Don't get mad, it's for our troops

POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Sunday, May 16, 2004 12:45
VIEWED: 14239
PAGE 1 of 1

SUCCATASH

Thursday, May 6, 2004 4:06 AM

Bush is using "Support the Troops" to get away with a terrible war. Human lives are worth more than this. It makes me sick.

Earlier than expected, Pres. Bush needs a down payment of $25 billion from US Congress. Why? Because a lot of mistakes have been made involving the Iraq war.

It's costing us and the rest of the world a lot more than expected in money, natural resources and human lives. Since people are likely to complain about the cost of this war, the official government statement is, "It's for the troops."

Well, I think this is a deliberate attempt to avoid responsibility for the mistakes and also to divert our attention from the enormous costs involved.

Bush Asks for $25 billion for Iraq
May 05, 2004
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040506/ap_on_go_pr
_wh/iraq_spending&cid=544&ncid=716

"The Bush administration asked Congress Wednesday for a $25 billion down payment for next year's U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a retreat from the White House's earlier plans not to seek the money until after the November elections....

"I certainly expect so," Frist told reporters afterward when asked whether Congress would approve the funds. "It's for our troops."

-----------

EDIT:

My president pointed at a country and said, "You're Evil! You are an immediate threat!" And someone yelled, "Support our troops!" and suddenly everyone was cheering like it was a fucking football game as we invaded and raped a country that didn't want us there.

I support my friends, family and all human beings. But I have a hard time separating "government" from "military" and I have a hard time supporting these institutions under current conditions.

I am ashamed and embarrased by my country's actions.

SUCCATASH

Friday, May 7, 2004 3:27 PM

I hope Joss reads this.

CHANNAIN

Friday, May 7, 2004 3:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Bush is using "Support the Troops" to get away with a terrible war. Human lives are worth more than this. It makes me sick.

I support my friends, family and all human beings. But I have a hard time separating "government" from "military" and I have a hard time supporting these institutions under current conditions.

I am ashamed and embarrased by my country's actions.

It is getting harder, isn't it? I've been watching news reports this week as well and seeing the photographs over and over and over again has made me look away in shame as I ask questions.

How can Bush support Rumsfeld?

What were those soldiers thinking? First, to do what they did at all, let alone take pictures of it.

Where are these pictures coming from?

What are we fighting for again?

Can someone explain this to me?

We have art so as not to die of truth ~ Neitzsche
http://www.mnartists.org/artistHome.do?rid=7922

HERO

Friday, May 7, 2004 5:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Channain:

How can Bush support Rumsfeld?

What were those soldiers thinking? First, to do what they did at all, let alone take pictures of it.

Where are these pictures coming from?

What are we fighting for again?

Can someone explain this to me?

1. Because Rumsfeld is a competent Defense Secretary and you have to back up your people when they are under scrutiny. If Rumsfeld leaves it should be because of a private choice the President makes, not because of public pressure but rather from inability to perform or desire to leave. But publically a leader should always try and support their team.

2. I suspect you can go to your local jail and ask any convicted felon the same question. They broke the law, their motives are not the primary issue.

3. The military conducted an investigation and is releasing the pictures, thats why Bush reprimanded Rumsfeld for not giving him the heads up before they hit the newspapers. The ultimate source is probably a couple well meaning whistle blowers.

4. Truth, justice and the American Way. Same as always.

5. I know its hard to understand. We live in a new millenium mired in the hatreds and prejudices of the old. A thousand years ago the same religous ideas were being used to justify wars and atrocities. But there has been progress. New ideas are rising to challenge the old ways. Freedom, justice, equality of race and sex. These are the things we strive for and they strive to hold back. Have faith. We shall overcome, someday.

H

CHANNAIN

Friday, May 7, 2004 7:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I know its hard to understand. We live in a new millenium mired in the hatreds and prejudices of the old. A thousand years ago the same religous ideas were being used to justify wars and atrocities. But there has been progress. New ideas are rising to challenge the old ways. Freedom, justice, equality of race and sex. These are the things we strive for and they strive to hold back. Have faith. We shall overcome, someday.

H

Thanks Hero. I needed that.

We have art so as not to die of truth ~ Neitzsche
http://www.mnartists.org/artistHome.do?rid=7922

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, May 7, 2004 7:16 PM

But true freedom would also include the right to reject

" Your Truth, Your justice and Your American Way. "

One of the biggest hurdles in forming a new Iraqi government is trying to ensure they are a pro-American Iraq government who will allow continued military basing in Iraq and honor the Iraqi contracts handed out by the US. Many of the countries opposed to the war are not pro-Saddam, they just cannot agree to this aftermath. If a realistic plan was presented to the security council that did not have these alterior motives, perhaps the outcome would have been different........

" Thats not fair !!!!
I didn't even have a soul when I did that!"

EARLY

Friday, May 7, 2004 8:25 PM

Quote:

1. Because Rumsfeld is a competent Defense Secretary and you have to back up your people when they are under scrutiny. If Rumsfeld leaves it should be because of a private choice the President makes, not because of public pressure but rather from inability to perform or desire to leave. But publically a leader should always try and support their team.

2. I suspect you can go to your local jail and ask any convicted felon the same question. They broke the law, their motives are not the primary issue.

3. The military conducted an investigation and is releasing the pictures, thats why Bush reprimanded Rumsfeld for not giving him the heads up before they hit the newspapers. The ultimate source is probably a couple well meaning whistle blowers.

4. Truth, justice and the American Way. Same as always.

5. I know its hard to understand. We live in a new millenium mired in the hatreds and prejudices of the old. A thousand years ago the same religous ideas were being used to justify wars and atrocities. But there has been progress. New ideas are rising to challenge the old ways. Freedom, justice, equality of race and sex. These are the things we strive for and they strive to hold back. Have faith. We shall overcome, someday.

H

Ah the sweet smell of nationalism (remeber nationalism is different from patriotism). I'm curious...would you have fought for Unification? Oh and by the way as a US Marine my opinion is that the best way to support our troops is to bring them home. To send our troops to far off lands away from their families where they will kill and be killed is not support. To support that you simply support the state or empire which ever term you prefer, but certainly not the troops. Of course several "Easy-chair commandos" might disagree.

IAMJACKSUSERNAME

Friday, May 7, 2004 9:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Channain:
What are we fighting for again?

To destroy the nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Oops. How about democratization? No, I know: de-Ba'athification, yeah. Um, to stop torture? Stay tuned.

--
I am Jack's username
FTL in Firefly? < http://jack.p5.org.uk/ftl-firefly.en.html>
Support our serial killers.

IAMJACKSUSERNAME

Sunday, May 9, 2004 3:23 PM

Channain asked where are these pictures came from.

The photographs released so far were taken between October and December 2003 at Abu Ghraib prison. Amnesty International and the Red Cross have asked for investigations of widespread killings and torture there long before these specific events happened.

Reservist army specialist Joseph Darby was given a CD with about a thousand photos. Unlike most other soldiers there, he was outraged. On 13 January 2004 he left an anonymous note under the door of the army Criminal Investigation team. He later made a sworn statement.

A guard leader and a company commander at the prison is suspended from duty on 18 January.

On 31 January Major General Antonio Taguba is told to investiate.

Sometime around early February GWB is told about
the charges by Donald Rumsfeld.

Taguba presents his now infamous classified report on 12 March. Eight days later 6 soldiers face charges.

Gen. Richard Myers asks CBS-TV to delay showing the photos they received. The photos are shown on 60 minutes II after other journalists say they'll do it if CBS doesn't.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4765683.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/07/1083911410214.html
--
I am Jack's username
FTL in Firefly? < http://jack.p5.org.uk/ftl-firefly.en.html>
Support our serial killers.

Edited to fix URLs and some copyedit.

SHINY

Sunday, May 9, 2004 3:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Channain:
How can Bush support Rumsfeld?

After branding Kerry a waffler, and after having stood behind Rumsfeld publicly more than once, Bush can't afford to dilute his public image of confidence, conviction, and consistency by admitting he made a mistake in hiring him or keeping him onboard for so long. As in other situations, Bush will stand by his previous (and preconceived) decisions and opinions, facts be dammned. Apparently there are a not insubstantial percentage of the American public who view this as strength.

Quote:

What were those soldiers thinking? First, to do what they did at all, let alone take pictures of it.

According to McCain and other experienced senators/congressmen investigating this, it's not just six junior soldiers who one day decided to do this out of the blue (and somehow obtained hoods, electrodes/wires, etc. in the middle of Iraq) but rather it was a result of orders to 'soften up' the prisoners for interrogation by the intelligence branch(es) by humiliating and attempting to break prisoners through sexual abuse (apparently, among neocon schools of 'thought', arabs are especially susceptible to sexual humilation...Rush Limbaugh applauds this behavior, without reprimand or censure from the white house I might add)

Quote:

Where are these pictures coming from?

Digital cameras, laptops, and internet connections really are everywhere. It's also possible that some of the pictures were taken on orders so they could show them to the prisoners later to reinforce the humiliation and further "soften up" the prisoners.

Quote:

What are we fighting for again?

Well, the excuses are pretty much gone now. The first excuse, ties to 9/11, was found to be without evidence to support it. The second argument, MWDs, likewise was found to be baseless. The fallback argument, that we are bringing democracy and liberation and civilization to the people of Iraq and will provide a shining example of how to govern a free people to all the countries of the middle east...well, that seems unlikely given how our international credibility is at an all time low (but as a consolation, hatred and distrust of us is at an all-time high! -- hey, now maybe enough terrorists will spawn from this area that we can support our claim of a connection with Iraq and global terrorism!!!)

The real reason behind all this, as documented by people close to the administration (until they were smeared and character-assassinated after they told the public the truth), is that the neoconservatives in power simply wanted to extend American military influence over the region, in order to better counter/prevent/preempt potential future/imagined threats to our country or it's "interests" (I personally think that all of the money and resources invested in this war would have been better strategically spent on simply undermining their cash cow by investing in research in alternative energy sources -- maybe someone needs to start a campaign about 'winning the war on terrorism with solar power' or something...)

Please help Haken keep this site running by occasionally clicking on some of the sponsored ad links on the side of the page!

GINOBIFFARONI

Sunday, May 9, 2004 4:02 PM

The only things Rumsfeld can be held accountable for

1. Was once the allegations came to light, did the chain of command investigate and rectify the issue in a timely manner ?

2. Was there a cover up or an attempted cover up ?

As to point one, John McCain was just being interviewed on TV, and according to him the allegations have been around for a year.... They have been made not only by the International Red Cross and Amesty International, but also by Colin Powell, Paul Bremer, and some un-named sources within the Military chain of command.

Were these ignored completely and the problem allowed to continue? And if so where did that order come from ?

Point Two will only be answered once point one is........

" Thats not fair !!!!
I didn't even have a soul when I did that!"

ROCKETJOCK

Sunday, May 9, 2004 9:27 PM

Headline from the Contra Costa Times 5/8/2004:
Rumsfeld takes responsibility for prison abuse, won't resign

I'm reminded of the words celebrity impressionist David Frye put in Richard Nixon's mouth about thirty-two years ago:

I accept responsibilty for the Watergate break-ins. But not the blame. Let me explain the difference: People who are responsible keep their jobs; people who are to blame do not."

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

"You can't enslave a free man. The most you can do is kill him." -- Robert A. Heinlein

HERO

Monday, May 10, 2004 3:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
But true freedom would also include the right to reject

" Your Truth, Your justice and Your American Way. "
B]

In the beginning all the world was America.

I think people need to understand that American ideals are not the sole property of those of us living in the United States. If the freedom is the natural state of Man, then those truths we hold to be self evident must apply to all Mankind.

This country, this governemt has never claimed perfection. We claim only to be "more perfect". We recognize the importence of truth and justice. We seek to protect them and provide them to our people. Just who are "our people"? The answer is everyone, everywhere. The whole world has come here, every nation, every culture, every religion, has come to share in our vision. Sure we have our faults and bumps, but together we get by, we build, rebuild, and move foreward. That is the American Way.

Do we have the right to inflict our ways on other nations?

Yes. Why?

Because the birthright of every child is liberty, not a suicide jacket. Every woman is born with the ability and God given right to be an equal to all, not a slave to men. Because rape, torture, and abuse are crimes, not instruments of government. Because instruments of mass destruction and terror are too dangerous to be left in the hands of those who would use them.

Can you imagine where we'd be if our great experiment had simply failed. A world of slaves and tyrants locked in a cycle of war each more devestating then the last.

Where's the hope in that?

H

GINOBIFFARONI

Monday, May 10, 2004 4:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

In the beginning all the world was America.

I think people need to understand that American ideals are not the sole property of those of us living in the United States. If the freedom is the natural state of Man, then those truths we hold to be self evident must apply to all Mankind.

I would suggest your present government and the original framers of your constitution would find themselves having serious issues...

Quote:

This country, this government has never claimed perfection. We claim only to be "more perfect". We recognize the importence of truth and justice. We seek to protect them and provide them to our people. Just who are "our people"? The answer is everyone, everywhere. The whole world has come here, every nation, every culture, every religion, has come to share in our vision. Sure we have our faults and bumps, but together we get by, we build, rebuild, and move foreward. That is the American Way.

