2004, 04:05 AM
John

So you couldn't come up with a plausible response. I can't say I'm surprised given your track record.

Hogan
12-07-2004, 08:41 AM
OK you obviously haven't gotten the hang of commas yet....

....let's work on spelling 'apparently' :)


I'll keep trying.

Hogan
12-07-2004, 08:46 AM
John

So you couldn't come up with a plausible response. I can't say I'm surprised given your track record.

Any rssponse that would fit your definition / criteria of a "plausible" response for you would be so out there, so wrong, and so implausible for anyone else so why bother.

Taliesin
12-07-2004, 09:51 AM
John

That fact that I do not accept an ignorant assumption as a sensible conclusion is perfectly reasonable. So is my position that a conclusion based on the apparent belief in telepathic powers does not stand up to examination.

And please don't use the word assumption until you understand what it means.

Perhaps you'd even like to rejoin the debate. After all everyone else here, on both sides, has put forward arguments and reasons, points and counter-points. I may not agree with them, and I'm sure Timi and Justine do not agree with my position. But I can say they have put forward reasons for their position. I can't honestly say that about your last few posts.

My position is that to avoid escalation of violence, holding troops to the highest standards and reviewing their actions in order to determine whether they were justified or not is appropriate, and the approach of 'you can't criticize our troops no matter what" that you appear to hold gives a license to commit atrocities.

I also pointed out how certain actions in Sri Lanka's civil war resulted in suicide bombings, and that American troops appear to be committing the same actions.

I also feel that this is

Taliesin
12-07-2004, 10:18 AM
a mistake

Justine

I have explained that in order to establish whether the end justifies the means you must be clear what the end is and what the means are. Sometimes the end justifies the means, sometimes it doesn't. Your Fiance clearly gave his life doing his duty to the US Government. My sympathies for your loss.

However, my view is that as the occupying forces the British and Us Troops have an obligation to maintain the highest standards. And I choose a position which says they must be held to account for actions in order to clearly and openly demonstrate that they are justified. It does mean I do not agree with blind, uncritical support.

I should point out that yes there are circumstances where you must react. I also think it may be useful to consider consequences when establishing a strategy. This should ensure that fewer of these snap decisions need to be made. I also pointed out some historical consequences from another conflict and what happened and why.

If you want to support your troops, perhaps you should question the orders they are given, the tactics chosen and the likely consequences of those actions. Otherwise you are just support policies that escalate the violence and hatred, in a vicious circle.

I also point out that it is very hard to believe GWB's commitment to democracy given the first thing US troops did was secure the oil wells and leave the people in chaos. The arbitrary detentions didn't help either. His track record doesn't help either.

justme1290
12-07-2004, 11:20 AM
Sue -- Thank - you, but all is well-

Neil-- The next time you post a link have it be one that you don't need to register to get. And as far as leaving the psycho-analyzing to Michael Neil in the other thread -- the more of your posts I read -- the more I tend to agree with him. You go way beyond simple debate ---. Now let's get back to the discussion shall we?
I too have been in forums that are not aikido based I was NOT referring to those.

Hey Neil -- use your head -- the Army has just raided a structure -- we suspect that there are insurgents holding up in said structure --- sure let's just allow everyone to just stroll on in and remove anyone and anything that may be related to WHAT WE WERE AFTER IN THE RAID. Come on man -- even you must be smarter than that. Until the structure or area has been secured no one will be allowed in -- that is common practice ANYWHERE. Even here.

Get off the nationality kick -- how many white American men have given their lives over there? Report that. Or should I tell you? No, because everyone that is wearing an American uniform in my eyes are the same race, all Americans. That, I am sure is the same way they felt as they said their vows upon entering whichever branch of the Armed Forces they chose to honor.

As for the men that feel they don't belong over there -- you are right -- I am sure many feel that way - but they do not have a choice -- not until their tour is up -- and their contract is done. Upon which time they do not have to re-enlist. Many people feel this way -- I know this. And don't say I am APOLOGIZING, I am not -- we are there -- we are going no where for quite a while -- you know this -- I know this -- they know this -- ACCEPT THIS AS FACT. Get on with your life. You obviously spend way too much time pondering ways to make arguments on this subject. Other people on this thread obviously are on and off intermittently --- you seem to live on here. Not good. That hinders on obssession.IMPO.

You seem to want to argue that the reports that I, and others, have given you are ALL trumped up accounts from the Army. Well, have you ever stopped to consider that POSSIBLY your sources are not 100% accurate either? Of course not. That just would not be fathomable would it? That the all mighty Neil may be wrong in his beliefs is just not conceivable. Everyone is aware that news reports are never 100% accurate. Not to either side that is being reported. The only way to accurately know what is really going on is to be there isn't it Neil? Do you want to volunteer to go find out for us? I didn't think so. Shucks.

justme1290
12-07-2004, 12:14 PM
David -- Thank - you also -- but I have accepted his absence.

If we can free Iraq from the dictatorship then I feel that we have achieved what we set out to do.Yes I know that there are many other arguments of ulterior motives going on right now. So be it. There are always ulterior motives when there is a war. As far as consequences? Yes there are always consequences for anything in life. You, I, and everyone else has to learn to live with the consequences of the actions that we chose. Some find it easier to sleep at night than others. Sometimes you wish you could change what has happened - but you can never go back -- those are the facts. I don't find fault with the troops for doing everything the need to survive though. They can't know for certain that things are as they seem without first securing the area and everyone and thing in it. On this subject I am certain we disagree. So let us agree to disagree now OK? I am not a person that enjoys arguing unless someone has invaded my privacy as Mr. Mick has. I will state my opinion and state what I find and know. I will debate with you. I will keep it civil and I expect the same in return.

pezalinski
12-07-2004, 01:40 PM
What makes a mosque any different from another public building people can go to? :( There's no "magical field" that prevents people of violent means from congregating there, taking it over, and storing arms on-site, is there? The fact that the forces there are making exceptions for mosques in general is what is leaving them vulnerable to attack from areas they supposedly "cleared."

Cruel though it might seem, sh** happens -- you only get to be taken prisoner if you live and cooperate by completly surrendering. And if a prisoner you've just taken is on the ground, hunched around an object instead of lying flat, don't you think it prudent to be suspicious? Especially since his friends and neighbors may have been shooting and lobbing grenades at you moments before? I can understand why a trooper might rather shoot his prisoner under these circumstances rather than risk his life or the life of his fellows. I don't have to like it, but I can understand it.

Battlefields are a horrible place to be, where the "taking of objectives" and killing anyone who intereferes with taking and holding those objectives is the method of winning it. War is not a police action, for preventing crimes from occurring, or for capturing people who are committing crimes -- War is killing enough people to make a point, and to thus prevent them from making their own point.

War is an activity aimed at convincing the other side continuing the persuit of war is has a higher cost to them than (re)initiating the persuit of peace. And that cost is most often measured in human lives. And there is no time limit -- we don't call "end of game" after a week and count coup to determine who wins and who loses. It is War until it is Peace; and peace-time is merely a temporary cease-fire of indeterminate length, monitored by all to ensure that it remains "peace."

Yes, it's horrible. Yes, it is something to be avoided. And yes, there are international rules about war, seeking to make it more "humane" or at least less difficult to clean up after. But it is still war. And people die, noncombatants as well as combatants. Until the enemy surrenders or gives up on their attacks, any action that takes out enemy combatants is justifiable -- although it may be morally repugnant. Recognize that that rule is being used by both sides, until the end of the conflict. Combat continues until the war is declared over.

(Step away from the soap-box....) :disgust:

Now, try to visualize an end to the combat in Iraq (Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, Sri Lanka....), if you can. That is what we should be trying to achieve, in a forum like this. Not just back-and forth pissing and moaning about who's side has committed more atrocities. Got any real ideas, any real solutions? Present them. People are literally dying to hear about them. Maybe we can even convince someone in power to enact them.

Neil Mick
12-07-2004, 03:26 PM
Sue -- Thank - you, but all is well-

Neil-- The next time you post a link have it be one that you don't need to register to get.

