[POL] Winning Hearts & Minds...

[Jesse_Ewiak]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060128/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_leveraging_wives;_ylt=AgBGzttHVvP8rtJ5jYFWsDus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

The U.S. Army in Iraq has at least twice seized and jailed the wives of suspected insurgents in hopes of "leveraging" their husbands into surrender, U.S. military documents show.

In one case, a secretive task force locked up the young mother of a nursing baby, a U.S. intelligence officer reported. In the case of a second detainee, one American colonel suggested to another that they catch her husband by tacking a note to the family's door telling him "to come get his wife."
...........................

In one memo, a civilian Pentagon intelligence officer described what happened when he took part in a raid on an Iraqi suspect's house in Tarmiya, northwest of Baghdad, on May 9, 2004. The raid involved Task Force (TF) 6-26, a secretive military unit formed to handle high-profile targets.

"During the pre-operation brief it was recommended by TF personnel that if the wife were present, she be detained and held in order to leverage the primary target's surrender," wrote the 14-year veteran officer.

He said he objected, but when they raided the house the team leader, a senior sergeant, seized her anyway.

"The 28-year-old woman had three young children at the house, one being as young as six months and still nursing," the intelligence officer wrote. She was held for two days and was released after he complained, he said.

Like most names in the released documents, the officer's signature is blacked out on this for-the-record memorandum about his complaint.

Of this case, command spokesman Johnson said he could not judge, months later, the factors that led to the woman's detention.

The second episode, in June 2004, is found in sketchy detail in e-mail exchanges among six U.S. Army colonels, discussing an undisclosed number of female detainees held in northern Iraq by the Stryker Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division.

The first message, from a military police colonel, advised staff officers of the U.S. northern command that the Iraqi police would not take control of the jailed women without charges being brought against them.

In a second e-mail, a command staff officer asked an officer of the unit holding the women, "What are you guys doing to try to get the husband — have you tacked a note on the door and challenged him to come get his wife?"

Two days later, the brigade's deputy commander advised the higher command, "As each day goes by, I get more input that these gals have some info and/or will result in getting the husband."

He went on, "These ladies fought back extremely hard during the original detention. They have shown indications of deceit and misinformation."

The command staff colonel wrote in reply, referring to a commanding general, "CG wants the husband."

The released e-mails stop there, and the women's eventual status could not be immediately determined.

Of this episode, Johnson said, "It is clear the unit believed the females detained had substantial knowledge of insurgent activity and warranted being held."


What I have found amazing in all of the coverage of Jill Carroll's kidnapping is that no one has ever suggested it was done in reaction to the way the US acts in Iraq.

I guess US intelligence is so bad that they resort to war crimes to hunt down insurgents. Taking hostages is a war crime. I know it isn't a big deal to the chickenhawks, but to most people, it is a loathesome act.

Plus, it doesn't work. It just pisses people off and make people like Carroll's lives even riskier. She was listening to Iraqis. But if they toss your wife or mom in jail, you just don't give a fuck. She's an American and the Americans have your female kin in jail.

[amdaily]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060128/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_leveraging_wives;_ylt=AgBGzttHVvP8rtJ5jYFWsDus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-




What I have found amazing in all of the coverage of Jill Carroll's kidnapping is that no one has ever suggested it was done in reaction to the way the US acts in Iraq.

I guess US intelligence is so bad that they resort to war crimes to hunt down insurgents. Taking hostages is a war crime. I know it isn't a big deal to the chickenhawks, but to most people, it is a loathesome act.

Plus, it doesn't work. It just pisses people off and make people like Carroll's lives even riskier. She was listening to Iraqis. But if they toss your wife or mom in jail, you just don't give a fuck. She's an American and the Americans have your female kin in jail.blash fucking blash blah. idiot.

[JonInMiddleGA]

When you've got 'em by the balls ....

[Raiders Army]

What I have found amazing in all of the coverage of Jill Carroll's kidnapping is that no one has ever suggested it was done in reaction to the way the US acts in Iraq.
Maybe because it wasn't?

I guess US intelligence is so bad that they resort to war crimes to hunt down insurgents. Taking hostages is a war crime. I know it isn't a big deal to the chickenhawks, but to most people, it is a loathesome act.
Guessing was your first mistake. I'm sure you know the whole story.

Plus, it doesn't work. It just pisses people off and make people like Carroll's lives even riskier. She was listening to Iraqis. But if they toss your wife or mom in jail, you just don't give a fuck. She's an American and the Americans have your female kin in jail.
Carroll knew the risks when she went over there, just like each and every soldier.

[Dutch]

America is evil. God save 'The Resistance.' :rolleyes:

[Crapshoot]

America is evil. God save 'The Resistance.' :rolleyes:

Oh, save the horseshit. Your views fall into the "All people who disagree with America are evil" - America is perfect". You're not much better than Jesse - You're a frigging parody.