But that could be said of many countries, some who step it even further. If your statements were the truth, then why are so many opposed to your actions?, if Truth and Justice are what you seek then why reject the Scrutiny of the International Criminal Court?

Quote:

Do we have the right to inflict our ways on other nations?

Yes. Why?

Because the birthright of every child is liberty, not a suicide jacket. Every woman is born with the ability and God given right to be an equal to all, not a slave to men. Because rape, torture, and abuse are crimes, not instruments of government.

Not long ago your government debated the use of torture as a instrument of government, some of your troops seem to do it on their own, and many feel that your country ( by its words and acts ) is trying to place itself above all anothers - not exist as equals

Quote:

Because instruments of mass destruction and terror are too dangerous to be left in the hands of those who would use them.

So far the US has been the only ones to use them, and the one who has threatened the use of them the most. I can understand wanting to have them to use as a deterent against the US

Quote:

Can you imagine where we'd be if our great experiment had simply failed. A world of slaves and tyrants locked in a cycle of war each more devestating then the last.

Has it really suceeded ? Or have you evolved from slaves to tyrants by proxy. The British stepped in and ruled their colonys directly, placed their military forces in place to enforce their laws and dominated the areas economicly. The only difference I see is America now likes to stick a local regime into power and pull the strings from the background while preaching words like freedom and liberty while their acts remove any meaning the words once had...

Quote:

Where's the hope in that?

A fair question, if your troops came to my country though, I would fight.

" Thats not fair !!!!
I didn't even have a soul when I did that!"

SERGEANTX

Monday, May 10, 2004 6:25 AM

Does anyone else here pretty much skip over any post that quotes another, line by line, meticulously deconstructing it in painstaking detail? I don't want to be a complete ass, but it's just such an obnoxious and overused form of online discourse. If it is indeed discourse. It's usually just a set up for thinly disguised straw man retorts. Plus, it wears out my scroll wheel.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

HKCAVALIER

Monday, May 10, 2004 7:30 AM

They seem to go hand in hand with the overlong manifestos which they rebut.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SHINY

Monday, May 10, 2004 4:20 PM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=2&u=/nm/20040510
/pl_nm/iraq_abuse_rumsfeld_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The independent Army Times newspaper, read widely in the U.S. military, on Monday suggested Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon (news - web sites) civilian and military leaders should be removed over the Iraq (news - web sites) prisoner abuse scandal.

"This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential -- even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war," the private weekly newspaper said in an editorial.

Please help Haken keep this site running by occasionally clicking on some of the sponsored ad links on the side of the page!

RUXTON

Monday, May 10, 2004 4:53 PM

The responsibility goes right to the top. Bush, and we must assume he knew, is ultimately responsible. Rumsfeld will almost certainly go, as a scapegoat for Bush. Bush needs to let him go, in an attempt to show the country he's taking really serious action. However, just as Bush apologized too late, any action against Rumsfeld at this point will be seen as happening too late. At this point, too many people realize the immense and ongoing failures of this administration for it to persist. (Vote for Kucinich.)

The world sees this once-shining country now as a dim bulb growing dimmer by the day, and the only way to attempt to rectify the damage (which many say is impossible) would be to clean house in Washington. Yet many, worldwide, realize that won't really accomplish anything because the corruption is far too rampant.

.......Ruxton

GUNRUNNER

Monday, May 10, 2004 5:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:
Quote:
Because instruments of mass destruction and terror are too dangerous to be left in the hands of those who would use them.

So far the US has been the only ones to use them, and the one who has threatened the use of them the most. I can understand wanting to have them to use as a deterent against the US

Actually several nations have used WMDs during war. The US use of the A-Bomb in WWII, the Iraqi use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war and to suppress insurgents after the 1st gulf war, and the Soviets used of chemical weapons against Afghani/Foreign forces in the caves of Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation are just a few of the well known instances.

The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

GINOBIFFARONI

Monday, May 10, 2004 11:20 PM

That depends of the definition of WMD that you accept, Nukes even tactical one fall into the catagory, Biologicals also do.

Chemical weapons including Nerve Gas, Mustard Gas, etc really don't.

Anyway, that was the scope of the NATO NBCW-Defence ( Nuclear Biological Chemical Warfare )handbook that I was issued during training in 1989....

" Thats not fair !!!!
I didn't even have a soul when I did that!"

GINOBIFFARONI

Monday, May 10, 2004 11:24 PM

" it's just such an obnoxious and overused form of online discourse. "

I felt the person I was responding to made some good points mixed with some I disagreed with, I don't normally break a post down like that but felt each point deserved a bit of debate.

If you have any suggestion on how I could accomplish that in another format, I would take it as a kindness....

" Thats not fair !!!!
I didn't even have a soul when I did that!"

SERGEANTX

Monday, May 10, 2004 11:31 PM

Ignore me Gino. Chalk it up to a bad mood. I read your post and pretty much agreed with what you had to say. The quoting frenzy thing bothers me cause its often abused, but your post was hardly a case of that.
SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

ZORIAH

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 10:44 AM

I'm enjoying this discussion, but I have a newbie question: what is the 'straw man' in reference to? I have seen it mentioned before and don't understand its meaning.

COWARD

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 11:50 AM

Hero:
I found your post understandabel and shocking at the same time. Is it really possible that you think of your country as better than the rest of the world? Is it really possible that you without scrutiny accept this as a universal truth?
Sure there may be many things that are really good about the US, there may be many things that are better than in the rest of the world, but there are many things elsewhere that are better than in the US. Believing that you are superior in every way possible is called nationalism. Believing that citizens of you country deserve better because your country is superior is called national socialism, not something anyone would generally want to associate themselves with.
I have never claimed that any country is the greatest, best or "most perfect" in the world, simply because there is a downside to everything. What you or I may perceive as a great country, an unemployed, homeless, discriminated immigrant may regard as total hell.
I do not doubt your reasons, bringing democracy and equality to the rest of the world is a noble cause. Just never ever assume that your way is the right way. It may be the right way for you, but consider whether the Iraqi people are really better of without Saddam. Remember the months without water or electricity, the collapse of infrastructure and oil-production. Remember how the next governament will undoubtedly have a more extremist interpretation of Islam than Saddam, where women will be oppressed more than they were before, then consider whether it was all really worth it.

HERO

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 1:27 PM

Its a legal term. It allows you to convey property to a fictional entity for the sole purpose of then conveying that property back to yourself. It had a variety of uses, most dealing with various forms of estates and trusts or transfer of various interests, but now has been eliminated in most jurisdictions. I think California still uses them, but the Californians were always big into legal fictions.

In this context its probably being used in a political context that is confusing and technically incorrect.

H

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 1:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:
I'm enjoying this discussion, but I have a newbie question: what is the 'straw man' in reference to? I have seen it mentioned before and don't understand its meaning.

The straw man argument is a technique, usually considered fallacious, wherein you restate your 'opponent's' argument in a way that will distort its meaning or focus. This might be done by taking a single line out of context, or by focusing your rebuttal on select statements that don't accurately represent the overall point they were trying to make.

You then point out the weaknesses of the distorted argument. Online, this is usually done by isolating specific lines out of context and attacking them with vim and vigor. The overall effect is to seem as though you've disproven the other person's argument thoroughly, even though you've completely ignored, or distorted the actually point they were making.

It works much better online than in a live setting because, in person, its relatively easy for the other person to stop you in midstride and call bullshit. In a forum you can go on and on and on with this, often boring readers into conceeding that you must be right since you've disproven nearly every statement the other poster made.

The term comes from the idea of building a 'straw man' that will be easy to knock down.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FIREFLYWILDCARD1

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 2:15 PM

The abuse and torture of prisoners, foreign or domestic, is unacceptable. I believe that Bush knew what was going on in the Iraq prisons, he might not have known the exact details, but he knew that the interrogators weren't just asking questions. He knew they were softening their prisoners up. Rumsfeld knew as well. I would like to see Bush and Rumsfeld take responsibility for their actions/policies/decisions/lack of actions. And what I mean by responsibility is more than say the words "I'm sorry." Those words don't mean a thing. He can say them all he wants but he doesn't necessarily have the sentiment that is supposed to go with them. They need to make reparations to the prisoners, not just the ones in the pictures but all who were tortured. However, the troops who actually did the torturing also need to be held accountable and responsible for their actions. They don't have the right to question and/or disobey LAWFUL orders. The key word there is "lawful". According to the Geneva conventions and laws within the US, torture and softening up of the prisoners is not lawful.

What did he think was going to happen when he sent troops into Iraq? I seriously hope he didn't think the people were going to jump with joy and welcome the US with open arms. Many people, who have kept up with world news, knew that it was going to turn ugly. That many Iraqis would not accept any government the US set up. Many people also knew that the fighting wasn't going to end with the Iraqi amry's surrender. The big army wasn't the main threat, it was the forces that did guerilla warfare that Bush should have been worried about.

I don't believe Americans have the right to just march into any country they please and take over.

Where are the WMDs? That is the sole reason Bush started this war, he stated that as the reason in his State of the Union address. I would really like to see the pictures that the intelligence community allegedly showed Bush. Because so far, the forces in Iraq haven't found any. Nor have they found traces of such weapons.

I'm ashamed of what our government has done. I sincerely hope that our troops are allowed to come home soon. I support our troops and am saddened by the losses and sacrifices their families have suffered.

HERO

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 2:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fireflywildcard1:

Where are the WMDs? That is the sole reason Bush started this war, he stated that as the reason in his State of the Union address. I would really like to see the pictures that the intelligence community allegedly showed Bush. Because so far, the forces in Iraq haven't found any. Nor have they found traces of such weapons.

Sole reason? Its been awhile but maybe you should review the text of the speech. Here:

"Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

Thanks to CNN for providing the transcript.

Bush also mentions WMD's. However, it is Saddam's failure to follow the 1991 cease fire agreement or comply with Security Council resolutions, his connections to terrorism, and his countless acts of war against the United States from 1991-2003 that justified the eventual conflict.

H

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 3:06 PM

Putting aside the shell game of 'why we went to Iraq', I'd like to focus on something that bothers me about our foreign policy in general.

Isn't it the case that a population must take at least some responsibility for the nature of its leadership? That's the reason so many of us are upset about the abusive actions of the MP's at Abu Ghraib; They represent the taxpayers and citizens of the United States, and when they botch that up we raise hell.

We seem to completely ignore this concept when we're looking for excuses to invade another country. Saddam was an evil SOB, no doubt about it, but if the Iraqi people weren't willing to rise up and resist his rule why should we send our sons and daughters over there to die for theirs? Even if we're successful, people rarely have much appreciation for something they didn't earn themselves.

So we set them up a nice democratic government. The same cultural pressures and attitudes that paved the way for Saddam Hussein will exist after we're gone and most likely result in another dictator rising to prominence.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 3:19 PM

Certainly abuse and torture is a terrible thing. I won’t say that I don’t support limited torture, because I do, but I have mixed feelings about this, principally because I’m uncertain as to the reason or extent of it. But I’m confidant that will be brought to life and the soldiers punished, in some cases, regardless of their actually fault. So far, I’ve seen pictures of prisoners that seem to being humiliated by American troops. As unsettling as some of these photos are, if such action helps save the lives of American soldiers or innocent Iraqis then I certainly support it, as long as it does not extend into the use of pain.

I am reminded of similar photos and film footage of the kinds of abuse and torture that was conducted by the Iraqi government prior to US intervention. Men with arms and legs hacked; men bound and thrown off two or three story buildings and then their broken bodies dragged through town. And then there is Fallujah, where American were tortured and killed, their hacked-up bodies deemed to horrendous for television by the evening news. Then I’m reminded of the stories of children being tortured in order to keep their parents in line. Their fingernails pulled off, their genitals electrocuted, their eyes gauged out and their lifeless bodies returned to their parents as warning.

Where was the outcry over those actions from certain people who now claim to be harbingers of morality? Perhaps we need to show those photos on the evening news, as well.

I’m not justifying the acts of soldiers in these photographs, but I can’t help but wonder how these Iraqi prisoners really feel, because I’m sure that they know that if this were the tyrannical Saddam Hussein regime they supported, it would far, far worse then just pictures of the genitals. I wonder, if they are not actually relieved that the US is doing the torturing.

Certainly, let’s get to the bottom of this torture debacle. Let’s find out what actually happened, and if punishment is deemed appropriate then we should punish those involved. I think we should also keep our prospective here. Because if a little bit of hazing produces information that saves lives, that’s might very well be considered noble if yours is the life it saves, and in the world of Rogue nations and Tyrant governments, torture certainly has a far different meaning then we are giving it today.

I'd stay and write more, but I have to get to work.

HERO

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 3:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Coward:
Hero:
Is it really possible that you think of your country as better than the rest of the world? Is it really possible that you without scrutiny accept this as a universal truth?

As I said, America and the United States are two different ideas. My country is not 'better then the rest of the world. There is no reason why Iraq or any other nation can't be America's equal, and as an equal take its share of leadership of the free world. The reason they fall short is because their leaders and failed ideologies have made them less. We seek to liberate their bodies from the whims of the tyrant and their minds from the limitations of 14th century thinking. If they embrace freedom they can join the community of nations as friends and allies rather then enemies.