No. You don't want to register your name? Then write in a fictitious persona. The NYT and the LA Times BOTH require registration, and they are major news sources. Sorry, but that's the reality of the net.

And as far as leaving the psycho-analyzing to Michael Neil in the other thread -- the more of your posts I read -- the more I tend to agree with him.

Big surprise: having NOTHING to do with his political leanings. :rolleyes:

Hey Neil -- use your head -- the Army has just raided a structure -- we suspect that there are insurgents holding up in said structure --- sure let's just allow everyone to just stroll on in and remove anyone and anything that may be related to WHAT WE WERE AFTER IN THE RAID. Come on man -- even you must be smarter than that. Until the structure or area has been secured no one will be allowed in -- that is common practice ANYWHERE. Even here.

Please: your veiled attempts to insult my intellect notwithstanding--it's not a large leap of creativity, to suggest that other actions besides a violent raid, are appropriate. How about surrounding the mosque, allowing the worshipers to leave AFTER they've been searched (as they are leaving), and detaining the ppl in question, with NO gunfire?

What a novel idea, huh? :eek:

Get off the nationality kick

Huh?

-- how many white American men have given their lives over there? Report that. Or should I tell you? No, because everyone that is wearing an American uniform in my eyes are the same race, all Americans. That, I am sure is the same way they felt as they said their vows upon entering whichever branch of the Armed Forces they chose to honor.

You're a scream, you know that, Justine? Talk about reading motive into a post! You asked for posts that show positive aspects of "our troops:" sorry that you read some sort of "reverse-discrimination" into it.

Next time I want to say something positive about the troops: I'll be sure to run it by your reverse discrimination committee, to make sure that white's are given equal treatment, OK?? Sheesh. :rolleyes:

As for the men that feel they don't belong over there -- you are right -- I am sure many feel that way - but they do not have a choice -- not until their tour is up -- and their contract is done

Wrong...AGAIN.

Soldiers Prevented from Returning Home (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/07/1451252)

AMY GOODMAN: Today, we'll discuss both lawsuits with Steve Ralls, director of communications for the Service Members Legal Defense Network and Jules Lobel, Vice President of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Jules, let’s start with you -- the soldiers that want to come home that can't?

JULES LOBEL: Well they have been recruited under a dishonest policy where the government tells them, you're going to be in for a certain number of years, in my case, the lead plaintiff was told he was going to be in for one year under a tri-1 recruitment program in which soldiers who are veterans can join the National Guard for a trial one-year period after which they're told they can decide whether to reenlist. Well, David joined for one year. He was mobilized to Iraq, he served in Iraq and at the end of the year, he said my time is up, it’s time to go home and they told him no, you're here indefinitely. In fact, his pay stub says that he will be in the military until estimated December 24, 2031. So, he'll be home by Christmas of 2031 and it’s a -- when these people go down and get recruited, nobody tells them that they can be stop-lossed, that their enlistment can be extended. There is nothing in their enlistment contract that says they can be extended and it's simply dishonest. It is fraudulent recruiting.

Now please: descend to my lower expectations by spinning this as some sort of critique upon the "troops."

And don't say I am APOLOGIZING, I am not -- we are there -- we are going no where for quite a while -- you know this -- I know this -- they know this -- ACCEPT THIS AS FACT.

Yeah, let's just get on with life. What's a little bit of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, the latest Navy prisoner-abuse, DU, cluster-bombs, and the like, among friends? Gosh: just situation normal, better get on with life.

Sorry to relate a little dose of reality to your universe, Justine: but injustice thrives because ppl do not speak up. In the early part of the 20th C, when we had separate entrances for blacks, lynch-mobs and "we don't serve colored's" signs outside of many restaurants--many ppl said the same thing. It's just life--not pretty, but get over it. By the '60's, some of these racist actions disappeared, but violence was still prevalent. There was the Birmingham church bombings, which killed four little girls, but the black American community wasn't going to take it lying down, this time.

Still, the black leaders said to MLK: you're going too fast, you have to take it slowly. Just get on with your life: don't make waves.

Today, the situation is STILL unfair to African-American's, but it is better. Why? Ppl who cared didn't just "go on with their lives." They didn't say such glib allowances to abuse, such as

Get on with your life.

They stood up, fought the injustice, sat in at "no colored's" restaurants, marched and went to jail.

This willingness to struggle takes courage. Sorry if it interferes with your soporific, laissez-faire world-view.

[quote]You obviously spend way too much time pondering ways to make arguments on this subject.

You obviously spend not enough time considering the variables that allow our government to make the abuses, that it does. Of the two: I'd far prefer to be afflicted with my problem, than with yours.

Other people on this thread obviously are on and off intermittently --- you seem to live on here. Not good. That hinders on obssession.IMPO.

Gosh, THANK you for that psychoanalysis. Who'd have thought that aikiweb would graduate so many amateur pop psychologists? :hypno:

You seem to want to argue that the reports that I, and others, have given you are ALL trumped up accounts from the Army. Well, have you ever stopped to consider that POSSIBLY your sources are not 100% accurate either?

Well, all you have to do is ask for references, then judge for yourself. Now how hard is that?

Of course not. That just would not be fathomable would it? That the all mighty Neil may be wrong in his beliefs is just not conceivable.

Yawn....Blank, mindless invective.

Everyone is aware that news reports are never 100% accurate. Not to either side that is being reported.

ROFL: please. A news-story that has been proven false is PILLORIED by the media-establishment. Or, I guess that you really believed Dan Rather, when he simply said it was "time to retire??" AHAHAHA!

The only way to accurately know what is really going on is to be there isn't it Neil?

And speaking of going WAAY off-topic on an invective-jag... Yep, you're right. The only to be sure is to go out there. But, there are levels of accuracy, and verification.

Are several sources saying essentially the same thing? Was the reporter embedded, or did he go out in the field? What is his/her bias (as, all reporters have bias)? Does this reporter have an agenda? Does he/she have other verification, such as photos, tape, or other media besides his own version? Do other reporters on opposite sides of the partisan fence hold the same views, and if not: why?

I ask myself a lot of these questions, every time I hear a news item. Do you? Going by your posts here: my guess is that you still believe that wmd's are out there. :roll

Do you want to volunteer to go find out for us? I didn't think so. Shucks.

If, by "us:" you mean a government that lied about getting us there, violated international law to do it, filled the pockets of its corporate buddies and allowed a general atmosphere of corruption and abuse in the whole reconstruction process....um, I think I'll pass.

Neil Mick
12-07-2004, 03:29 PM
someone has invaded my privacy as Mr. Mick has

Oh, please: first we get the whining about how I must be psycho to be on here, then we get the "let's get back to the question," followed by a heaping helping of groundless invective, served by a whopping dessert of an "invasion of privacy" slur, based upon an email I sent to you, which you openly list here.

I gotta say, Justine: you've got this "victimization" thing down to an artform.

Neil Mick
12-07-2004, 03:40 PM
What makes a mosque any different from another public building people can go to? :( There's no "magical field" that prevents people of violent means from congregating there, taking it over, and storing arms on-site, is there? The fact that the forces there are making exceptions for mosques in general is what is leaving them vulnerable to attack from areas they supposedly "cleared."

And what about the taking of the Fallujah hospital? That in itself, is a war-crime.

Cruel though it might seem, sh** happens -- you only get to be taken prisoner if you live and cooperate by completly surrendering.

And, are lucky enough to survive the US-abuse of its prisoners.

Yes, it's horrible. Yes, it is something to be avoided. And yes, there are international rules about war, seeking to make it more "humane" or at least less difficult to clean up after.

And, ppl or powers who violate those rules, should be punished. At this point, only a few, token, low-ranking scapegoats are targeted, and a full investigation is not on the horizon.

any action that takes out enemy combatants is justifiable

No, no, no. Otherwise, international law is irrelevant. And if THAT's true: then chaos and anarchy rules, the rule of men supercedes the rule of law, and we truly live in an empire, in action, as well as in our words.

Recognize that that rule is being used by both sides, until the end of the conflict. Combat continues until the war is declared over.