[Dutch]

Oh, save the horseshit. Your views fall into the "All people who disagree with America are evil" - America is perfect". You're not much better than Jesse - You're a frigging parody.

I don't think Jesse would like you much.

And for yoru information, I am in the military so forgive me if I get a little pissed when all I ever see in the news is how terrible we are from a news media that cares very little for reporting good news.

[Crapshoot]

I don't think Jesse would like you much.

Heh - I don't particularly care. Jesse's politics are nowhere near mine, but I find it absurd that you all of people criticize him for seeing the world in black or white terms - your criticism may have value, but the hypocrisy is amazing.

[Dutch]

Heh - I don't particularly care. Jesse's politics are nowhere near mine, but I find it absurd that you all of people criticize him for seeing the world in black or white terms - your criticism may have value, but the hypocrisy is amazing.

Then take the lead on this one then.

[JW]

The implication of the story is that the women were not at all involved in the insurgency. But I see no evidence to support that implication. Having knowledge of the insurgency and of the location of insurgents might itself be viewed as being an accessory to the insurgency.

I think it is far from clear from the story whether the US military acted properly or improperly in the incidents noted, though the implication the writer wants us to draw is clear imho. The fact, for example, that the one woman was released after the one officer complained does not mean that the woman was released because the officer complained. And the fact that the woman had young children at home likewise has nothing to do with whether she should have been detained or not. And the fact that the military hopes the arrest of a wife might lead to the surrender of the husband does not of itself prove that the arrest of the wife was improper.

While it would not surprise me that US forces may have detained some females without good cause, I'm not convinced by this story that anything improper occurred here, and there is no evidence of a widespread policy of unwarranted detentions by US forces.

I also see no equivalence between these detentions and the kidnapping and possible execution of Jill Carroll or other innocents taken and sometimes brutally executed by insurgent parties.

One can always attempt to justify the actions of terrorists by saying they are reacting to some supposed wrong.

[Dutch]

The implication of the story is that the women were not at all involved in the insurgency. But I see no evidence to support that implication. Having knowledge of the insurgency and of the location of insurgents might itself be viewed as being an accessory to the insurgency.

I think it is far from clear from the story whether the US military acted properly or improperly in the incidents noted, though the implication the writer wants us to draw is clear imho. The fact, for example, that the one woman was released after the one officer complained does not mean that the woman was released because the officer complained. And the fact that the woman had young children at home likewise has nothing to do with whether she should have been detained or not. And the fact that the military hopes the arrest of a wife might lead to the surrender of the husband does not of itself prove that the arrest of the wife was improper.

While it would not surprise me that US forces may have detained some females without good cause, I'm not convinced by this story that anything improper occurred here, and there is no evidence of a widespread policy of unwarranted detentions by US forces.

I also see no equivalence between these detentions and the kidnapping and possible execution of Jill Carroll or other innocents taken and sometimes brutally executed by insurgent parties.

One can always attempt to justify the actions of terrorists by saying they are reacting to some supposed wrong.

Well scrutinized, JW.

[Solecismic]

What's frustrating to me is that our military (and the Israelis, and anyone else who happens to fall afoul of some Muslim extremist) is fighting a group of people that specifically targets civilians, often hides behind its own women and children when launching attacks and generally uses every dirty trick imaginable.

But as soon as any U.S. or Israelis individual responds with any kind of remotely questionable tactic, the left-wing media grasps on for dear life, claiming there's some sort of moral equivalence.

I don't say this to excuse tactics like holding the mother of a nursing baby to try and smoke out the criminal father. But painting the entire military with this brush for one exception, when the soldiers they are fighting refuse to act with any honor whatsoever, does seem very anti-American. And I mean that term not as a patriotic one, more in a "I hate Bush so everything the government does is bad" sense.

Now, I realize the terrorists are outnumbered, and some like to romanticize their tactics as constructed out of desperation. If they were to wear uniforms and stand up like men and fight, they would quickly be eliminated. But hiding behind women and children and targetting civilians is just pure cowardace.

And it's a stupid tactic. Want the U.S. out of Iraq? How 'bout putting away the weapons for a few months? This romanticized "insurgency" is the only justification for the troops in the first place. And don't think for a second they don't know this. Extremists strengthen their hold when everything is in disarray. These attacks are designed to keep the U.S. military in Iraq, not drive it away.

[Dutch]

A general from the Air Warfare College was in my squadron the other day. And he mentioned that the term "GWOT" was slowly fading away for a new term "The Long War" to describe US intervention in the Middle East.

He also mentioned that the insurgency is a tough opponent that knows how to fight. Not by taking on the US military, but by taking on US opinion and willpower.

It's a masterful tactic with great vision. They knew we would be in conflict for a long time and are way ahead of us in the battle for "hearts and minds".

And it is my contention, that the "resistance"--not in their wildest dreams--would have found the US and European media on their side of this conflict.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

I fail to see the part where I back the 'resistance.' I just get a bit peeved when our own armed forces take hostages. I expect the terrorists to do it. I expect better from our Army.