Granted this idea of international equality is not shared by all the western Democracies. France, for example, has recently sought to remind the many smaller nations from the former eastern block that they are not supposed to act independently contrary to French policy.

Quote:

Believing that you are superior in every way possible is called nationalism.

Guess I'm not a nationalist. I don't believe my country is superior in every way to other countries. Japan, for example, is tops in the video game field. Germany makes the best beer. Nobody can do italian food better the real Italians. I'm partial to Canada when it comes to perscription drug prices. Nobody does oil better then the Saudis (though I think the Texans could teach them a thing or two if we let them).

But, given a choice, I buy 'Made in the USA'. Guess that makes me a patriot.

Quote:

Believing that citizens of you country deserve better because your country is superior is called national socialism, not something anyone would generally want to associate themselves with.

If believing in freedom and equality of the races makes me a national socialist, then Hitler must have been President of the NAACP. Give me a break.

National Socialism is an ideology that advocates racial purity, nationalistic expansion (look out Canada), and mystical "hero-cult" worship of the "leader".

Quote:

I have never claimed that any country is the greatest, best or "most perfect" in the world,

I said "more perfect" not "most perfect". Big difference not the least of which is Constitutional.

Quote:

I do not doubt your reasons, bringing democracy and equality to the rest of the world is a noble cause. Just never ever assume that your way is the right way. It may be the right way for you, but consider whether the Iraqi people are really better of without Saddam. Remember the months without water or electricity, the collapse of infrastructure and oil-production. Remember how the next governament will undoubtedly have a more extremist interpretation of Islam than Saddam, where women will be oppressed more than they were before, then consider whether it was all really worth it.

Sorry for the big quote but I wanted your words in full context. If Iraq chooses to lapse into extremism then they will remember these days fondly. The days when any destiny, be it one of peace and prosperity or ignorence and conflict, was their's for the taking. Saddam's policies where suffocating the Iraqi people. We have freed them.

As for water and power and life in general, I think most Iraqis agree its better now then under Saddam. The first months were hard, but there was a war after all. Now it'd be a whole lot easier if these foriegn terrorists would stop blowing up water and power lines. But what can you do? The terrorists can't have a free and stable Iraq. An Arab Democracy.

The Iraqi people didn't want the war on terror to come to their door. But like everything else, it was Saddam's choices that put them in this position. Now its their choice what direction their future will take.

H

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 4:26 PM

Finn mac Cumhal wrote:

Quote:
I won’t say that I don’t support limited torture, because I do, but I have mixed feelings about this, principally because I’m uncertain as to the reason or extent of it.

"Limited torture" is kinda like saying someone is "somewhat raped" or "a little bit pregnant." I don't think you really understand what it is. The difference between fraternity style hazing and what's been going on in Iraq is that the boys being hazed, mostly, do not fear for their lives. The promise of hazing is that if they endure whatever they're put through, they'll be allowed to join the frat and inflict the same kind of suffering on new pledges themselves one day.

Of course, the moment the hood goes over your head in Iraq, it is absolutely natural to believe that you will be killed and forgotten. In fact, the current torture of Iraqi prisoners by Americans takes full advantage of that country's previous policies, particularly at the notorious prison in question, for its affect on the detainees. Saddam Hussein started the "softening up" process years ago and when we threaten Iraqi men and boys with torture today they know very well what torture is. Do you see how it makes us complicit with Hussein? Apparently, Americans have beaten and killed as well as raped prisoners over there, and people want to quibble that we didn't pour acid over their bodies beforehand?

As far as torture's effectiveness as a means of gaining information, man is it inefficient (not to mention illegal in every "civilized nation" on Earth)! Torture puts a person into immediate fear for his or her life and what a person does in that frame of mind is entirely dependant on what kind of person he or she is and has nothing to do with the "extent" of the torture. Once you have succeeded in making a person fear for his or her life, every further action is meaningless cruelty and punishment.

I can't believe we're still talking about torture like it's a coherent policy, an "effective tool" and not simple sadism expressive of the desire to destroy another human being whether spiritually or physically.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 7:25 PM

I understand completely what I meant by limited torture. It is not like saying "somewhat raped," at all. There is a big difference between using techniques to exhaust a person's willpower and using techniques to inflict pain. They are worlds apart. In fact, it is perhaps inaccurate to even refer to this as torture, because it is so clearly not defined by the connotation of the word torture. And if it saves lives to extract information from terrorist by intimation and humiliation then I support this technique. These are terrorists and militants who would sooner kill Americans, and very likely their own people, as look at them. From some of the comments, one would imagine we were talking about innocent victims. I have far less sympathy for them then I do for the innocent Iraqis and Americans they killed or were complicit in killing or will be killed without their cooperation. Cooperation that is not likely to be forthcoming without some kind of persuasion. If a little intimidation will extract information from these people and save lives then I believe that there is something very self-righteous about refusing to proceed, and instead posing these men as innocent victims.

The use of such practice does not in any way make the US complicit with Saddam Hussein’s use of torture. That's an absurd statement. And I have yet to see any evidence at all of American soldiers killing or raping prisoners as a means of torture, and such statements are very irresponsible without evidence.

I hope that these photographs do not represent any more then intimidation and humiliation. Time will tell, but one should not ignore the larger picture and paint the US in a vacuum. To do so will not serve the truth, only an ideology.

ZORIAH

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 8:05 PM

Have you not seen the recent pics of the prisoner being deliberately threatened (while naked and blindfolded) and apparently bitten by a vicious dog? Or the dead body on ice that has numerous bruises and wounds to the face and upper torso (a death being investigated). Or the prisoner forced to stand on a box with electrical wires attached to him and warned that if he stepped/fell off the box he would be electrocuted.

Bush himself has been reported as saying there are far worse photos than those published and that there is even video footage, and stuff that is of a 'disturbing sexual' nature.

If you haven't seen the photos already published by reputable news sources I suggest you go look at them and come back and tell us it's all just a bit of 'hazing' intimidation and humiliation.

I'm sorry but this is TORTURE. Torture is not only a physical abuse, but also mental. Check out the Geneva convention, I believe that mental torture of prisoners is also deemed unlawful.

Additional Protocol I, Article 75 of the Geneva Conventions, “murder; torture of all kinds, whether physical OR MENTAL; CORPORAL PUNISHMENT; and mutilation … are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by CIVILIAN or by military agents.” Article 31 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “NO PHYSICAL OR MORAL COERCION shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.”

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 10:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:
Have you not seen the recent pics of the prisoner being deliberately threatened (while naked and blindfolded) and apparently bitten by a vicious dog? Or the dead body on ice that has numerous bruises and wounds to the face and upper torso (a death being investigated). Or the prisoner forced to stand on a box with electrical wires attached to him and warned that if he stepped/fell off the box he would be electrocuted.

No I’ve not seen those photos, but I am aware that such photos might exist. I am concerned by them. If it is the case that torture involving the inflicting of pain was used on these prisoners, it is not something I would condone or justify. The offending US soldiers are receiving court-martials and I’m sure more court-martials are to come. These soldiers will be prosecuted, probably whether their actions were paramount to torture or not. If it turns out, as you claim, that US soldiers conducted real torture on these prisoners, the only thing it will change is that I will feel better about their court-martials.

However, none of this changes the fact that the individuals in question are killers and I have far less sympathy for them then I do for their victims. None of this changes the reality that information obtained from these killers has certainly been used to save innocent lives. No one denies that torturing prisoners is bad, but so is killing and torturing American soldiers and civilians and Iraqi civilians. Are we to avoid completely an avenue that will save these lives, so that we may self-righteously proclaim ourselves good people to terrorists who could care less if we were good or not?

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:
I'm sorry but this is TORTURE. Torture is not only a physical abuse, but also mental. Check out the Geneva convention, I believe that mental torture of prisoners is also deemed unlawful.

If "mental torture," as you say, of killers and terrorists will save lives then I am completely in favor of it. I will not confuse the topic with Peter-Pan logic. We do not live in a world that affords us the ability to act always as saints, though we may wish to do so. There are no good actions taken in war, but an action that helps save a life is as close as you might be able to get.

And the Geneva Convention applies to declared wars, and uniformed soldiers and innocent civilians. It does not applied to non-uniformed combatants without a recognizable banner.

GINOBIFFARONI

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 12:42 AM

Quote:

And the Geneva Convention applies to declared wars, and uniformed soldiers and innocent civilians. It does not applied to non-uniformed combatants without a recognizable banner.

So if I grabbed a couple of your " civilian contractors " or " mercenarys "

How much torture can I put them through before you'd object?

Hey just looking to help out the guys on my side so that makes it ok, right ?

" Thats not fair !!!!
I didn't even have a soul when I did that!"

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 1:03 AM

"Life is Beautiful"

What a great movie. One of the things I found most remarkable about it was the portrayal of ordinary Italians in the years and months leading up to the Holocaust. How ordinary people, rather nonchalantly tolerated people in their midst having serious discussions about culling out the inferior elements of the race and the need to put aside selfish moral concerns for the greater good of the nation.

I wonder how far it went before they realized that it had gone too far. Is it like the story about boiling the frog? Does it just get hotter and hotter until we realized we're cooked? I don't know, but I'll be damned if I'll back down and shut up because some people might label me 'alarmist' or 'paranoid'. I see some creepy fucking stuff going on these days and I see more and more people looking the other way so as not to seem out of line.

Reminds me of the Bob Dylan song: "It's not dark yet.... but it's gettin' there."

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 2:44 AM

Of the evils recognized in American slavery is stripping people naked for public display - like animals - and keeping them shackled and naked. Of the evils of Nazi Germany, is recognized people being made to strip - en masse - and being examined and herded like animals to their fate. Unquestionably, this is done under threat since no one would do this voluntarily.

Perhaps there are those who didn't see my earlier post, but this supposedly 'mild' degradation is unlawful under the Geneva Convention (which the US signed).

But more was done that that. People were burned with chemicals; males and females, old and young, were raped. People were beaten, bitten by dogs.

This is not just the sick fantasy of a few individuals. There is probative documentation from soldiers saying they were acting under direction of interrogators. And who supplied the hundreds of hoods? the photography equipment and supplies? the dogs? 'Stress and duress' is official US policy.

As for the presumption prisoners MUST be guilty - one of the people in the prison was an elected mayor. However, the US doesn't like the mayors to be elected, they want them US-appointed. So the US appointed a mayor, and the first thing the new mayor did was to claim the elected mayor was a terrorist. And off he disappeared. Most people are there for similar reasons - on the say-so of someone who may or may not have a grudge. And no real investigation is done into the truth of the allegations.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 3:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
So if I grabbed a couple of your " civilian contractors " or " mercenarys "

How much torture can I put them through before you'd object?

Hey just looking to help out the guys on my side so that makes it ok, right ?

Key word: civilian. Civilians, unlike unlawful combatants, are recognized under the Geneva Conventions, but it makes little difference, because few of the people we are fighting in Iraq have any intention of recognizing the Geneva Convention, were it to apply or not. And that's the reason the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to most of them.

I want to see evidence of this torture of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers that exceeds intimidation and humiliation. I also want to see evidence that these prisoners are not terrorists and insurgents but instead innocent duly elected mayors.

ZORIAH

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 5:13 AM

For your perusal Finn mac Cumhal

The International Red Cross details Abuse claims made in report to US and UK officials in February
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3700975.stm

The allegations include-

Prisoners were kept naked in cells, in darkness and without facilities

Prisoners were held for prolonged solitary confinement in cells with no daylight

The actions of coalition forces in arresting suspects appeared to go beyond any legitimate use of force

Prisoners were beaten, in one case leading to death

Soldiers fired on unarmed prisoners from watchtowers, killing some

The ill-treatment was widely tolerated, especially with regard to extracting information from Iraqis

Methods of physical and psychological coercion were used by the military intelligence to gain confessions

The report also says some troops told the Red Cross that 70% to 90% of those detained had been arrested by mistake.

Amnesty International claims that UK troops shot civilians while under no threat
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3701351.stm

Some Highlights: British troops have been involved in the deaths of 37 civilians since 1 May 2003, Amnesty says.

Only half of these are being fully investigated by the armed forces.

The most tragic case in the report was that of eight-year-old girl Hanan Saleh Matrud, alleged by her family to have been killed by British soldiers who had been stoned by mobs. No investigation was made.

Amnesty highlights the case of Hassan Hameed Naser, killed as he walked near a demonstration where stones were being thrown at a British armoured vehicle. No investigation was made.

CNN's latest article on the investigation into the Abuse by Maj Gen. Taguba
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/11/politics.abuse.main/index.ht
ml

Note this little tidbit:

Stephen A. Cambone, undersecretary of defense -
Cambone said that the U.S. government "made clear that the Geneva Conventions apply to our activities in that country" and said that "members of our armed forces should have been aware of that.

BBC's report of Taguba:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3703751.stm

Highlight - Gen Taguba told the committee: "A few soldiers and civilians conspired to abuse and conduct egregious acts of violence against detainees and other civilians outside the bounds of international laws and the Geneva Convention."