Sorry, but "we" cannot disregard int'l law, just because "they" do it. This is an absurd defence of violating any law.

Now, try to visualize an end to the combat in Iraq (Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, Sri Lanka....), if you can.

Easily. Send the troops home.

That is what we should be trying to achieve, in a forum like this. Not just back-and forth pissing and moaning about who's side has committed more atrocities. Got any real ideas, any real solutions? Present them. People are literally dying to hear about them. Maybe we can even convince someone in power to enact them.

Only via marches, protests and "taking it to the streets," will the Powers that Be listen. How many letters do you think W has received, asking for an end to the war? How many do you think he's honestly considered?

The Powers that Be do NOT stop their abuse, merely because they were asked nicely. Every single concession made by the PtB for greater rights for workers, minorities, child-labor laws, etc was made as a concession, at the end of a struggle...sometimes, that struggle turned brutal, or violent.

This rule of human behavior goes well back to the origins of British Parliament, in the Magna Carta. King John only signed the document, because he was surrounded by an unfriendly army, at Runnymeade.

justme1290
12-07-2004, 05:46 PM
here you go Neil-- a nice little excerpt from an pretty reliable source -- he is there. Been banned from a lot of regular news reports. He tells it the way it is.

http://joevialls.altermedia.info/iraq/traitors.html

Whenever an American is stupid enough to stick his head six inches too far out of the turret of a tank or armored car, there always seems to be a powerful AK 54 aimed and ready to pump a 7.62-mm bullet through his right or left ear. The fury of the citizen snipers is ice-cold and tightly controlled, meaning they very rarely miss their targets. If a sniper should miss with his first round he never fires a second, thereby denying the invaders the ability to backtrack the source of fire and destroy his house with a 120-mm high explosive shell from an Abrams tank gun.

Now -- with this in mind -- I think the guys over there really should keep doing what they are doing. That being -- covering their butts.

What is the difference between taking a hospital or taking another structure? Both needed to be secured Neil. Why are you having such a hard time seeing that regardless of what kind of structure it is or was -- it needs to be secured. If everything you claim was a war crime -- my god man -- is anything acceptable? You are an expert on war crimes and prisoner abuse and international law and what everyone thinks -- dang is there anything you DON'T know about?

By the way -- I didn't mention that you sent me an email -- you did. Ahhhh victimization? Please -- get over yourself. You know not what you speak of. I do not now, nor have I ever felt as I was the victim of anything. Quite the opposite actually. So do not tell me how I feel, think or anything else. I see why so many people have taken such "pokes" at you on here. I must sit back and laugh at your expense now. ha ha.

justme1290
12-07-2004, 06:05 PM
http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/

Here is a link for any of you that would like to show your support to our troops.

Neil Mick
12-08-2004, 12:05 AM
here you go Neil

Thank you.

Whenever an American is stupid enough to stick his head six inches too far out of the turret of a tank or armored car, there always seems to be a powerful AK 54 aimed and ready to pump a 7.62-mm bullet through his right or left ear. The fury of the citizen snipers is ice-cold and tightly controlled, meaning they very rarely miss their targets. If a sniper should miss with his first round he never fires a second, thereby denying the invaders the ability to backtrack the source of fire and destroy his house with a 120-mm high explosive shell from an Abrams tank gun.

Yes. It's called "war." People die, and I'd imagine that the insurgents won't fight nicely.

Now -- with this in mind -- I think the guys over there really should keep doing what they are doing. That being -- covering their butts.

Well, no question. Unless, of course: they break international law. Gosh, will this put them at a disadvantage? Rules of the road.

What is the difference between taking a hospital or taking another structure? Both needed to be secured Neil. Why are you having such a hard time seeing that regardless of what kind of structure it is or was -- it needs to be secured.

Gosh, I sure hope you're paying attention.

Geneva Convention of War, Chapter 3, Article 19 (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/geneva1.html)

Medical Units and Establishments
Article 19. Fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict. Should they fall into the hands of the adverse Party, their personnel shall be free to pursue their duties, as long as the capturing Power has not itself ensured the necessary care of the wounded and sick found in such establishments and units.
The responsible authorities shall ensure that the said medical establishments and units are, as far as possible, situated in such a manner that attacks against military objectives cannot imperil their safety.


If everything you claim was a war crime -- my god man -- is anything acceptable?

Yes. Acts of war that are allowable under the GCoW.


You are an expert on war crimes and prisoner abuse and international law and what everyone thinks -- dang is there anything you DON'T know about?

Yep. Plenty.

By the way -- I didn't mention that you sent me an email -- you did. Ahhhh victimization? Please -- get over yourself. You know not what you speak of. I do not now, nor have I ever felt as I was the victim of anything. Quite the opposite actually. So do not tell me how I feel, think or anything else.

Nah. You're doing such a great job of psychoanalyzing ME: I figured that you've got yourself covered pretty well.

I see why so many people have taken such "pokes" at you on here. I must sit back and laugh at your expense now. ha ha.

Perhaps you'll be the next one? And perhaps you'll receive my stock response...you ready? {*shrug*)

Neil Mick
12-08-2004, 12:46 AM
here you go Neil-- a nice little excerpt from an pretty reliable source -- he is there. Been banned from a lot of regular news reports. He tells it the way it is.

http://joevialls.altermedia.info/iraq/traitors.html

Your really should read your links more carefully:

A strange American man entices small Iraqi children towards his car with handfuls of candy, while-like minded strange men sent from the Jewish State, bribe other small Iraqi children to throw their symbolic plastic defensive weapons onto a fire. Read the next exciting instalment of this ongoing and thrilling saga in the November edition of "The Wall Street Pedophile Monthly"

This guy is anti-US-Army.

I must sit back and laugh at your expense now. ha ha.

Who's laughing now? :p

justme1290
12-08-2004, 07:28 AM
Neil --- Good morning !!

I was very well aware that he was ANTI -ARMY!! I do read the stories. But did you read the bit where the insurgents killed the 50 Iraqis? That was what I wanted you to read more than anything. So don't laugh to hard.

Yeah I am very good at psycho-analyzing aren't I? hmmm? Can ya guess why? :eek: Doubt it.

as long as the capturing Power has not itself ensured the necessary care of the wounded and sick found in such establishments and units.

There! You put it out there --- we are capable of caring for the sick and wounded. So what does that do to your argument there? Kinda blows it out of the water doesn't it? You might want to understand what you are reading prior to trying to argue the point.

pezalinski
12-08-2004, 10:03 AM
Easily. Send the troops home.

Gladly. Once they've obtained their objectives... Or once the objectives are changed. (Or is that "objectors?") We, as a nation, have re-elected Bush, so we must think the war is worth supporting. There must be more of a reason behind it -- the war didn't start on Sept 11th; it just became official. The roots of the war go back, well, centuries (if you are an Arab), or at least to the aftermath of WW2 when we enabled the Saudi regime to have absolute control over the Arabian peninsula and it's peoples.

So, what are we really doing in Iraq? Attacking and being attacked by "insurgents" who are, primarily, Muslem Fundamentalists from areas outside of Iraq, many of them Saudi. What aren't they doing? They are not attacking the USA on American soil.

:rolleyes: Has anyone ever heard of the concept of a "honeypot?"

Admittedly, it's not an endgame strategy, and eventually someone with an anti-American bent is going to realize that we've lured them to a killing field, to use up their resources that could have otherwise been spent attacking us in N.A. But in the meanwhile, it may in fact keep America and the rest of the world safer -- we lure the lunatics to a honeypot to vent their frustrations and lives (at least those short-sighted enough to think they are making a difference by making it impossible for their Arab neighbors to live in peace-by-PAX-Americana.) Right or wrong, it does thin the fundamentalist herd, and I applaud it for that.

Unfortunately, it's not thining it fast enough. Conditions are so poor over there that anyone not working for a living (not many jobs to be had) and not well educated (on anything other than th must radical views of the Quaran) is taking up arms and heading north to Iraq or possibly (this is a new phenomenon) to attack the Saudi regime more directly.

Bringing the troops home doesn't end the war - it just changes the nature of the battlefield.