Detainees at Abu Ghraib prison were forced to commit sexual acts, were threatened with torture, rape or attack by dogs, and were hidden from Red Cross visits, "in violation of international law", according to his 53-page report which focused on blocks where interrogation took place.

And as for pics - check out the New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040517fa_fact2

Some graphic detail on a few of the images as described by the publication:

Another image shows that the man, an Iraqi prisoner, is naked. His hands are clasped behind his neck and he is leaning against the door to a cell, contorted with terror, as the dogs bark a few feet away. Other photographs show the dogs straining at their leashes and snarling at the prisoner. In another, taken a few minutes later, the Iraqi is lying on the ground, writhing in pain, with a soldier sitting on top of him, knee pressed to his back. Blood is streaming from the inmate’s leg. Another photograph is a closeup of the naked prisoner, from his waist to his ankles, lying on the floor. On his right thigh is what appears to be a bite or a deep scratch. There is another, larger wound on his left leg, covered in blood.

Don't take my word for it though, how about President Bush himself:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/11/1084041400746.html

"The president's reaction was one of deep disgust and disbelief that anyone who wears our uniform would engage in such shameful and appalling acts," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

"It does not represent our United States military and it does not represent the United States of Ame

NRKANGEL

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 6:40 AM

Discourse and a sandwich make for an interesting, if not intellectually taxing, evening!

It's funny. You can ask a dozen people who share the same interests (like FFF) about something like this and you get a spectrum of opinions wide as the 'verse.

One person says it's our duty and responsibility as the advocates for a free world...would we be as faithful to that if someone invaded us and told us that they were just trying to better our lives by making us live their way?

Another says that we're just being the bully on the block when we go in and turn their world up-side down. Does that mean that we should ignore the screams next door as a neighbor beats his wife to death?

Maybe the argument is about how we tell the world to "do as we say, not as we do". Of course, we could say that this fight is against an extremism that would wipe us out for simply existing where as we fight for everyone's right TO exist.

Listen, don't go breaking this down line by line because I'm not attacking any position on this board or making any point by my choice of examples. I'm just trying to say that we're not different from folk anywhere else in the world. We want the same basic things and have the same basic problems. I've seen it in the poorest places like Thailand and Ecuador and in some of the most developed like Japan, England and Australia.

Ain't a place yet I've found free of racism, poverty, corruption, hunger or crime. (Isn't that part of the bible according to Firefly? 500 years in the future and we're still just trying to find a way to live along with the rest of humanity.)

Each of you has an opinion to share and a point to make and that's a good thing. Not agreeing is a good thing. The evolution of society starts with the sharing of different ideas and seeing which get run up the flagpole and are saluted. But success is being open enough to listen to the other opinion and using the best parts to make a place better for everyone and not just those who think, look or act like you. Otherwise you may be guilty of the same thing you demonize in others.

Enough damned moralizing...I'm starting to sound like a gorram Shepherd. I'm thinkin' that it might be pleasurable to find out a little more about what's going on wih that new FF Movie...anyone got a plot outline?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 2:34 PM

ZORIAH:

Thank you for the links.

I was sort of hoping to find something a little more specific to the charges being made in this thread.

Certainly, the situation in Abu Ghraib got out of hand and something needs to be done about it; the problem is that there is little evidence to the extent that some people are claiming. Threatening the use of torture and using it are two different things. As far as being bitten by dogs, I don’t really know what happened in that case. Dogs are used by the military to control prisoners. If a prisoner got out of hand he might very well have been put down by a dog. There is nothing wrong with that, as far as I’m concerned. To claim that that is representative of torture is premature. As far as shooting from watchtowers, once again I don’t know what happened. Perhaps there was an attempt at a revolt, in which case I would have fully supported shooting from watchtowers. Some of what you present is collateral damage, not torture. I've not seen any evidence beyond intimidation and humiliation techniques. It’s possible that things might have gone too far even in those meager regards, but I'm interested in the more specific charges.

JASONZZZ

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 6:53 PM

Before anyone make anymore comments, you should be aware of an experiment done by Stanford psychologists in 1971 in a simulation of a prisoner and prison guard environment.

Basically, a sample of 24 college students were randomly splitted up into two teams: 1 set simulated being the prisoners and the second set simulated being prison guards. All of the students were "healthy, intelligent, middle class, males". Again no distinguishable differences between the 'prison guards' and the 'prisoners' at the outset of the experiment.

As the experiment progressed, the 'prisoners' increasing fell into the roles of mental anguish caused simply by being subordinated and the 'prison guards' increasingly stepped up their own 'disciplining' measures and became increasingly brutal and sadistic - all of their own without outside coersion.

http://www.prisonexp.org/

This is what can happen when human beings are put in charge of each other under those types of circumstances when there is no training, when there is a complete lack of discipline, when the leadership fails to enforce proper understanding of the limits of their roles.

The same type of situation likely applied at Abu Ghraib (please do also remembered that the problems were confined to Abu Ghraib with one particular MP company; the rest of the prisons/detention units in Iraq performed in outstanding manners.). The local leadership there failed miserably in getting the MPs in their units the proper training in running a detention center (remember, being a policemen and being a prison guard are different things - even in real life civilian world), these were also National Guard units that do not have much proper training and practice other than 2 days out of every month. Furthermore, the national guard units were also rapidly demoralized from being told several times that their tour would be over RSN (real soon now).
The local leadership there also relaxed discipline and (against Army Regulations) banned saluting, allowed the soldiers to wear civilian clothes while carry weapons and on duty.

All of these added up to a bunch of kids running their own show - left along to their own devise and kept dreaming up 'what else can I do to pass for the time?'. Without the proper training and with the complete lapse of military discipline coupled with bad morale, they were also very susceptable to outside ideas on prison treatments.

Don't take my word for it, take the Stanford experiement within context and read Maj General Taguba's report yourself:
http://wid.ap.org/documents/iraq/taguba.pdf

In particular, on Page 48, read how Steven Stephanowicz and John Israel lend their hands in suggesting to the local units in the different things they can do to 'soften up' the prisoners.

No, I am not saying that everyone single on of them were prone to the behavior. Read the report. It states very clearly that, some soldiers found the behavior repulsive and reported it accordingly. The behavior were also only prevalent to the one unit (372nd MP company), other MP battalions (774th and the 530th) were excellent in what they were able to accomplish despite what the cards they were dealt.

Don't let one single horrific act (acts here) bring down your beliefs in what fine accomplishments the rest of the Military Units are doing there.

JASONZZZ

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:
For your perusal Finn mac Cumhal

The International Red Cross details Abuse claims made in report to US and UK officials in February
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3700975.stm

If we are set out to condemn the entire US or maybe just the entire US armed forces for the stupid incomprehensible acts of a few, then I am suppose to trust the IRC? These bastards have been drumming up cash and misspending/misapplying them all over the place for years.

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:

The allegations include-

Prisoners were kept naked in cells, in darkness and without facilities

It's called solitary confinement. What's the rest of the context for this particular treatment? How many prisones, was it a correctable mistake, oversight, or a policy to treat all prisoners this way?

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:

Prisoners were held for prolonged solitary confinement in cells with no daylight

I would say no daylight in Iraq might be a good thing. Next thing there will be complains about "too-much" daylight, not enough fresh air, too much dust in the air.

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:

The actions of coalition forces in arresting suspects appeared to go beyond any legitimate use of force

Prisoners were beaten, in one case leading to death

Soldiers fired on unarmed prisoners from watchtowers, killing some

This in particular was a mistake in a mixed up on the ammunition used, the report is filed and the soldier reprimanded. No, it doesn't bring back the dead, but sometimes costly mistakes can be made.

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:

The ill-treatment was widely tolerated, especially with regard to extracting information from Iraqis

Methods of physical and psychological coercion were used by the military intelligence to gain confessions

hmmm... I think the same type of coersion and tactics are used by even police interrogators. They ask you confusing questions, they tire you out, they might not feed you regularly, they might withhold bathroom breaks. I am not saying that I like these things, but what are they suppose to do? Cozy up to you and whisper sweet nothings all the while cuddling up and tell you how great you look?

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:

The report also says some troops told the Red Cross that 70% to 90% of those detained had been arrested by mistake.

Isn't there a word for this? Oh, it's hearsay..

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:

Amnesty International claims that UK troops shot civilians while under no threat
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3701351.stm

Some Highlights: British troops have been involved in the deaths of 37 civilians since 1 May 2003, Amnesty says.

Only half of these are being fully investigated by the armed forces.

The most tragic case in the report was that of eight-year-old girl Hanan Saleh Matrud, alleged by her family to have been killed by British soldiers who had been stoned by mobs. No investigation was made.

Amnesty highlights the case of Hassan Hameed Naser, killed as he walked near a demonstration where stones were being thrown at a British armoured vehicle. No investigation was made.

CNN's latest article on the investigation into the Abuse by Maj Gen. Taguba
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/11/politics.abuse.main/index.ht
ml

Note this little tidbit:

Stephen A. Cambone, undersecretary of defense -
Cambone said that the U.S. government "made clear that the Geneva Conventions apply to our activities in that country" and said that "members of our armed forces should have been aware of that.

BBC's report of Taguba:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3703751.stm

Highlight - Gen Taguba told the committee: "A few soldiers and civilians conspired to abuse and conduct egregious acts of violence against detainees and other civilians outside th

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

GINOBIFFARONI

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 11:49 PM

Point One, even the US admits many of their prisoners held without charge were rounded up for questioning, or simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, so that would make them civilians right ?

Point Two, The legal definition of mercenary is a civilian who performs a military function. In other words any contractors providing logistic support, communications techs, drivers, security guards, etc would fall into this catagory. In this catagory they have no status or protection under the Geneva Convention.

My point with the previous post is that I feel that stating " it is ok to torture prisoners if it save American lives " is pretty weak, and if it is accepted then the opposite must be applied and it is acceptable to torture Americans to save Iraqi gurellias.

Only the US seems to accept this definition of " Unlawful Combatants " and as a point of law, should be debated in an International Court.

Otherwise there are other International Coventions which would still apply even if the Geneva Convention does not
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_comp36.htm

" Thats not fair !!!!
I didn't even have a soul when I did that!"

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 13, 2004 1:37 AM

Let's say we have a group of USA Christian missionaries traveling to Pakistan. They get caught up at a checkpoint, somebody doesn't like their papers, and they get their *sses tossed in jail until whenever. While in jail, they're stripped, forced to have sex, set upon by dogs, beaten, and a few are killed.

Are we likely to be telling ourselves, "Well, Pakistan is a violent and confusing place and those guards are doing the best they can suppressing terrorism" or "You know, that's really not so bad, ALL of them could have gotten killed" or even "They were in jail so they must have been guilty"? I think you already know the answer to that question, and some of you no doubt are thinking RIGHT NOW of ways to say "Well that's different!"

ZORIAH

Thursday, May 13, 2004 1:53 AM

Geee I guess a NAKED unarmed terrified man surrounded by multiple guards and 2 barking dogs was posing some kind of threat hmmm? Have you actually looked at that picture?

The New Yorker didn't publish the ones that show the same man wounded and bleeding and being sat on. I wish they had, I hope that all the torture pictures come out so that nothing can be hidden behind.

I abhor what Saddam and his cronies got up to when he was in power, and I abhor this blatant misuse of power as well.

Cruelty, barbarism, and the abuse of power over the weak and the helpless should be universally condemned no matter which side the perpetrators are on.

Yes, I suspect there will be the usual absolution of blame from the higher ups. The lowly reservists and other personnel who are charged will likely bear the brunt of it and be labelled as 'bad apples'.

Some tidbits from the Taguba Report which point to the fact that the prison was overcrowded with detainees of which many were deemed no longer a threat but where still being detained:

"33. The various detention facilities operated by the 800th MP Brigade have routinely held persons brought to them by Other Government Agencies (OGAs) without accounting for them, knowing their identities, or even the reason for their detention. The Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center (JIDC) at Abu Ghraib called these detainees “ghost detainees.” On at least one occasion, the 320th MP Battalion at Abu Ghraib held a handful of “ghost detainees” (6-8) for OGAs that they moved around within the facility to hide them from a visiting International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) survey team. This maneuver was deceptive, contrary to Army Doctrine, and in violation of international law. (Annex 53)"

"24. The screening, processing, and release of detainees who should not be in custody takes too long and contributes to the overcrowding and unrest in the detention facilities. There are currently three separate release mechanisms in the theater-wide internment operations. First, the apprehending unit can release a detainee if there is a determination that their continued detention is not warranted. Secondly, a criminal detainee can be released after it has been determined that the detainee has no intelligence value, and that their release would not be detrimental to society. BG Karpinski had signature authority to release detainees in this second category. Lastly, detainees accused of committing “Crimes Against the Coalition,” who are held throughout the separate facilities in the CJTF-7 AOR, can be released upon a determination that they are of no intelligence value and no longer pose a significant threat to Coalition Forces. The release process for this category of detainee is a screening by the local US Forces Magistrate Cell and a review by a Detainee Release Board consisting of BG Karpinski, COL Marc Warren, SJA, CJTF-7, and MG Barbara Fast, C-2, CJTF-7. MG Fast is the “Detainee Release Authority” for detainees being held for committing crimes against the coalition. According to BG Karpinski, this category of detainee makes up more than 60% of the total detainee population, and is the fastest growing category. However, MG Fast, according to BG Karpinski, routinely denied the board’s recommendations to release detainees in this category who were no longer deemed a threat and clearly met the requirements for release. According to BG Karpinski, the extremely slow and ineffective release process has significantly contributed to the overcrowding of the facilities. (ANNEXES 40, 45, and 46)

25. After Action Reviews (AARs) are not routinely being conducted after an escape or other serious incident. No lessons learned seem to have been disseminated to subordinate units to enable corrective action at the lowest level. The Investigation Team requested copies of AARs, and none were provided. (Multiple Witness Statements)"

JASONZZZ

Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:
Geee I guess a NAKED unarmed terrified man surrounded by multiple guards and 2 barking dogs was posing some kind of threat hmmm? Have you actually looked at that picture?

I saw the picture, I can come to the conclusion that you have as well. But we don't know that, does it matter if a man is naked or clothed? He can still punch, jab, kick, bite, scratch, maim, blind, and/or otherwise hurt someone just as well with or without clothes. It doesn't make him more or less dangerous, the picture is only one snapshot, we don't know what he did before that or after that. I know what you are saying, but I would very much like to know the context surrounding it and reserve my judgement on this particular picture.

Did you get to read the Stanford Prison Experiment as well? I am curious as to what you thought of that...

JASONZZZ

Thursday, May 13, 2004 5:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:
Geee I guess a NAKED unarmed terrified man surrounded by multiple guards and 2 barking dogs was posing some kind of threat hmmm? Have you actually looked at that picture?

The New Yorker didn't publish the ones that show the same man wounded and bleeding and being sat on. I wish they had, I hope that all the torture pictures come out so that nothing can be hidden behind.

I abhor what Saddam and his cronies got up to when he was in power, and I abhor this blatant misuse of power as well.

Cruelty, barbarism, and the abuse of power over the weak and the helpless should be universally condemned no matter which side the perpetrators are on.

but how do you think this happened? were the MP's 'bad people'? were they 'ordered to do it' and they stupidly and blindly followed along? We should all abhor these behaviors universally, but how did this happen?

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:

Yes, I suspect there will be the usual absolution of blame from the higher ups. The lowly reservists and other personnel who are charged will likely bear the brunt of it and be labelled as 'bad apples'.

The local commanders there are absolutely at fault for not providing the training the soldiers needed for their job - heck even the commanders themselves didn't know what the heck they were doing. But I believe truly no one understood that a simple lack and breakdown of discipline can lead to these sort of power abuses. If anyone is at fault, I think it is those two civilian contractors. The local commanders certainly laid the groundwork and the environment and made the entire scenario possible, the soldier themselves were just dumb drones being manipulated, but those two (Mr. Steven Stephanowicz and Mr. John Israel) took advantage of the situation and manipulated the MPs into doing their dirty work.

At the end of the day though, without a better understanding and acknowledging, on that dark part that we, as humans, possess, we can't really get a better grip of the situation and to avoid these types of cruelty.

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:

Some tidbits from the Taguba Report which point to the fact that the prison was overcrowded with detainees of which many were deemed no longer a threat but where still being detained:

These people were continued to be detained because they were at some systematic and sadistic whim of these people or so that they can be further humiliated - they were there because of the stupidity and the inadequacies of the system there. They didn't know who they have, how many, and when some one had escaped. The MP's running that one place were a bunch of damned untrained and undisciplined fools.

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:

"33. The various detention facilities operated by the 800th MP Brigade have routinely held persons brought to them by Other Government Agencies (OGAs) without accounting for them, knowing their identities, or even the reason for their detention. The Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center (JIDC) at Abu Ghraib called these detainees “ghost detainees.” On at least one occasion, the 320th MP Battalion at Abu Ghraib held a handful of “ghost detainees” (6-8) for OGAs that they moved around within the facility to hide them from a visiting International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) survey team. This maneuver was deceptive, contrary to Army Doctrine, and in violation of international law. (Annex 53)"

"24. The screening, processing, and release of detainees who should not be in custody takes too long and contributes to the overcrowding and unrest in the detention facilities. There are currently three separate release mechanisms in the theater-wide internment operations. First, the apprehending unit can release a detainee if there is a determination that their continued detention is not warranted. Secondly, a criminal detainee can be released after it has been determined that the detainee has no intelligence value, and that their release would not be

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, May 13, 2004 5:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:
I wish they had, I hope that all the torture pictures come out so that nothing can be hidden behind.

So do I. I hope they release ALL the imagines, including those of civilian and coalition personal being tortured, beheaded, chopped up, dragged through the streets and burned to death by men very probably similar to those in these pictures.

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:
Cruelty, barbarism, and the abuse of power over the weak and the helpless should be universally condemned no matter which side the perpetrators are on.

Yes, well if I may be blunt, this is the real world. And in the real world if stripping a terrorist down to his birthday suit, tying his hands, and surrounding him with armed guards and dogs will get this terrorist to reveal information that will save innocent lives then I am 190% in favor of it, as I imagine would very likely also be those innocent lives.

JASONZZZ

Thursday, May 13, 2004 6:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Let's say we have a group of USA Christian missionaries traveling to Pakistan. They get caught up at a checkpoint, somebody doesn't like their papers, and they get their *sses tossed in jail until whenever. While in jail, they're stripped, forced to have sex, set upon by dogs, beaten, and a few are killed.

What in blazes are the Christians (USA or otherwise) doing in Pakistan? I say they must have been up to no good. Trying to pass off a herd of lies to otherwise honest people - trying to get them to turn over their land and gold. I say feed them to the lions.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Are we likely to be telling ourselves, "Well, Pakistan is a violent and confusing place and those guards are doing the best they can suppressing terrorism" or "You know, that's really not so bad, ALL of them could have gotten killed" or even "They were in jail so they must have been guilty"? I think you already know the answer to that question, and some of you no doubt are thinking RIGHT NOW of ways to say "Well that's different!"

No, I said "let's feed them to the lions"

JASONZZZ

Thursday, May 13, 2004 7:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...
...
Perhaps there was an attempt at a revolt, in which case I would have fully supported shooting from watchtowers....
...

Finn... the shooting from the tower has been known to be a guard mixing up ammo clips. The guard mistakenly used live ammo instead of the crowd control ones.

In either case, I agree that - after seeing some of the other earlier riots where the al-qaeda suspects were able to get ahold of weapons cache and took over the detention centers. It should be standing policy to quash disturbances as quickly as possible.

ZORIAH

Thursday, May 13, 2004 8:35 AM

Extremist fanatics and terrorists who have been proven to have committed atrocities such as rape and murder and torture should be punished to the full extent of international law. No arguments there.

But what we are dealing with here are US soldiers/reservists who are representatives of the coalition which was supposed to be liberating Iraq, freeing its civilian population from tyranny and inhumane treatment. These were meant to be the GOOD GUYS, the people who are meant to stand for what is good and right about democracy and western civilization. You know, the upholding of the rights to freedom and liberty and such. And yet we find them committing acts and engaging in behavior that is not only abhorrent and sadistic but it also undermines what the US led invasion was supposed to be trying to achieve.

Isn't it hypocritical to deplore acts of inhumanity by terrorists/extremists while condoning those same evils to be used against others as long as they aren't our people?

It seems that people are making the *erroneous* assumption that all detainees held or brought to these detention centres are confirmed terrorist extremists who have important intelligence value to the coalition:

Check out these excerpts from Taguba's own report http://www.navyseals.com/community/articles/article.cfm?id=3474

1. (S/NF) MG Miller’s team recognized that they were using JTF-GTMO operational
procedures and interrogation authorities as baselines for its observations and
recommendations. There is a strong argument that the intelligence value of detainees held at JTF-Guantanamo (GTMO) is different than that of the detainees/internees held at Abu Ghraib (BCCF) and other detention facilities in Iraq. Currently, there are a large number of Iraqi criminals held at Abu Ghraib (BCCF). These are not believed to be international terrorists or members of Al Qaida, Anser Al Islam, Taliban, and other international terrorist organizations. (ANNEX 20)

33. (S/NF) The various detention facilities operated by the 800th MP Brigade have
routinely held persons brought to them by Other Government Agencies (OGAs) [CIA]
without accounting for them, knowing their identities, or even the reason for their
detention. The Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center (JIDC) at Abu Ghraib
called these detainees “ghost detainees.” On at least one occasion, the 320th MP
Battalion at Abu Ghraib held a handful of “ghost detainees” (6-8) for OGAs [CIA] that they moved around within the facility to hide them from a visiting International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) survey team. This maneuver was deceptive,
contrary to Army Doctrine, and in violation of international law. (ANNEX 53)…

A summary on Taguba's report on the abuse allegations
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,250496,00.html

Major-Gen Taguba authored the Pentagon report on the abuse that found numerous 'sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses' at the prison near Baghdad.

At the Pentagon's insistence, Under Secretary of Defence Stephen Cambone, who is in charge of intelligence, and other Pentagon officials also appeared with Major-Gen Taguba to testify on the scandal that has sparked international outrage.

Major-Gen Taguba said, however, that the abuse carried out by a few soldiers was not system-wide.

'At the end of the day, a few soldiers and civilians conspired to abuse and conduct egregious acts of violence against detainees and other civilians outside the bounds of international law and the Geneva Convention,' he said.

His report revealed 'numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses' against prisoners.

It said military intelligence officers told guards to give detainees rough treatment to facilitate interrogation, leading to the abuses.

And how about the comments of the US' own lawmakers after viewing 1,600 more abuse image and clips today?:

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?section=WORLD&oid=50897

WASHINGTON - Members of the U.S. Congress saw new ima

JASONZZZ

Thursday, May 13, 2004 5:41 PM

I agree with everything that you have quoted, that you typed, how you interpreted, and most everything you said in this last post 100%.

These are a few people MPs, and MIs types. But what do you think cause the problems at this particular site, while in at least 2 other sites, things were perfectly fine and even markedly outstanding - despite the common theme of lack of training, low morale, complete breakdown of discipline? They are people after all. What do you think led them to this? My take is that they slipped into their role - eventhough they continued to do what they thought were "their duty", that they continued to do what they were told are their responsibilities - because there were mix-ups as to who their chain-of-command were, and because those two civilian contractors kept feeding them suggestions on things to do.

One of the soldiers accused and pictured, Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick was quoted in one of his letters home:

Quote:

"I questioned some of the things I saw, such things as leaving inmates in their cell with no clothes or in female underpants, handcuffing them to the door of their cell. And the answer I got was, this is how the military intelligence wants it done."

It's easy to look at this as wrong to an outsider - I am not condoning this or rationalizing this as ok, I am simply suggesting how something like this could have happened - but if you are working in a place where most people around you are saying "f* this shit, I should have been home 6 months ago"; on top of that, you keep telling your superiors that you think something is wrong, but they don't understand what's going on; you keep questioning what you are doing because you really don't know what's going on (lack of training), there's no procedure and everyone around you are just inventing up new things to do everyday. People stopped wearing uniforms and there is no saluting (no military discipline). You toil day after day in the baking heat. I would suggest that without the training and the discipline, these folks just went into a very suggestive mode, simply slipped into the roles of what they have seen in the media and movies as "prison guards" coupled with the stimuli from those two civilian contractors and

what you see is what you have today.

ZORIAH

Thursday, May 13, 2004 11:08 PM

Yes I agree that discipline was allowed to become too lax, with the uniform issue etc. The lines were blurred in terms of the chain of command. There seems to be a lot of confusion as to just who was calling the shots and the role of MI in this particular prison. There is evidence that other detention facilities have had problems with detainee abuse (Bacca?) but Taguba also pointed out incidences in other centres where illegal and undisciplined behavior was reported and rectified.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, May 14, 2004 12:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:
Isn't it hypocritical to deplore acts of inhumanity by terrorists/extremists while condoning those same evils to be used against others as long as they aren't our people?

Well, assuming that I am condoning everything that has been reported to have happened at Abu Ghraib by American soldiers, I don't see how it would even remotely be close to being the "same evils" conducted by our enemies. So even in that instance, I don't see anything hypocritical about what I've said.

But I am not necessarily condoning it. I said on several occasions that I believe the incidents at Abu Ghraib may have gone too far, and these people should be punished. But that’s not something you’ll ever see our enemy doing, as they proudly use knives to pry the heads off civilians on national tv. And I think that some people need to recognize that. There is no moral equivalence between us then them.

SIGNYM

Friday, May 14, 2004 12:47 PM

Well, we usually don't air our dirtiest laundry on TV since we claim to be morally superior, but we've done things that are just as bad, and worse. Abu Ghraib is not the sum total of every bad thing that we've done in Iraq, and if we were to expand the scope under consideration I'd be hard-pressed to construct a case for us being the good guys.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, May 14, 2004 1:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, we usually don't air our dirtiest laundry on TV since we claim to be morally superior, but we've done things that are just as bad, and worse. Abu Ghraib is not the sum total of every bad thing that we've done in Iraq, and if we were to expand the scope under consideration I'd be hard-pressed to construct a case for us being the good guys.

Actually we air our dirtiest laundry even when we desperately try not to. These photos seeping out of Abu Ghraib are clear evidence of that.