Neil Mick
12-09-2004, 12:56 AM
Neil --- Good morning !!

I was very well aware that he was ANTI -ARMY!! I do read the stories. But did you read the bit where the insurgents killed the 50 Iraqis? That was what I wanted you to read more than anything. So don't laugh to hard.

Yeah I am very good at psycho-analyzing aren't I? hmmm? Can ya guess why? :eek: Doubt it.

Must be that "Freud for Dummies" book you've just bought. :P

as long as the capturing Power has not itself ensured the necessary care of the wounded and sick found in such establishments and units.

There! You put it out there --- we are capable of caring for the sick and wounded. So what does that do to your argument there? Kinda blows it out of the water doesn't it?

Bro-ther! It's is so amazing to me, all the rationalizations and justifications I read on the internet, since the US gov't has taken the slippery slope of practicing torture. "Oh, it's not torture: it's abuse;" and "the invasion wasn't illegal; we were simply "resuming hostilities, since the '91 war; and NOW...."uh, they weren't "ensured the necessary care," so it's OK that we bust in and jail the doctors! :eek: Please: I'm not a lawyer (and I'm willing to bet, neither are you), but please--this is as silly a dodge, as I have yet to see.

Oh yeah: the Army moved in, smashed the place up and turned Fallujah into a disaster-area, because they were "concerned about the hospital not being properly run."

I guess, by this logic, that any nonworking hospital in a combat-zone gives the combatants FREE LICENSE to do whatever they feel. Hey guys, let's lob some grenades into that crowd! The hospital down the block is out, and so it's a free ride! Woohoo!

What I wonder is how you can propose this with a straight face. But your silly sarcasm sometimes flies over my head....oh, yeah: that's gotta be it, because I cannot imagine a rational, thinking adult seriously proposing this as any sort of serious counter-argument.

And so: I'll employ my stock-response to disproven, silly, or plain non-answers....

Next!

You might want to understand what you are reading prior to trying to argue the point.

You might want to understand logic and reason, before you try to engage in debate. Anytime, a hospital could go out near you, and you could become the next casualty of war. Be careful out there, it's a dangerous world, now. :dead: :freaky:

Neil Mick
12-09-2004, 01:20 AM
Gladly. Once they've obtained their objectives...

Hello? These objectives are unattainable. I only thank the gods that you were not a general during Vietnam....we'd still be there.

We, as a nation, have re-elected Bush, so we must think the war is worth supporting.

Wrong again. (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=504907)

This misinformation seems to be the only reason that 46 percent of Americans still believe the invasion of Iraq was justified.

And, even if this were true: the same percentage of voters who voted in Bush: also seem to think that there are wmd's in Iraq. Not a very complimentary aspect of Bush, is it? You were voted in by a group of ppl who believe in a lie.

There must be more of a reason behind it -- the war didn't start on Sept 011th; it just became official. The roots of the war go back, well, centuries (if you are an Arab), or at least to the aftermath of WW2 when we enabled the Saudi regime to have absolute control over the Arabian peninsula and it's peoples.

Ahh revisionism...so NICE to propound and artificially prescribe wars, where they don't exist. I'm guessing that you think that Mossedeq's (a democratically elected leader of Iran) ouster was merely our good-natured "regime-change" toward a gradual democracy, right?

So, what are we really doing in Iraq? Attacking and being attacked by "insurgents" who are, primarily, Muslem Fundamentalists from areas outside of Iraq, many of them Saudi.

Absolute, unfounded, baseless nonsense. By all reports (except of course, DoD spin) the insurgents are primarily Iraqi. All but about 8 of the fallujan's captured were local insurgents.

What aren't they doing? They are not attacking the USA on American soil.

:rolleyes: Has anyone ever heard of the concept of a "honeypot?"

Ever heard of the concepts "folly," and "quagmire?" If not: get used to them.

Admittedly, it's not an endgame strategy, and eventually someone with an anti-American bent is going to realize that we've lured them to a killing field, to use up their resources that could have otherwise been spent attacking us in N.A.

You really SHOULD read the full text of OBL's speech: it's quite revealing. But in any case: your analogy has no bearing, to this reality. Yeah, our $200+B (and ever-rising) + American lives, has been just a "honeypot," a "killing field," for all those insurgents. Newsflash: it ain't working. WE'RE the one's being bled dry. I don't know: maybe you weren't ALIVE during 'Nam, or maybe you only watch FoxNews, for your info.

But in any case, you have quite a few of your facts, and your preconceptions, backwards.

But in the meanwhile, it may in fact keep America and the rest of the world safer --

Not, according to the Pentagon. Since '01, terrorist attacks around the world are INCREASING.

we lure the lunatics to a honeypot to vent their frustrations and lives (at least those short-sighted enough to think they are making a difference by making it impossible for their Arab neighbors to live in peace-by-PAX-Americana.) Right or wrong, it does thin the fundamentalist herd, and I applaud it for that.

No, there really ISN'T a quagmire in front of me...it's a "honeypot!" Yeah, THAt's IT! It's a killing-field for my enemies! A trap, that I have cleverly laid for the evil-ones! A...hey: why am I sinking?

Unfortunately, it's not thining it fast enough. Conditions are so poor over there that anyone not working for a living (not many jobs to be had)

A lot more ppl had jobs BEFORE the invasion...

and not well educated (on anything other than th must radical views of the Quaran)

Truly, you express your ignorance. The Iraqi's used to be proud of their advanced education, and literacy-levels...BEFORE the invasion.

Bringing the troops home doesn't end the war - it just changes the nature of the battlefield.

Bringing the troops home is the beginning of the end of our adding fuel to the nationalist Iraqi fires. No, it won't immediately signal an end to conflict: but it will remove the guys throwing matches and gasoline into the arsenal.

Taliesin
12-09-2004, 11:41 AM
Justine

Yes there are consequences to every action. But personally I'd suggest that thinking about likely responses and outcomes. Considering tactics and their results would minimize losses, harm and hatred. That's why you could argue it is your duty to observe these things and see that mistakes are not repeated. Rather than just say, there are consequences.

Maybe there should be a possibility of 'fight smarter not harder'. Although it's hard to see GWB endorsing anything that requires intellect consideration above spectacular action. Particularly when there are people arguing that any criticism of any action is 'unpatriotic'.

As far as getting rid of a dictatorship is concerned. You haven't. Same as you didn't in Afghanistan. You've just established a series of warlords and gangsters and provided them with local support. BTW what you 'set out to do' was destroy Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction you 'knew' he had. Or maybe stop him Supporting OSB (which you knew he never did), getting rid of a dictatorship only became the goal, when the other excuses were demonstrated for what they were.

Peter

There has been a cease fire in Sri Lanka for nearly two years now. Although thankfully nobody in Sri Lanka followed your advice about war. For myself I follow the definition of war being 'the continuation of politics by other means". Which means when the Sri Lankan army stopped it's assaults, the LTTE halted their attacks, calming thing down.

My point here is that maybe it's better to rely on brains rather than bullets. I know someone has argued that as America elected GWB they don't want intelligence just overwhelming force. And to be honest that tactic hasn't worked so well for the US. Same as it didn't in Vietnam.

Maybe that's why US Soldiers are the ones being attacked far more than any other troops in Iraq.

Neil Mick
12-09-2004, 05:09 PM
(at least those short-sighted enough to think they are making a difference by making it impossible for their Arab neighbors to live in peace-by-PAX-Americana.) .

And, one more thing,,,you should be careful of the origin of the terms you use.

Pax Americana (http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Pax_Americana)

"In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence."

To accomplish this goal, the "United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."

So, if I understand your logic, using this phrase--you recommend setting up "killing fields," using our soldiers as bait: to enhance a policy of "Pax Americana," in which we use our huge military might to establish more bases around the world, militarily (or otherwise) enforce a permanent US martial law as a substitute for international law, to keep the uppity insurgents from disrupting this "brave new vision" of world peace.

The Orwellian gymnastics of this logic astound me. :hypno:

Taliesin
12-10-2004, 10:21 AM
Latest News:

US Soldier admits murdering Iraqi - BBC News

US Soldiers would kill civilians, says Marine - The Independent Newspaper (UK) 09/12/2004.