So let get this right, you would be hard-pressed to construct a case for us being the good guys even though you have no evidence of any such actions that are “just as bad, and worse.” In other words, you are going to stick to a preconceived unfounded anti-American notion regardless of any evidence? (Incidentally, this is not a rhetorical question or one meant to offend.)

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

Friday, May 14, 2004 1:34 PM

We disagree on virtually everything, Succotash, which is why I almost never read your posts. But your rhetoric is coming dangerously close to the sort that cause my uncle to be shouted at, spat upon, and pelted with rotten tomotos when he came home from Viet Nam. You obviously hate the president and hate the war. And that's fine. But you damn well better separate that hatred from from the soldier/sailor/ariman/marine. Because none of us asked to go over there. Our government told us to go, and like good service men and women, we went. Don't you dare presume that the servicemembers are the ones driving this war. Aim your vitriol at the political system, not the military.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

SHINY

Friday, May 14, 2004 1:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
We disagree on virtually everything, Succotash, which is why I almost never read your posts. But your rhetoric is coming dangerously close to the sort that cause my uncle to be shouted at, spat upon, and pelted with rotten tomotos when he came home from Viet Nam. You obviously hate the president and hate the war. And that's fine. But you damn well better separate that hatred from from the soldier/sailor/ariman/marine. Because none of us asked to go over there. Our government told us to go, and like good service men and women, we went. Don't you dare presume that the servicemembers are the ones driving this war. Aim your vitriol at the political system, not the military.

My reading of 'Tash's post gave me the impression that he *was* attacking the political system/president/administration and their attempt to deflect criticism/debate by claiming criticism of the leadership/government is somehow attacking our troops/putting them in danger/not supporting the troops/etc. It may be true that 'Tash also does not support the military/the troops, but I didn't see evidence of that from his post(s) in this particular thread.

FWIW, I'm aiming my vitriol directly at the Bush (mis)administration. I always have and always will support our men and women in uniform who are risking their lives to protect our freedom and our way of life. I just think *we* dishonor *them* by unjustly sending them to war/invasion/occupation under false pretenses.

Please help Haken keep this site running by occasionally clicking on some of the sponsored ad links on the side of the page!

SIGNYM

Friday, May 14, 2004 4:31 PM

Not lack of evidence, just lack of photos. I'm not quibbling or meaning to offend either, but just because we didn't have photos of Saddam gassing Iranians and Kurds doesn't mean it didn't happen. And just because there were no photos of American troop coffins doesn't mean there weren't any.

Photos can move people, which is why the Bush administration -and all administrations since Vietnam- have been very, very, very careful about what gets on your TV screen.

I like to try what I think of as "analysis", although I'm sure professional intelligence analysts would laugh at my pitiable attempts. Sometimes the most important evidence is the timing of the news. Sometimes the most important evidence is what is NOT in the news. For example, what was world reaction to Berg's beheading? Under the CNN headline "Beheading Sparks Outrage" there were comments from UAE, Bush, Blair, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the governor of Pennsylvania, Jordon (which expressed "sympathy" for the family but did not condemn) and Berg's parents. THEIR outrage was actually directed against the USA government, altho you'd have to read to the very end of the article to find that out. What's wrong with this picture?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, May 14, 2004 4:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not lack of evidence, just lack of photos. I'm not quibbling or meaning to offend either, but just because we didn't have photos of Saddam gassing Iranians and Kurds doesn't mean it didn't happen. And just because there were no photos of American troop coffins doesn't mean there weren't any.

In fact, there are photos of Saddam gassing Iranians and Kurds, as well as substantially more evidence then that. It is a lack of evidence that you are operating on here.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I like to try what I think of as "analysis", although I'm sure professional intelligence analysts would laugh at my pitiable attempts. Sometimes the most important evidence is the timing of the news. Sometimes the most important evidence is what is NOT in the news. For example, what was world reaction to Berg's beheading? Under the CNN headline "Beheading Sparks Outrage" there were comments from UAE, Bush, Blair, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the governor of Pennsylvania, Jordon (which expressed "sympathy" for the family but did not condemn) and Berg's parents. THEIR outrage was actually directed against the USA government, altho you'd have to read to the very end of the article to find that out. What's wrong with this picture?

As far I can tell, the problem may be that you may be so insistent on searching for reasons to condemn the US that you have found evidence where none exists. In an article that spells out how brutal these monsters we are fighting can be, you have instead decided that there is some mysterious unspoken underlying pretext that makes the US the bad guys.

SIGNYM

Friday, May 14, 2004 7:11 PM

It's not "some mysterious unspoken underlying pretext". What I am trying to point out is that a lot of our news is government press releases by anybody from the local dog catcher to the President of the USA.

So, what was wrong with that situation, as described in my post? Unlike after 9/11, there was no reaction to the beheading from Spain, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Italy, Poland, etc. I went to The Guardian, to Christian Science Monitor, Asia Times etc. and I couldn't find a thing.

Here's another example: During Gulf War I, after about eight days of heavy bombing (when we were dropping over 2000 bombs per day on Baghdad and other cities) Saddam claimed eight civilian casulties and the USA claimed not to have killed any. The picture on TV ad infinitum ad nauseum was the "smart" bomb homing in on a fortified bunker.

I AM getting to a point! I'm just going by a roundabout route.

ANTHONYT

Friday, May 14, 2004 7:25 PM

Someone wrote:

Quote:
However, none of this changes the fact that the individuals in question are killers and I have far less sympathy for them then I do for their victims. None of this changes the reality that information obtained from these killers has certainly been used to save innocent lives. No one denies that torturing prisoners is bad, but so is killing and torturing American soldiers and civilians and Iraqi civilians. Are we to avoid completely an avenue that will save these lives, so that we may self-righteously proclaim ourselves good people to terrorists who could care less if we were good or not?

First of all, we do not know anything about the people being interrogated, except that they presumably had information wanted by the Intelligence community.

Second of all, if they WERE killers, there are punishments for that. Punishments that follow a trial. Punishments that do not include torture.

Third of all, is it acceptable to harvest souls and imprison them in hell for the purpose of putting the devil out of business?

Becoming the enemy doesn't suit me.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Friday, May 14, 2004 7:38 PM

Someone said:

Quote:
The same type of situation likely applied at Abu Ghraib (please do also remembered that the problems were confined to Abu Ghraib with one particular MP company; the rest of the prisons/detention units in Iraq performed in outstanding manners.). The local leadership there failed miserably in getting the MPs in their units the proper training in running a detention center (remember, being a policemen and being a prison guard are different things - even in real life civilian world), these were also National Guard units that do not have much proper training and practice other than 2 days out of every month. Furthermore, the national guard units were also rapidly demoralized from being told several times that their tour would be over RSN (real soon now).

I see this sort of thing a lot. Soldiers saying they weren't properly trained. Hadn't read the Geneva conventions. Didn't know what they did was wrong.

I'm curious as to what kind of training you need to act like a human being. These people were likely encouraged to do what they did by the Intel community... but they sure weren't somberly obeying orders. They were grinning like cheshire cats. Mmmm. Yeah. Reading the Geneva convention woulda cleared that right up.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

LORDJ

Friday, May 14, 2004 8:28 PM

While the photos were shocking (and by the way, the guy who several posts ago wondered "where the arbiters of morality were" etc. etc., they were saying the same thing they are saying today when those guys got hung in Falluja) etc. I think they are really beside the point. The US is fighting an insurgency, i.e. combatants who use their ability to blend into the population as a military tactic, and the only way to figure out who is who is to knock down doors and torture the poo out of folks. It is horrifying to contemplate but its necessary. I would go further and say that the central problem confronting the military is that the only way to stamp out the insurgents would be to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

The real questions are, a) what are our aims? and b) how can we achieve them? A lot of folks, including myself, opposed the war because we believed it would result in precisely the situation in which we find ourselves now, but that too is beside the point. If we believe that governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed then I don't think there is any way to argue that what is going on in Iraq fills that bill. And if the US continues the fight there it will only get worse--even if we buck history and manage to "win."

The fantasy many talking heads implicitly ascribe to is that there is a quick solution; Iraq is going to be a bloody mess for at least 5 years whether we are there or not. We did some Iraqis a favor (probably not the 500,000 that worked for Saddam's internal security apparatus, but who's counting) by getting rid of him. Maybe we should get the hell out of the way and let them figure out the rest for themselves.

SIGNYM

Friday, May 14, 2004 9:03 PM

I'm not sure we could win, even if we went all-out. Let's look at Israel and the Palestinians.

Israel has a tremendous military tech advantage: they have missiles, helicopter gunships, bullet-proof vests and helmets, tanks, nuclear wepaons etc etc. At one point they were even manufacturing chemical weapons. Palestinians have light arms, some RPGs, and explosives.

Israel has a technological economy and billions of dollars of US support. The Palestinians have a 70% unemployment rate and are by and large displaced farmers and shopkeepers.

Israel has physical control of their nation plus their occupied territories. While Israelis can travel pretty freely, Palestinians are hemmed in by walls and checkpoints- it can take a Palestinian literally half a day and three checkpoints to cover 10 miles.

Israel has a well-developed intelligence system: they live cheek by jowl with Palestinians (with whom they share physical characteristics) and know their language. Israel has practiced group punishment, preventive detention, military occupation for decades. Fighting the Palestinians has all the challenge of shooting fish in a barrel. I don't think that anyone could say that Israel hasn't been fighting effectively. But, can anyone say that Israel has "won"? Can anyone say that Israel is "safe"?

Now, if Israel hasn't won, why do we think we can?

ANTHONYT

Friday, May 14, 2004 9:04 PM

Someone Said:

Quote:
I think they are really beside the point. The US is fighting an insurgency, i.e. combatants who use their ability to blend into the population as a military tactic, and the only way to figure out who is who is to knock down doors and torture the poo out of folks. It is horrifying to contemplate but its necessary.

Wow. So the only way to stop Terrorist cells in the United States (combatants who use their ability to blend into the population as a military tactic)is to knock down doors and torture the poo out of folks.

What? No? Oh. Maybe that tactic is only 'necessary' for us to use in other nations.

Hmmm...

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ZORIAH

Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:08 AM

AnthonyT: If you scroll up you will see I have already posted some excerpts from Taguba's report that show that the majority of detainees at Abu Gharib were not deemed terrorists or insurgents with much intelligence value compared to say Guantanamo Bay:

1. (S/NF) MG Miller’s team recognized that they were using JTF-GTMO operational
procedures and interrogation authorities as baselines for its observations and
recommendations. There is a strong argument that the intelligence value of detainees held at JTF-Guantanamo (GTMO) is different than that of the detainees/internees held at Abu Ghraib (BCCF) and other detention facilities in Iraq . Currently, there are a large number of Iraqi criminals held at Abu Ghraib (BCCF). These are not believed to be international terrorists or members of Al Qaida, Anser Al Islam, Taliban, and other international terrorist organizations. (ANNEX 20)

33. (S/NF) The various detention facilities operated by the 800th MP Brigade have
routinely held persons brought to them by Other Government Agencies (OGAs)
without accounting for them, knowing their identities, or even the reason for their
detention.

So there is no evidence to suppose that these prisoners were all killers, combatant insurgents and terrorists who 'deserved' to be brutalised in the name of revenge.

Besides I really don't get the notion that cruelty and inhumane treatment of people is ONLY bad if it's done to us. Those extremist fanatics do evil acts so we should be allowed to do evil acts on their people (who may or may not be members of these extreme factions) in retaliation???

It's bad and wrong PERIOD IMO.

And it looks even worse when perpetrated by a coalition who has been claiming the moral high ground and asserting that their invasion is benevolent and liberating.

ZORIAH

Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:41 AM

Hero: This is what a texan friend of mine (Lisa) had to say when she saw your post. I wish I could be as articulate as she was, I am not technically from the US though (although a US citizen), and I thought you deserved a response from a fellow american -

"Just because we believe everyone has those rights, it does not give us the right to impose by force of will (and force of arms) it upon other sovereign nations, no matter how despicable we find them to be.

Our people are NOT "everyone". Our people are citizens of the U.S. The world did not elect Bush, hell, less than half the U.S. did.

Our "great experiment" still has plenty of screwups and has all the way along. We had our own taint of slavery even after our beautiful constitution.

"Because instruments of mass destruction and terror are too dangerous to be left in the hands of those who would use them." Do you think that we should also deprive the U.S., UK, and our allies of those weapons? Because we have them too, and we HAVE used them.

What we have said is "no one should have them except the people who believe as we do". That is not democracy, it's despotism.

"The whole world has come here, every nation, every culture, every religion, has come to share in our vision." <--?? Until the "whole world" participates in our democractic election process, and has a voice in who is doing the leading here and, if I might say, we don't even have that HERE, considering the outcome of the 2000 election), then we have no right to impose upon the WHOLE WORLD. If we do that, we are dictators, no better than Colonialists, full of Noblesse Oblige, patting the head of Little Brown Brother."