Hogan
12-10-2004, 12:16 PM
Latest News:

Terrorists and enemy soldiers admit to hating Americans - any news

Terrorists and enemy soldiers want to kill Americans, including David Chalk - any news

Neil Mick
12-10-2004, 02:50 PM
Latest News:

Terrorists and enemy soldiers admit to hating Americans - any news

OK, I couldn't resist: I have to respond.

This phrase got me to thinking: DO terrorists REALLY hate Americans? Sure, they hate the US (with good reason, IMO): but what about American's?

So, I did a little research (not conclusive, mind): I google'd (http://www.google.com/search?q=terrorists+hate+Americans&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N) "terrorists hate Americans," and I found about 630,000+ entries. I went through the first 20 pages, and I found plenty of webpages from Frontpagemagazine, Ann Coulter, the CS Monitor and a host of others, both Left and (mostly) Rightwing. In the handful of pages I scanned I found many explanations of why they hate us ("It's because they hate freedom;" or "they hate our consumerism," etc).

Know what I didn't find? Not one website, in the 20 pages I scanned, held the view that:

1. They were terrorists, or supported terror; and
2. They hate American's.

Funny, isn't it? The ppl that are so eager to fight us and get themselves killed for an abstraction, are too busy to post a google-searchable website that explains why they hate American's. Perhaps, this simplistic view is not really their's, at all.

Perhaps, more properly, the answer to the question, "why do they hate us," should be: "how can you speak for the feelings of a group of extremists that you care to know so little, about?" THEY didn't state that they "hate" American's: Bush did. In fact: OBL (FWIW) specifically stated in his LAST speech, (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm) that they DIDN'T "hate" American's.

Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.

If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.

No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.

So, sorry: "terrorists hating American's," is NOT on any news: but with (ahem) SOME post-er's dittoheading whatever right-wing disinformation that comes down the tubes: this oft-printed newsspeak is unsurprising.

Hogan
12-10-2004, 04:39 PM
OK, I couldn't resist: I have to respond.

This phrase got me to thinking: DO terrorists REALLY hate Americans? Sure, they hate the US (with good reason, IMO): but what about American's?

So, I did a little research (not conclusive, mind): I google'd (http://www.google.com/search?q=terrorists+hate+Americans&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N) "terrorists hate Americans," and I found about 630,000+ entries. I went through the first 20 pages, and I found plenty of webpages from Frontpagemagazine, Ann Coulter, the CS Monitor and a host of others, both Left and (mostly) Rightwing. In the handful of pages I scanned I found many explanations of why they hate us ("It's because they hate freedom;" or "they hate our consumerism," etc).

Know what I didn't find? Not one website, in the 20 pages I scanned, held the view that:

1. They were terrorists, or supported terror; and
2. They hate American's.

Funny, isn't it? The ppl that are so eager to fight us and get themselves killed for an abstraction, are too busy to post a google-searchable website that explains why they hate American's. Perhaps, this simplistic view is not really their's, at all.

Perhaps, more properly, the answer to the question, "why do they hate us," should be: "how can you speak for the feelings of a group of extremists that you care to know so little, about?" THEY didn't state that they "hate" American's: Bush did. In fact: OBL (FWIW) specifically stated in his LAST speech, (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm) that they DIDN'T "hate" American's.



So, sorry: "terrorists hating American's," is NOT on any news: but with (ahem) SOME post-er's dittoheading whatever right-wing disinformation that comes down the tubes: this oft-printed newsspeak is unsurprising.

Neil - an ABC news reporter interviewd Bin Laden some time back, and he is quotes as saying, on film, that his mission and his supprters mission is to kill EVERY AMERICAN MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD. So, uh... I guess you research wasn't THAT thorough.

And you just can't stop personally tyring to insult those that don't agree with you, huh ?

Neil Mick
12-10-2004, 11:24 PM
Neil - an ABC news reporter interviewd Bin Laden some time back, and he is quotes as saying, on film, that his mission and his supprters mission is to kill EVERY AMERICAN MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD. So, uh... I guess you research wasn't THAT thorough.

Source, pls? Since, esp in this case: exactly what OBL was responding to, is critical to this question.

And you just can't stop personally tyring to insult those that don't agree with you, huh ?

Excuse me? There were no personal insults in my last post.
My comment:

SOME post-er's dittoheading whatever right-wing disinformation that comes down the tubes: this oft-printed newsspeak is unsurprising.

was particularly addressed to your remark:

Terrorists and enemy soldiers admit to hating Americans - any news

Nothing "personal" about it.

James Giles
12-11-2004, 02:30 PM
Hey Neil,

I appreciate the link to the full dialog of Bin Laden's last message. This is really what I suspected all along. The American people are made to suffer because of the murderous decisions made by our "elected" leaders. I only wish that GWB was as rational and compassionate as Bin Laden.

James Giles
12-11-2004, 02:33 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot to post the link Neil provided. Here it is again,in case anyone else is interested in opening their eyes to the real truth about the so-called U.S. "war on terrorism".

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

Neil Mick
12-11-2004, 07:01 PM
Hey Neil,
I only wish that GWB was as rational and compassionate as Bin Laden.

Well, I wouldn't go that far: he DID orchestrate the murder of thousands of ppl, around the globe.

"Rational? Compassionate?" I don't think so. I think that both GWB and OBL should face an independent court, for crimes against humanity.

justme1290
12-11-2004, 08:37 PM
neil-- stop Pm-ing me -- Stop trying to email me --- you are now ( click) on ignore. GET IT --- ?????

James Giles
12-11-2004, 10:29 PM
Well, I wouldn't go that far: he DID orchestrate the murder of thousands of ppl, around the globe.


But I think OBL is compassionate in that he has not orchestrated another attack against the U.S.

In the meantime, however, Bush continues to bomb the Middle East and Afghanistan and impose our presence in an area of the world that does not respect us.

Another point, Bin Laden does not seem to target innocent Americans per se. Just strong U.S. economic, political, and military targets (??)

Bush on the other hand, has no problem blowing the arms, legs, and heads off of many innocent men, women and children when he drops a bomb on an Iraqi building in the HOPES of killing one man: Saddam Hussein. I don't think that is compassionate at all, and I don't think Bin Laden would stoop that low....but I guess I could be wrong (??)

Neil Mick
12-11-2004, 10:36 PM
neil-- stop Pm-ing me -- Stop trying to email me --- you are now ( click) on ignore. GET IT --- ?????

Thought you said you were "never going to darken these hallowed posts again?" :freaky:

Some ppl, with their victim-mentalities...

Neil Mick
12-11-2004, 10:41 PM
But I think OBL is compassionate in that he has not orchestrated another attack against the U.S.

In the meantime, however, Bush continues to bomb the Middle East and Afghanistan and impose our presence in an area of the world that does not respect us.

Another point, Bin Laden does not seem to target innocent Americans per se. Just strong U.S. economic, political, and military targets (??)

Attacking a symbol, without respect for the human lives, is another form of the ends justifying the means.

"Compassion" would suggest a certain amount of empthy towards suffering, on the part of OBL. I think he feels compassion towards Muslim's; but clearly he feels none, for American's.

I think he has good reason for his beliefs, IMO. Where we part company is his contention that bombing the WTC was justification for the vicious US policy.

Bush on the other hand, has no problem blowing the arms, legs, and heads off of many innocent men, women and children when he drops a bomb on an Iraqi building in the HOPES of killing one man: Saddam Hussein. I don't think that is compassionate at all, and I don't think Bin Laden would stoop that low....but I guess I could be wrong (??)

No way to tell. But, I'm guessing that OBL would certainly sanction the kidnapping and murder of individuals to attain his goals. For that: IMO, he is no better than any other mass-mudererer with an ideology (just like, say: Bush).

James Giles
12-11-2004, 10:58 PM
For that: IMO, he is no better than any other mass-mudererer with an ideology (just like, say: Bush).

Just for conversations sake, do you think that Geronimo was a mass-murderer with an ideology?

Hogan
12-12-2004, 08:58 AM
Source, pls? Since, esp in this case: exactly what OBL was responding to, is critical to this question.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html

To whit:

QUESTION:Mr. bin Laden, you have issued a fatwah calling on Muslims to kill Americans where they can, when they can. Is that directed at all Americans, just the American military, just the Americans in Saudi Arabia?

ANSWER:Allah has ordered us to glorify the truth and to defend Muslim land, especially the Arab peninsula ... against the unbelievers. After World War II, the Americans grew more unfair and more oppressive towards people in general and Muslims in particular. ... The Americans started it and retaliation and punishment should be carried out following the principle of reciprocity, especially when women and children are involved. Through history, American has not been known to differentiate between the military and the civilians or between men and women or adults and children. Those who threw atomic bombs and used the weapons of mass destruction against Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the Americans. Can the bombs differentiate between military and women and infants and children? America has no religion that can deter her from exterminating whole peoples. Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. ... We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says ... . The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims.





Excuse me? There were no personal insults in my last post.


SOME post-er's dittoheading whatever right-wing disinformation that comes down the tubes: this oft-printed newsspeak is unsurprising.

You comment attempted to include me in this 'SOME post-er's' category, mindelessly posting whatever I see on "right-wing disinformation" ("unsurprising") while anyone with a brain knows the terrorists hate america and want to destroy it, and you can get that news from any source, excpet perhaps Al Jazera (however you spell it). My source is ABC News, hardly a right wing source. And it comes from the horses mouth, and I don't think anyone would accuse Bin Laden as being right wing, although he does spread disinformation.

Instead of trying to dismiss other people info (with whom you disagree) with a snide comment, try to respect their sources - afterall, I am sure you would want others to believe yours, no ?

Hogan
12-12-2004, 09:00 AM
But I think OBL is compassionate in that he has not orchestrated another attack against the U.S.

In the meantime, however, Bush continues to bomb the Middle East and Afghanistan and impose our presence in an area of the world that does not respect us.

Another point, Bin Laden does not seem to target innocent Americans per se. Just strong U.S. economic, political, and military targets (??)

Bush on the other hand, has no problem blowing the arms, legs, and heads off of many innocent men, women and children when he drops a bomb on an Iraqi building in the HOPES of killing one man: Saddam Hussein. I don't think that is compassionate at all, and I don't think Bin Laden would stoop that low....but I guess I could be wrong (??)


What a load of BS. Good god, man, why don't you just join his network if you love Bin so much ? You make me want to throw up with your ignorance.

James Giles
12-12-2004, 11:41 AM
What a load of BS. Good god, man, why don't you just join his network if you love Bin so much ? You make me want to throw up with your ignorance.


I don't love Bin Laden, but I don't agree with George Bush's underhanded antics, and I don't support his "network" either. I do care about my country and I love the people over here. But, I believe that if Bush continues along his present course of "an eye for an eye", and insatiable desire to capitalize on the world's resources, he is going to get everyone killed over here.

If Bush gave a damn about the American people, he would tighten up the borders. Has he done so? No, in fact he has turned and looked the other way when it comes to illegals coming into the country.

This tells me that Bush is, in fact, not concerned with our national security at all, but rather wishes to dominate the Muslim world and steal its resources. If Bin Laden happens to strike back, I cannot help but see that as an act of self-defense. That doesn't mean I support Bin Laden, but I don't support Bush's murderous antics either.

I think it is disgraceful that our forefathers came over here to the U.S., slaughtered all of the Indians and stole their land. It looks like the U.S. government is still up to the same old games to me, except now it is not the native Americans that the U.S. is bullying around, but rather it is the Muslims.

Neil Mick
12-12-2004, 03:48 PM
Instead of trying to dismiss other people info (with whom you disagree) with a snide comment, try to respect their sources - afterall, I am sure you would want others to believe yours, no ?

I do...when they bother to post it. Most of the time: you don't. This one time, you did--and I thank you for it.

And regarding whether terrorists "hate" American's--OK, your point is taken...OBL sees the American's as targets. Does he actually "hate" them? Well, targeting someone is a stretch from "hating" them.

So far: you've shown that OBL sees us as targets; but not as a target, of hatred. That old saw seems to originate from the media, and Bush.

Hogan
12-13-2004, 07:59 AM
I don't love Bin Laden, but I don't agree with George Bush's underhanded antics, and I don't support his "network" either. I do care about my country and I love the people over here. But, I believe that if Bush continues along his present course of "an eye for an eye", and insatiable desire to capitalize on the world's resources, he is going to get everyone killed over here.

If Bush gave a damn about the American people, he would tighten up the borders. Has he done so? No, in fact he has turned and looked the other way when it comes to illegals coming into the country.

This tells me that Bush is, in fact, not concerned with our national security at all, but rather wishes to dominate the Muslim world and steal its resources. If Bin Laden happens to strike back, I cannot help but see that as an act of self-defense. That doesn't mean I support Bin Laden, but I don't support Bush's murderous antics either.

I think it is disgraceful that our forefathers came over here to the U.S., slaughtered all of the Indians and stole their land. It looks like the U.S. government is still up to the same old games to me, except now it is not the native Americans that the U.S. is bullying around, but rather it is the Muslims.

No, no.... you LOVE HIM ! One thing I do agree with you, though, is the border issue. Illegals = BAD !

Hogan
12-13-2004, 08:03 AM
I do...when they bother to post it. Most of the time: you don't. This one time, you did--and I thank you for it.

And regarding whether terrorists "hate" American's--OK, your point is taken...OBL sees the American's as targets. Does he actually "hate" them? Well, targeting someone is a stretch from "hating" them.

So far: you've shown that OBL sees us as targets; but not as a target, of hatred. That old saw seems to originate from the media, and Bush.

I kinda find it hard to believe that someone would not have to hate to kill. The terrorists hate us for what we supposedly did or represent. If they didn't hate us, are you suggesting that they target us for fun ? If so, then the enemy is even more dangerous, for trying to make them "like" us will not work then. In fact, we are the biggest source of humanitarian aid to the region, yet we are still targeted. So yes, I think they do "hate" us and our way of life. They DO want to establish a way of life much like they established in Afghanistan, and want to destroy all those that come between them and their wish.

Taliesin
12-13-2004, 11:14 AM
John

Well done - You have managed to totally avoid the points I was making, unless you were reversing your oft-stated opinion about everything US troops do must be automatically justified. American Troops have been found guilty of war crimes. If I was you I be desperately trying to point the argument somewhere else as well.

So far you've managed to demonstrate that GWB's standards are as low as OBL's. We have one person who doesn't care about civilian casualties, to maintain his popularity (Therese a reason GWB is called the 'Corpses for Votes' President) and another who thinks it's OK to kill Americans in retaliating of all the Moslem's killed by Americans.

They hate you because you kill, cripple and main them and their children (funny that) and then say that they are 'collateral damage', or say 'We don't count Iraqi dead. You kill indiscriminately because you claim it's part of the 'war on terror', But don't explain why the one person who is safest from American forces is OBL while it is the civilans who are at most risk.

No I don't think it's justified, anymore than I think it's justified to say anything 'our troops (of whichever nationality) do is automatically justified and cannot be reviewed or criticized.

BTW I an WELSH not American.

PS - maybe more indiscriminate Killing is not the answer.

Hogan
12-13-2004, 12:19 PM
John

Well done - You have managed to totally avoid the points I was making, unless you were reversing your oft-stated opinion about everything US troops do must be automatically justified.

I'm sorry, were we still talking about something ? I was talking to Neil.



BTW I an WELSH not American.

Like I said, I'm sorry.

Neil Mick
12-13-2004, 03:59 PM
I kinda find it hard to believe that someone would not have to hate to kill. The terrorists hate us for what we supposedly did or represent. If they didn't hate us, are you suggesting that they target us for fun ?

Are you suggesting that the American soldiers need to "hate" their enemies, to kill them? I don't think so. By the same token: terrorists don't necessarily need to "hate" their targets. They CERTAINLY hate what we stand for, and what we, as a nation, are doing to the ME.