ANTHONYT

Saturday, May 15, 2004 12:22 PM

We are in agreement, Zoriah.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Saturday, May 15, 2004 12:40 PM

Someone Wrote:

Quote:
<--?? Until the "whole world" participates in our democractic election process, and has a voice in who is doing the leading here and, if I might say, we don't even have that HERE, considering the outcome of the 2000 election)

Your friend's good points would be better without mentioning the 2000 election. I've heard about the 2000 election a lot, due to my virtue of having been from South Florida and having lived there at the time of that election.

I remember in Civics class in the 7th grade, I learned that due to our election process, it was possible for someone to lose the popular vote but win the election. This is due to our screwy electoral process. It's the same process that's been around for centuries. Everybody decided to suddenly get excited about a phenomenon that has always existed, simply because it was a very close call between Bush and that other guy.

One of my favorite things to hear is how, if people in Florida knew how to count ballots, Bush wouldn't have won. The other guy would have taken Florida, by all rights, and we'd be living in a peaceful utopia of a world now.

Turns out, though, that Bush really did win Florida. A dozen recounts by a dozen agencies demonstrated that if the ballots were counted properly, Bush would have won.

The only problem with the 2000 election is the problem that every election has had since we've held elections. The structure of the thing does not account for each person's vote. The electoral process was designed and built with 18th century technology in mind.

So please, if you don't like the electoral process, say so. But don't harp on the 2000 elections as an example. 2000 was no different than any other, except that the losers were louder about it.

If anything, get mad at American Idol's voting process.

Now, as an aside, I think it's also important to point out that a democracy is not the only way to run a country. It's certainly the one I'd choose, but that doesn't mean I have the right to tell others to live that way. So no, we don't have the right to tell other nations what to do, nor even to enforce a particular political ideal.

We do have the right to kick a nation's ass when they try to slit our throats... but that's not the situation in Iraq, is it? I remember thinking, way back when this war started, "We had BETTER find WMD, because if we don't, we're going to look like the assholes of the universe."

Guess what?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

LORDJ

Saturday, May 15, 2004 1:09 PM

Maybe what I wrote seemed flippant? I didn't intend it to.

To answer you directly, I absolutely agree that we need to have single standards to evaluate behavior and tactics, and like I said I think the tactics being used are shocking and offensive, morally corrupt and deserving of punishment.

My point was to divert attention from a single incident and instead focus on what that single incident tells us about the broader military struggle in Iraq. What most news etc. is trying to put over is that the Abu Gharib torture was "isolated" when I think it is perfectly clear it is not. I don't think these kind of things can be justified morally under any circumstances--the best you can get is to say the ends justify the means (which of course never approaches moral justification), but even then my point was to say that the "means" have been and will be undermining our ends rather than achieving them. That is, I don't think that these photos serve as an indictment of our efforts in Iraq; we should never have gone there at all for the precise reason that, as many many people predicted, resistance to our occupation would result in brutal tactics and violence. And in the context of this resistance it would be difficult for the US to implant a democracy even if our policymakers acted in good faith.

I do think there is a meaningful difference to be made between insurgents and international terrorists in terms of motivation and location. Depending on how a given President (ahem) manages it, I think they could make it quite difficult for terrorists to blend in Muslim communities in the United States; the Lackawanna 5, for example, the 5 guys arrested in Buffalo I think 6 months or so following 9/11, all admitted to attending an al Qaeda camp. But they claimed that they had done so under false pretenses, and at least one of them had contacted the FBI following 9/11 to ask if they could render any assistance. My guess is that the vast majority of Muslims in the US are here because they like it (even if they might disagree with our Israel policy etc.). And US Muslims don't come from one nation but many, and probably the most nationalist of these are African-Americans in the Nation of Islam rather than Indonesians etc.

In Iraq we are dealing with a nationalist insurgency in its own nation, and to my mind the historical examples that fit are the National Liberation Fronts in Algeria and Vietnam, Mujahedin (sp?) in Afghanistan, etc. etc. The conflict is taking place in their country where we are an army of occupation that is actively preventing the formation of a representative national government, which means that there are base level policy grievances shared by a large number of the population of which the insurgents are only an extreme expression. The populace as a whole is much more receptive to their analysis (if not their actions) than our own Muslim population--which went to great lengths following 9/11 to proclaim allegiance to the US and distance themselves from al Qaeda.

Anyway, maybe this was buried in my earlier post, but I think Iraq is fundamentally a political rather than military problem and therefore requires a political solution--similar historically to nationalist insurgencies, which were started because imperial powers refused to allow subject populations sovereignty. And I think that by imagining the struggle against al Qaeda as simply a "war" our government has made a huge mistake, of which those photos are the tip of the iceberg.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, May 15, 2004 1:20 PM

I realize this wasn't address to me, but I found some of this rather interesting.

“Just because we believe everyone has those rights, it does not give us the right to impose by force of will (and force of arms) it upon other sovereign nations, no matter how despicable we find them to be.”

This I find a little strange. Would your friend have opposed removing the Nazis on the bases of their extermination of the German Jewish population? Did your friend oppose Clinton’s use of force in the former Yugoslavian state? If what your friend is saying is something she actually believes and applies consistently, then your friend must certainly have opposed the American Civil War, which was a use of force that ultimately imposed the Republican belief of freedom on Southern Democratic Slaveholding states.

“Do you think that we should also deprive the U.S., UK, and our allies of those weapons? Because we have them too, and we HAVE used them.”

Do you think you can convince North Korea, India, Pakistan, Russia, France and litany of others to get rid of their arsenals? If you do, and can then the US will follow suit very quickly. While France and maybe (big maybe) Russia might be willing to go along with that. You’ll find that nations like North Korea will not. And their arsenals necessitate all others. I’ll settle for keeping them out of the hands of terrorist and rogue nations, who would seem bent on using them to kill innocent people in their bid for world domination.

"Until the "whole world" participates in our democractic election process, and has a voice in who is doing the leading here and, if I might say, we don't even have that HERE, considering the outcome of the 2000 election), then we have no right to impose upon the WHOLE WORLD. If we do that, we are dictators, no better than Colonialists, full of Noblesse Oblige, patting the head of Little Brown Brother."

I see. So liberating nations so that they can participate in a World Democracy makes us bad guys, but nothing we do is justified until all nations can participate in a World Democracy? So the hopes and dreams of a world free of despotism rest squarely and completely on the shoulders of men like Kim Jung Il, the Ayatollah of Iran and Castro to give up their lofty positions. That doesn’t seem terribly Democratic to me or likely.

Other then that I think I agree with everything your friend said.

Also the moral of this story is that, it's not that simple. You can't tie the hands of liberal democratic nations because they don't necassarly act democratically in the face of despotic rulers.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:28 PM

Someone Wrote:

Quote:

This I find a little strange. Would your friend have opposed removing the Nazis on the bases of their extermination of the German Jewish population? Did your friend oppose Clinton’s use of force in the former Yugoslavian state? If what your friend is saying is something she actually believes and applies consistently, then your friend must certainly have opposed the American Civil War, which was a use of force that ultimately imposed the Republican belief of freedom on Southern Democratic Slaveholding states.

The Nazis were not removed on the basis of their treatment of Jews. If that was the only basis for removing the Nazis, there'd be no Jews in Europe right now. Nobody even wanted to take Jewish refugees and exiles, much less go to war ont heir behalf. You can throw that warm and fuzzy reason for armed conflict right out the window.

The U.S. has only ever went to war when it had something to gain from it, or in self-defense. We have never gone to war for altruistic reasons. We probably never will. Nor will anyone else. There is no United Federation of Planets cranking out perfect little people who only care about the fuzzy wuzzies. There's just us dirty humans on this dirty rock. Anything good that comes to people as the result of our military action is always a side effect, and never the primary intent.

As for the Civil War, that was an internal conflict within the United States, and slavery was a rallying issue, not the true issue. Kind of like how bringing democracy to Iraq is a rallying issue. It's not why we went in. It's the excuse we use to stay there. Something the people can get behind.

So... no. I don't think that going to war to 'help people' or 'end oppression' is enough. Judging from history, few people ever have. We go to war to serve our national interests. That's about it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 15, 2004 4:16 PM

FIrst of all, let's give ourselves a big round of applause for having an intelligent, nuanced, and well articulated discussion! I haven't had the time to do anything more than lob in a few posts, but I've really appreciated reading everyone's comments. Finn, Hero, Jasonzz, Zoriah, LordJ, AnthonyT and all the rest- you've made this an insightful discussion! You're all invited to Rendino's in Diamond Bar CA for pizza and beer. I'll pay for the first five pitchers and pizzas!

OK, now for some (I hope) equally nuanced and insightful comments. Hmmm... working my way bass akwards as usual....

AnthonyT- I agree with MOST of what you've said, but there are some important fractures in your last post. On the one hand, you say that "we" never go to war for warm fuzzies, but that they provide a rallying cry for "the people" to get behind. You're obviously assuming that "the people" who put the effort into the war, and the "we" who decide to go to war are entirely two different things. The schism continues when you talk about "our" national interests. If "the people" have to be winkled into going to war, are their interests really being served? The point is that the USA - or any nation- is not just one uniform blob of people with united interests. it's an intersting point that deserves to be dissected.

Finn- Strangely, I'm on your side on the BASIS of your argument (going to war for the good) but on the opposite side when it comes to the particular case of Iraq. I've been saying - since well before we ever invaded that hapless country- that our motivations are intrinsically bound up with the fact that Iraq sits on the second-largest proven oil reserves in the WORLD. If you've looked at the shifting excuses for our presence- WMD, terrorism, getting rid of Saddam, bringing democracy- you should have figured out that the real reasons have nothing to do with the stated reasons.

AnthonyT- the biggest scandal in the Florida elections was the 70,000-95,000 mostly Democrats who were knocked off the voter rolls for specious reasons at the behest of Florida Scy of State Katherine Harris. You should look up Pallast's article. Also, I looked at the raw data of the Florida-wide recount done by six media companies, using the various criteria for counting ballots (how many free corners, how filled the circles etc.) Of the 24 possibilities, Bush would have won 12, and Gore would have won 12. Oddly, the swing block was in the electronic ballots, not in the hanging chads.

Finn- I'm getting back to my original point about evidence. The point of my second example is that 90% of bombs dropped on Iraq were "dumb iron", and bombs were targeted at civilian infrastructures (ie. power plants, water treatment facilities tec.) Even if 50% of the bombs did nothing but blow holes in the sand, and the remaining bombs only killed one civilian each, you're looking at civilian casulties of 1000 per day- not eight over eight days.

To get back to what we've done in Iraq this past month: "Explosion Fill Night Skies of Fallujah"

www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/16/ret.ac130.profile/

The aircraft used in this case were AC-130s- heavily armored, heavily armed versions of the C-130 transport. Looking up AC-130s, you'll see that they are mounted with "40-mm Bofors cannon and a 105-mm Howitzer cannon. Newer models also mount a 25-mm gun, used to saturate a target area with extremely rapid fire." Also, they have a cruising speed of 335 mph, and although I couldn't find a stall speed I assume it's something like 200 mph. Doing a little math on the speed of plane and the firing rate of the Bofors cannon, you'll see that it places a shell about once every 60-100 ft. In other words, the AC-130 is NOT a precision weapon. It's designed to cut a swath with saturating gunfire.

Apply this to a city, and the only term that comes up is "massacre". It's been mentioned, quietly, on some public radio stations. My husband pointed out the C-130 characteristics, since he was in Budapest in 1956 and clearly remembers what 50mm shells sound like as

ANTHONYT

Saturday, May 15, 2004 4:34 PM

Someone Said:

Quote:

The aircraft used in this case were AC-130s- heavily armored, heavily armed versions of the C-130 transport. Looking up AC-130s, you'll see that they are mounted with "40-mm Bofors cannon and a 105-mm Howitzer cannon. Newer models also mount a 25-mm gun, used to saturate a target area with extremely rapid fire." Also, they have a cruising speed of 335 mph, and although I couldn't find a stall speed I assume it's something like 200 mph. Doing a little math on the speed of plane and the firing rate of the Bofors cannon, you'll see that it places a shell about once every 60-100 ft. In other words, the AC-130 is NOT a precision weapon. It's designed to cut a swath with saturating gunfire.

Apply this to a city, and the only term that comes up is "massacre". It's been mentioned, quietly, on some public radio stations. My husband informed me of this, sicne he was in Budapest in 1956 and clearly remembers what 50mm shells sound like as they walk across a wall.

This information isn't complete, as you are assuming a linear flight path with apparently vertical targeting.

You also need to know what the turning radius of the plane is, and if it was circling, what the dispersion of shells would be if fire was directed at the center point of the circle's diameter.

You may still get a massacre, but over a much smaller target area. This is desireable, as you want lots of lead into as compact a kill-zone as possible. This is how I would conduct an aerial shelling operation if I was in charge of it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, May 15, 2004 5:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Someone Said:
Quote:
I think they are really beside the point. The US is fighting an insurgency, i.e. combatants who use their ability to blend into the population as a military tactic, and the only way to figure out who is who is to knock down doors and torture the poo out of folks. It is horrifying to contemplate but its necessary.

Wow. So the only way to stop Terrorist cells in the United States (combatants who use their ability to blend into the population as a military tactic)is to knock down doors and torture the poo out of folks.

What? No? Oh. Maybe that tactic is only 'necessary' for us to use in other nations.