If so, then the enemy is even more dangerous, for trying to make them "like" us will not work then. In fact, we are the biggest source of humanitarian aid to the region, yet we are still targeted.

We also seem to be the biggest source of destabilization, hunger, and war.

I think they do "hate" us and our way of life. They DO want to establish a way of life much like they established in Afghanistan, and want to destroy all those that come between them and their wish.

Well, you may be right: I don't know terrorists, so I cannot speak for their motivations. As a footnote, tho: the "terrorists" alone cannot be responsible for establishing a way of life as in Afghanistan, as the US, the Russians, and any other outside influences need to take responsibility for it, as well.

But, the Taliban cuts no credit, with me. I was outraged when they destroyed the Afghani Buddhist statues, and temples.

Neil Mick
12-13-2004, 04:09 PM
What a load of BS. Good god, man, why don't you just join his network if you love Bin so much ? You make me want to throw up with your ignorance.

Sorry, but this is an exaggeration. James never said he "loved" OBL: he said

But I think OBL is compassionate in that he has not orchestrated another attack against the U.S.

Suggesting that a person might be compassionate (even tho I disagree), is not a proclamation of love. Quit exaggerating.

Just for conversations sake, do you think that Geronimo was a mass-murderer with an ideology?

Sorry, I almost missed this one. Well, that's a difficult question. Even a I was writing my comment, I was thinking of Che, whose record I have ambivalent feelings.

The same with Geronimo. While he was alive before the full implementation of the Geneva Conventions (some of the Conventions were in place, but I believe that they were voluntary), he was in the situation of an insurgent fighting an occupying army. He did terrible things, and if he did them today--he should be tried for war-crimes, but OBL is in a different category altogether, as he is not fighting an invasion against one particular country...he claims to be fighting for the invasion of all Arab nations. Quite a wide swath of ppl, to claim to be an insurgent.

Neil Mick
12-13-2004, 04:12 PM
No I don't think it's justified, anymore than I think it's justified to say anything 'our troops (of whichever nationality) do is automatically justified and cannot be reviewed or criticized.

PS - maybe more indiscriminate Killing is not the answer.

Hey! Are you suggesting that massive military measures are NOT the best means to resolve conflict? So, how long HAVE you loved OBL, hmm?? :D

Hogan
12-13-2004, 05:01 PM
Are you suggesting that the American soldiers need to "hate" their enemies, to kill them? I don't think so. By the same token: terrorists don't necessarily need to "hate" their targets. They CERTAINLY hate what we stand for, and what we, as a nation, are doing to the ME.
I'm sorry - but if you have gone for days without sleep and people are trying to kill you, I am pretty sure our soldiers hate the enemy right now. Besides, a soldier is conditoned to hate the enemy - have you ever gone through basic ?
And hate what we stand for is the same as hating the people in their eyes - for if it were not for the people, what they stand for would not exist.




We also seem to be the biggest source of destabilization, hunger, and war.
I disagree - what Saddam did to his country is the biggest source of destabilization, hunger, and war for Iraq.

Hogan
12-13-2004, 05:03 PM
Hey! Are you suggesting that massive military measures are NOT the best means to resolve conflict? So, how long HAVE you loved OBL, hmm?? :D


That's what I want to know.... OBL only undserstands force and strength.

Neil Mick
12-14-2004, 05:11 PM
I disagree - what Saddam did to his country is the biggest source of destabilization, hunger, and war for Iraq.

Well, you can disagree: but you'd be wrong.

Bad as he was, Hussein WAS a stabilizing force in Iraq. Education and reading levels were quite high during his regime, and I am having touble remembering when he agreed to having his ppl starve. The US first knowingly bombed Iraq's civilian infrastructure (a violation of the GCoW) as a strategy to force him to the table: then the US and GB initiated the Sanctions for about 13 years.

Sorry, but Hussein can be blamed for the Iran-Iraq war, but the US is the primary culprit for destabilization, hunger, and the last two Iraqi wars.

Neil Mick
12-14-2004, 05:13 PM
I'm sorry - but if you have gone for days without sleep and people are trying to kill you, I am pretty sure our soldiers hate the enemy right now.

Yes, but do they hate Iraqi's? That''s the only way the comparison fits.

Remember the primary question is: "Do terrorists hate American's: not: "do they hate American soldiers?"

That's what I want to know....

I WAS being sarcastic...you got that, right?

Neil Mick
12-14-2004, 06:11 PM
And, one more thing: I really dislike the titile of this thread. It started out as the usual vituperative, "anti-Bush = anti-American" nonsense you heard a few years ago, and now it's morphed into the default aikiweb political discussion forum, on Iraq, and terror.

Sigh: couldn't we insted have a thread titled: "Truth or Global Consequences;" or "The Problems of War," or something? :)

Hogan
12-15-2004, 12:31 PM
Well, you can disagree: but you'd be wrong.



No - we both have opinions.

Bad as he was, Hussein WAS a stabilizing force in Iraq. Education and reading levels were quite high during his regime,

I am sure Hitler was a stabalizing force, as well.

and I am having touble remembering when he agreed to having his ppl starve.
Read up on the Oil for Food Scandal. And do the Kurds ring a bell ?

Hogan
12-15-2004, 12:33 PM
Yes, but do they hate Iraqi's? That''s the only way the comparison fits.

Remember the primary question is: "Do terrorists hate American's: not: "do they hate American soldiers?"

Iraqiis and terrorists are two different things. I am talking aout hating the terrorists and those tyring to kill you, not a citizenry of a nation as a whole.



I WAS being sarcastic...you got that, right?

As was I - you got that, right ?

mj
12-15-2004, 06:00 PM
I am sure Hitler was a stabalizing force, as well.

The first person to bring up Hitler loses the argument. Is'nt that the rule?

Hogan
12-15-2004, 07:04 PM
The first person to bring up Hitler loses the argument. Is'nt that the rule?

Rules made up by people who can't face the thruth, I suppose....


That's alright - hell is reserved for those ignorant tyrant appeasers right next to the originals....

James Giles
12-15-2004, 11:28 PM
No, no.... you LOVE HIM ! One thing I do agree with you, though, is the border issue. Illegals = BAD !

Well I am glad we agree on the border issue :D And no, I don't love Bin Laden. In fact, I don't hate GWB either. I just absolutely don't believe Bush is being straight with the people regarding issues surrounding 9-11, OR the reasons for the invasion of Iraq.

A terrorist that tells the truth is much more honorable than a President that tells lies - in my book anyway. If Bush is going to lead the American people, he needs to be straight with us. It is hard to trust someone that tells lies, or doesn't admit when they are wrong. Even a kindergartner can figure something like that out, it is really very simple :)

Neil Mick
12-15-2004, 11:52 PM
No - we both have opinions.

I disagree - what Saddam did to his country is the biggest source of destabilization, hunger, and war for Iraq.

I'm sorry: but you seem to be laboring under a critical misunderstanding btw "opinion," and "fact." Here: allow me to assist.

o·pin·ion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pnyn)
n.
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: "The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion" (Elizabeth Drew).
A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.
The prevailing view: public opinion.
Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.

fact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

Ergo, if one can demonstrate that said observation has factual basis (as in: sources); then said observation falls from opinion, to fact. You can hold the opinion that Hussein was more of a destabilizing force in Iraq; and I can present facts that the US is far and above a more destabilizing force: and, of course, you can chime back in (as you always do) that "I don't believe you" as if a view verified with a source is just as valid as your precious opinion...but you'd still be wrong.

Some ppl hold that the world is flat, even tho overwhelming evidence proves otherwise.

I am sure Hitler was a stabalizing force, as well.

MJ is correct: it's called Godfrey's Rule. You lose; but who's counting?

Read up on the Oil for Food Scandal. And do the Kurds ring a bell ?

I did. And, barring tortured and overrused and tentative connections with a certain WW2 leader, you have not provided a single source. In fact: I doubr that you're much aware of any benefits Hussein may have offered to Iraq (brutal tho he was).

Truly, it is dangerous to view the world in such black and white tones. It makes for a distorted world-view.

And, regarding the Kurds: the Kurds were not "Hussein's people." They were as much "his people," as the Amerindians were Andrew Jackson's ppl.

Ignorance is a deadly thing... :dead:

Neil Mick
12-15-2004, 11:53 PM
Rules made up by people who can't face the thruth, I suppose....

Gosh, I can almost imagine W spouting this privately, about international law... :p

Neil Mick
12-16-2004, 12:02 AM
Yes, but do they hate Iraqi's? That''s the only way the comparison fits.

Remember the primary question is: "Do terrorists hate American's: not: "do they hate American soldiers?"

Iraqiis and terrorists are two different things. I am talking aout hating the terrorists and those tyring to kill you, not a citizenry of a nation as a whole.

We seem to have a misunderstanding--let me try again, as the fault is partly mine, in the way I initially phrased the question.

1. I initially wondered if "terrorists" truly hate "American's," as I have found very few sources suggesting as much.

2. You rightly pointed out one source (OBL) who once stated that Americans are targets.

3. I theorized and used a comparison of American soldiers, who, as a rule, do not hate Iraqi's. Terrorists, yes: Iraqi's (in theory, at least): no.

4. Sure, Iraqi's are often targets of American soldiers' attacks, but (being charitable, as there is some evidence to suggest otherwise) in theory: we are over there to aid in bringing democracy to Iraq.

5. Therefore, I still question whether terrorists hate American's. Sure, they see them as a military target: but do they hate them?

6. So far, the only sources I see that suggests this view have been Rightwing American sources. This view could, then, be Rightwing propaganda (in theory).

Taliesin
12-16-2004, 11:55 AM
So now that our right wing colleagues have apparently conceded that it is necessary to review troops actions to ensure they do not violate human rights and do act to the appropriately high standards.

We now have the argument that Saddam Hussein was evil there the invasion was good/justified.

Leaving aside the 'human Rights of the Iraqi's' argument was only raised after invasion (apart from by Ann Clywd MP) and all the other excuses ran out can we move to the question as to whether the 'allied' forces have ensured greater protection from human rights violations of those in Iraq? I don't think so.

Can we say that Iraq is now more stable? No we got rid of one dictator and let an entire swarm of equally evil wannabes fighting and killing to fill the vacuum.

Plus we have John Hogan stating that force is all OSB understands. Is this because he STILL hasn't learnt the OSB and SH's relationship was mutual enmity. And that there was NO EVIDENCE to support the allegation that SH was supporting OSB.

For myself I find it hard to distinguish between, on the one hand a fanatic who is quite happy to kill thousands of innocent civilians just to show how serious he is about his cause, and OSB on the other.

After all if OSB is so bad why not actually make the effort to catch him? Why support a President who so clearly failed to hunt him down?

It's quite a dilemma

deepsoup
12-16-2004, 02:30 PM
We now have the argument that Saddam Hussein was evil there the invasion was good/justified.

Leaving aside the 'human Rights of the Iraqi's' argument was only raised after invasion (apart from by Ann Clywd MP) and all the other excuses ran out can we move to the question as to whether the 'allied' forces have ensured greater protection from human rights violations of those in Iraq? I don't think so.

What gets me about the "Saddam was evil, so the invasion was justified" argument is the sheer hypocrasy. He was evil in the '80s, but his regime was supported by the US because Iran was the big bad of the day.

If human rights abuses justify military action what about Uzbekistan, what about Turkmenistan. Do Saparmurat Niyazov and Islam Karimov have some secret redeeming feature that the US and its allies aren't telling us about? Or are human rights not actually so important after all?

Sean
x

Hogan
12-16-2004, 03:35 PM
Ignorance is a deadly thing... :dead:

Yes it is - and I pray for you to become enlightened.

Hogan
12-16-2004, 06:20 PM
...And, regarding the Kurds: the Kurds were not "Hussein's people." They were as much "his people," as the Amerindians were Andrew Jackson's ppl. ...


So, then his mistreatment of his citizens - the Kurds, were justified because people don't consider them to be his people ?

That must mean, then, that the US mistreatment of the Indians was justified as well, if you don't consider american indians to be people of the US.


Yes, ignorance is a deadly thing.

Neil Mick
12-16-2004, 09:42 PM
So, then his mistreatment of his citizens - the Kurds, were justified because people don't consider them to be his people ?

That must mean, then, that the US mistreatment of the Indians was justified as well, if you don't consider american indians to be people of the US.

Yes, ignorance is a deadly thing.

Yes, we are certainly in agreement there. What we are NOT in agreement is your attempt to diffuse the discussion into some sort of morality debate.

No, FYI: the Indian nations were NOT full citizens of the US: sorry, but they made treaties with the US, went to war with it, traded it, and did everything a gov't does with a foreign gov't. Amerindians, while called "wards of the state," could not vote, could not travel freely, and in all respects were dealt with, as a hostile neutral, most of the time.

Does this mean his actions were justified? Please: get a real argument. But even Jackson (http://www.historynet.com/ah/bljackson/) didn't think of Indians as American's.

By the same token: it is a basic misunderstanding to suggest that Hussein thought of the Kurds as "his people." He wasn't a perfect leader by any stretch, but it is wrong to state that he did nothing positive for Iraq.

But, when you're scrambling to shore up the sinking ship of US int'l policy and reputation as something moral, I guess the more mudslinging you do to the toppled predecessor at your feet, the better.

A rising mud, floats all Titanic's, eh? ;)

I guess you were just cheesed because you needed some necessary reminders of "opinion," versus "fact." But please: let's try and not run away from the argument by smearing a cheap moral element into this, shall we? Sheesh. :p

Neil Mick
12-17-2004, 12:13 AM
But back to the topic:

Here's a sobering article about the nonsense of equating "supporting the troops," with "supporting the war:"

What Our Troops Want for Christmas (http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/20764/)

The time has come to stop being cowed by accusations that criticizing the war is the same as criticizing the troops and to start speaking the truth: Tens of thousands of young American men and women are having their lives destroyed because of the Bush administration's willful negligence.

Hogan
12-18-2004, 10:02 AM
...No, FYI: the Indian nations were NOT full citizens of the US: sorry, but they made treaties with the US, went to war with it, traded it, and did everything a gov't does with a foreign gov't. Amerindians, while called "wards of the state," could not vote, could not travel freely, and in all respects were dealt with, as a hostile neutral, most of the time.

Does this mean his actions were justified? Please: get a real argument. But even Jackson (http://www.historynet.com/ah/bljackson/) didn't think of Indians as American's.

By the same token: it is a basic misunderstanding to suggest that Hussein thought of the Kurds as "his people." He wasn't a perfect leader by any stretch, but it is wrong to state that he did nothing positive for Iraq.

Doesn't excuse the misstreatment then, nor does it excuse Saddmay's mistreatment now. But you keep being an apologist for Saddammy and Usamy, and all the other dictators / terrorists who do "good things" for their people - that's what you do best.

Neil Mick
12-19-2004, 10:13 PM
Doesn't excuse the misstreatment then, nor does it excuse Saddmay's mistreatment now. But you keep being an apologist for Saddammy and Usamy, and all the other dictators / terrorists who do "good things" for their people - that's what you do best.

Lacking all recourse to debate his way from behind his strawman: "our hero" once again, resorts to his favorite weapon of choice: ad hominem.

Sorry to burst your bubble, John: but no one's "apologizing" for Jackson, Saddam, or Usama. Again I say: get a real argument.

Here: lemme break it down for ya, in simple arithmetic:

Wishing to understand one's foes (imagined dangerous or no)
Does not = Apologizing, for their actions

Gosh, I sure am glad we're in agreement about ignorance, being a deadly thing, eh, John? ;)

Taliesin
12-20-2004, 03:46 AM
Sorry I did I just see John Hogan accuse someone of being an apologist for mistreatment that occurred in Iraq. And I though Americans didn't have a sense of Irony!!!

Condemn Saddam for all the evil of his regime, including gassing a civilian population, because they were 'his enemy'. But don't claim they were 'his people'. It's like condemning GWB for bombing 'his people' in Iraq because he though some of them were his enemy.







Apologist