Hmmm...

--Anthony

Thank you, Anthony! Yes, if we cared a fig for "the Iraqi people" we would never condone torturing any of them. The idea that torture is a necessary tool of some ad hoc international justice system run by the U.S. is a lie.

To those reasonable people who post on this board in defense of torture I pose these questions: Where do you get your information? Do you have the slightest idea what torture really is? The long term damage it does to people? Have you seen it? Been subjected to it? Do you truly believe that our success in the "War on Terror" depends on the use of torture? Do you have even the slightest respect for human life? (Sorry, this last question is a bit loaded I realize

, but when I hear people justifying depravity I have to think they do it out of a profound ignorance; that they don't understand that the victims of our righteous torturers are actual full-fledged human beings who may be entirely innocent and who are, by the way, born with the same "inalienable rights" as we are. Inalienable. Look it up.)

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 15, 2004 5:08 PM

Good points. Much is made of the precision of the AC-130 because of it's low yield munitions. However, given the fact that this is an urban environment, I think it's impossible to separate out the friendlies from the non-friendlies, especially at night. According to hospital directors in Fallujah, "most" (let's assume 50.1%!) of the 600-1000 casualaties were women and children. Given the population distrubution in Iraq (50% of the population is under 15, and 50% of the remainder are women) this isn't quite indiscrimate killing but it's not targeted either.

The other thing that needs to be pointed out is that the AC-130 is really only good for killing people who have no anti-aircraft defenses: ground troops with light arms. convoys, civilians etc. In other words, it's a people-killing machine.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, May 15, 2004 5:15 PM

Someone Wrote:

Quote:

AnthonyT- I agree with MOST of what you've said, but there are some important fractures in your last post. On the one hand, you say that "we" never go to war for warm fuzzies, but that they provide a rallying cry for "the people" to get behind. You're obviously assuming that "the people" who put the effort into the war, and the "we" who decide to go to war are entirely two different things. The schism continues when you talk about "our" national interests. If "the people" have to be winkled into going to war, are their interests really being served? The point is that the USA - or any nation- is not just one uniform blob of people with united interests. it's an intersting point that deserves to be dissected.

That is exactly right. By virtue of being in circles of power, money, and influence, the 'powers that be' will always have goals different from those of the 'common man.'

But look deep into your self. If Iraq wasn't the biggest oil reserve around, how anxious would you be to get this country into a war to save them from an evil despot?

The world is rife with evil despots that no one wants to go to war with. Stopping evil just isn't enough of a motivation for most folks. As long as the evil is way over there, it doesn't bother us.

They had to layer lots of reasons for going into Iraq. Stopping evil alone wasn't enough for us. It was a good idea, though. Enough to make us listen. Self preservation? Yuppers. We can get into that. Oil? Hmmm. Oil. I doubt the average American would go to Iraq for oil... but the dream of dollar-gasoline was probably in the back of our minds somewhere.

The government might have had Oil as concern #1, but if they told it to us that way, we'd have been turned off.

Now the only reason they've got left is oil. And we're being turned off. But it may be too late.

--Ant

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 15, 2004 5:24 PM

I think what you're saying is that from the "common person's" standpoint, what "we" want is a fig leaf (WMD, democracy, whatever) to cover our real motivations (cheap gasoline) and the powers that be (corporations, govt officials) provide that fig leaf to cover their motivations as well (more money, more power)?

However, I think you mistake MY motivations. You said

Quote:
But look deep into your self. If Iraq wasn't the biggest oil reserve around, how anxious would you be to get this country into a war to save them from an evil despot?

Actually, I was- and still am- completely against invading Iraq.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, May 15, 2004 5:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think what you're saying is that from the "common person's" standpoint, what "we" want is a fig leaf (WMD, democracy, whatever) to cover our real motivations (cheap gasoline) and the powers that be (corporations, govt officials) provide that fig leaf to cover their motivations as well (more money, more power)?

Precisely. I couldn't (and didn't) say it better myself.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 15, 2004 5:35 PM

Well, nobody can say you're a Pollyanna!

You've given me a lot to think about, and I have a lot of things to do today too. So, hold that thought and I'll get back here.

BTW, since you seem to know something about tactics and strategy, what do YOU suppose the AC-130 "spread" is? Best I can figure is 200 ft or so.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, May 15, 2004 5:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Good points. Much is made of the precision of the AC-130 because of it's low yield munitions. However, given the fact that this is an urban environment, I think it's impossible to separate out the friendlies from the non-friendlies, especially at night. According to hospital directors in Fallujah, "most" (let's assume 50.1%!) of the 600-1000 casualaties were women and children. Given the population distrubution in Iraq (50% of the population is under 15, and 50% of the remainder are women) this isn't quite indiscrimate killing but it's not targeted either.

The other thing that needs to be pointed out is that the AC-130 is really only good for killing people who have no anti-aircraft defenses: ground troops with light arms. convoys, civilians etc. In other words, it's a people-killing machine.

The only precision munition ever invented is a sniper's bullet. Everything else has a 'kill zone' and zones, by definition, are not precise pinpoints.

The AC-130 should only be used if you are sure that your 'zone' has at least a 90% concentration of baddies. I suspect the military may find lesser concentrations acceptable. Which is unfortunate.

--Ant

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Saturday, May 15, 2004 5:42 PM

Someone Wrote:

Quote:
BTW, since you seem to know something about tactics and strategy, what do YOU suppose the AC-130 "spread" is? Best I can figure is 200 ft or so.

I've read up a bit on tactics and strategy, but I'm lousy at math. I'll leave that to the fellow further up on this thread who was plotting shell impacts. :-)

But yeah, if I had to guess, I'd say the smallest kill zone possible with that type of weapon is about the size of a football field.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Saturday, May 15, 2004 6:47 PM

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, May 15, 2004 7:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think what you're saying is that from the "common person's" standpoint, what "we" want is a fig leaf (WMD, democracy, whatever) to cover our real motivations (cheap gasoline) and the powers that be (corporations, govt officials) provide that fig leaf to cover their motivations as well (more money, more power)?

...You said
Quote:
But look deep into your self. If Iraq wasn't the biggest oil reserve around, how anxious would you be to get this country into a war to save them from an evil despot?
...

Hey, Antony and Signy, I think y'all are neglecting another very real motive for going to war which I believe united this administration with "the common man," namely: rage and the desire to lash out. In addition to the neocon agenda of getting a toe hold in the middle east, I think the nation was pissed and the 27 justifications for war were just as much a cover for our vengefulness as they were covering any desire for oil. Indeed, I would say that the desire to lash out at "that part of the world" for what "they" did to us was crucial to this administration's ability to sell Americans on the idea. I think Americans wanted war because someone "had to pay" for those 3,000 lives.

It's something of an old axium of mine: People do what they do exactly because they want to do it. Or corollary-wise: the means is what we really want, now let's find an end to justify it. What have we actually been doing over in Iraq for the past year? Bringing democracy to anyone in particular, or killing thousands of people? Mainly the latter.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

RUE

Saturday, May 15, 2004 7:50 PM

Sorry about the error, I'm new to this.

I read an article I THINK in the Wash Post which discussed the error rate of 'precision' bombs. I couldn't find it again, but googling on combinations of words and phrases ("circular error probability", "shock and awe", Iraq, civilian etc) I came across some interesting articles:

http://www.earthisland.org/project/newsPage2.cfm?newsID=427&pageID=177
&subSiteID=44

This one discusses the mutually incompatible aims of "shock and awe" and "precision bombing". Now, how the Administration could trumpet both the indiscriminate firepower of shock and awe, and the purported life-sparing characteristics of smart bombs, and how the media could so reflexively parrot it, is infuriating. But the media's role in the duping of America is for another day.

At one point I did a calculation (based on available bombing rates and Bagdhad's square miles) and it worked out to one bomb dropped on each quarter-mile squared.

A google on "circular error probability" will give you the radius within which half the smart bombs (laser, gps) will fall, the other half will fall somewhere outside. About 10% of smart bombs fail completely.

It doesn't take much effort to find that between bombs and ammo, Iraqi civilians took major losses. How many that might be we'll never know, as Bremer shut down The Provisional Government's census.

RUE

Saturday, May 15, 2004 7:57 PM

I always think of it as the American joy in 'kicking some butt!', even if, on reflection, the butt they kick ends up being their own.

JASONZZZ

Sunday, May 16, 2004 7:15 AM

Witness the awesome firepower and accuracy of the AC130 gunship.

http://www.vampirebat.com/war/AC130_GunshipMed.wmv

Notice how the gunship is loitering over the target area by circling to the left. All of the main guns are pointed out the port side of the aircraft, so that's the main operating mode for the AC130 once it arrives at its target area.

JASONZZZ

Sunday, May 16, 2004 7:25 AM

http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?story=1400&go=4

SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T MAKE THE NEWS

Maybe you’d like to hear about something other than idiot Reservists and naked Iraqis.

Maybe you’d like to hear about a real American, somebody who honored the uniform he wears.

Meet Brian Chontosh.

Churchville-Chili Central School class of 1991. Proud graduate of the Rochester Institute of Technology. Husband and about-to-be father. First lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps.

And a genuine hero.

The secretary of the Navy said so yesterday.

At 29 Palms in California Brian Chontosh was presented with the Navy Cross, the second highest award for combat bravery the United States can bestow.

That’s a big deal.

But you won’t see it on the network news tonight, and all you read in Brian’s hometown newspaper was two paragraphs of nothing. Instead, it was more blather about some mental defective MPs who acted like animals.

The odd fact about the American media in this war is that it’s not covering the American military. The most plugged-in nation in the world is receiving virtually no true information about what its warriors are doing.

Oh, sure, there’s a body count. We know how many Americans have fallen. And we see those same casket pictures day in and day out. And we’re almost on a first-name basis with the pukes who abused the Iraqi prisoners. And we know all about improvised explosive devices and how we lost Fallujah and what Arab public-opinion polls say about us and how the world hates us.

We get a non-stop feed of gloom and doom.

But we don’t hear about the heroes.

The incredibly brave GIs who honorably do their duty. The ones our grandparents would have carried on their shoulders down Fifth Avenue.

The ones we completely ignore.

Like Brian Chontosh.

It was a year ago on the march into Baghdad. Brian Chontosh was a platoon leader rolling up Highway 1 in a humvee.

When all hell broke loose.

Ambush city.

The young Marines were being cut to ribbons. Mortars, machine guns, rocket propelled grenades. And the kid out of Churchville was in charge. It was do or die and it was up to him.

So he moved to the side of his column, looking for a way to lead his men to safety. As he tried to poke a hole through the Iraqi line his humvee came under direct enemy machine gun fire.

It was fish in a barrel and the Marines were the fish.

And Brian Chontosh gave the order to attack. He told his driver to floor the humvee directly at the machine gun emplacement that was firing at them. And he had the guy on top with the .50 cal unload on them.

Within moments there were Iraqis slumped across the machine gun and Chontosh was still advancing, ordering his driver now to take the humvee directly into the Iraqi trench that was attacking his Marines. Over into the battlement the humvee went and out the door Brian Chontosh bailed, carrying an M16 and a Beretta and 228 years of Marine Corps pride.

And he ran down the trench.

With its mortars and riflemen, machineguns and grenadiers.

And he killed them all.

He fought with the M16 until it was out of ammo. Then he fought with the Beretta until it was out of ammo. Then he picked up a dead man’s AK47 and fought with that until it was out of ammo. Then he picked up another dead man’s AK47 and fought with that until it was out of ammo.

At one point he even fired a discarded Iraqi RPG into an enemy cluster, sending attackers flying with its grenade explosion.

When he was done Brian Chontosh had cleared 200 yards of entrenched Iraqis from his platoon’s flank. He had killed more than 20 and wounded at least as many more.

But that’s probably not how he would tell it.

He would probably merely say that his Marines were in trouble, and he got them out of trouble. Hoo-ah, and drive on.

“By his outstanding display of decisive leadership, unlimited courage in the face of heavy enemy fire, and utmost devotion to duty, 1st Lt. Chontosh reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps

SIGNYM

Sunday, May 16, 2004 12:08 PM

SO, Jasonzzz (hmm, did I get that spelled right?) what do YOU think is happening in Iraq? And more importantly, what should we do? More of the same? Add troops? Withdraw? Change strategy?

SIGNYM

Sunday, May 16, 2004 12:45 PM

AnthonyT-

Thought about about what you said -the average American needing a fig leaf for complicity with imperialism- and decided that probably doesn't apply to most people. We've supported interventions that made no economic or strategic sense whatsover (Lebanon, Grenada, Vietnam, Nicaragua) with the same fervor and with the same rationale as some of our economically/ strategically beneficial ones (Iraq, Panama, Iran). Most people in the USA couldn't find any of these countries on a map, much less understand their economic or strategic significance.

HKCavalier- I think you may be a little closer to the truth, but that doesn't account for the interventions that we supported before 9/11.

I think in MOST cases our interventions are pretty well pre-planned at the top and the typical person is manipulated into them through fear and ignorance. Of course, many people remain willfully ignorant, but I see that more as an indication that the general population is brainwashed, and it would take a mighty change of mind and heart to have 20 years or more of assumptions turned around.