Also, if you don't think this will play like gangbusters in the Arab media - then you're dead wrong. It doesn't matter how many schools or hospitals we build if we continue to act against our ideals.

As for 'why don't they stand up and fight us man-to-man?' Well, if the soliders in the American Revolution did that, I'd be sitting down for teatime right now. Guerriela warfare is what works when fighting an enemy with much larger numbers and firepower. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's a tactic. Asking them to fight fair is like Mike Tyson asking me to stay still when he punches me in the face. I don't think so. Stick and move and then hit him with a lead pipe.

[Dutch]

I fail to see the part where I back the 'resistance.' I just get a bit peeved when our own armed forces take hostages. I expect the terrorists to do it. I expect better from our Army.

It's a matter of ratio. You may not back the terrorists, but you are supporting the erosion of support for our side.

Also, if you don't think this will play like gangbusters in the Arab media - then you're dead wrong. It doesn't matter how many schools or hospitals we build if we continue to act against our ideals.

Again, it's about ratio's. One negative news article is a drop in the bucket. But that buckets about full when you look at all the shit the media has said about us. And then when you look at the terrorist's 'bucket'....it's plumb dry. The perception, which is where you get your anger from, is that US soldiers are generally bad.

But if you put 100,000 soldiers in a hostile enviroment, you are bound to find some soldiers that break the law, that aren't fully aware of the law, or are put in situations that is sure as hell looks like they are breaking the law for fun.

And granted, I understand that there is nothing to report when a soldier does his job. Nothing to report when a soldier goes above and beyond the call of duty to risk his life to save others or to complete a mission. Nothing to report when a soldier works 30 hours straight. Nothing to report when they are shot at. Nothing to report when they are away from their families for months on end. Nothing to report when they have rebuilt schools, roads, a law-abiding foreign army, a government and a democratic nation out of the ashes of a thug infested dictatorship that threatened everybody and killed their own by the thousands and paid Oil for Food donations to Hamas suicide-bomber families.

But after all that, the only thing some left-wing snot-nosed ass-kissing reporter could come up with to write is that the US military are just a bunch of terrorists? Well, the journalists deserve to be scrutinized too.

As for 'why don't they stand up and fight us man-to-man?' Well, if the soliders in the American Revolution did that, I'd be sitting down for teatime right now. Guerriela warfare is what works when fighting an enemy with much larger numbers and firepower. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's a tactic. Asking them to fight fair is like Mike Tyson asking me to stay still when he punches me in the face. I don't think so. Stick and move and then hit him with a lead pipe.

Then stop asking for the armistace to be signed like they were back in the old days and to bring our troops back pre-maturely. Give them a break. Give them some support, and let them do their job.

As an insider of sorts, I can assure you that 99% of the armed forces is strictly regulated and monitored. If somebody is doing something wrong or against the LOAC (law of armed conflict) then somebody else is gonna complain. But just because it's the United States does not mean that everybody is perfectly good and lawful. Their are thugs in the military and they are dealt with.

To shoot off this article (and the many others before this) as proof that the US armed forces is fucked up....well...it's being 99% uninformed and short sighted. Tunnel-visioned due to prejudices, really. You don't know the first damned thing about how awesome and lawful and civil service minded for all people our armed forces are because all the mainstream-media ever tells you is when they screw up.

You sit there and point at Walter Jones and say, "Look at that loser, he gave up a sack in week #4, oh and by the way gave up another sack in week #9. He also was flagged for holding. If he's so great, why was he flagged for holding?. He sucks." And that's the wrong way to look at whether or not Walter Jones is a bad offensive tackle.

You have to look at the whole picture before you judge. And this article is another story to tip the scales of reality in the wrong direction.

[Raiders Army]

Guerriela warfare is what works when fighting an enemy with much larger numbers and firepower. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's a tactic.

LOL. So you refuse to take a stand when terrorists or guerrillas hide behind and use women and children? It's not right or wrong? You're judgmental of our armed forces yet you refuse to pass judgment on them?

Then stop asking for the armistace to be signed like they were back in the old days and to bring our troops back pre-maturely. Give them a break. Give them some support, and let them do their job.

As an insider of sorts, I can assure you that 99% of the armed forces is strictly regulated and monitored. If somebody is doing something wrong or against the LOAC (law of armed conflict) then somebody else is gonna complain. But just because it's the United States does not mean that everybody is perfectly good and lawful. Their are thugs in the military and they are dealt with.

To shoot off this article (and the many others before this) as proof that the US armed forces is fucked up....well...it's being 99% uninformed and short sighted. Tunnel-visioned due to prejudices, really. You don't know the first damned thing about how awesome and lawful and civil service minded for all people our armed forces are because all the mainstream-media ever tells you is when they screw up.

You sit there and point at Walter Jones and say, "Look at that loser, he gave up a sack in week #4, oh and by the way gave up another sack in week #9. He also was flagged for holding. If he's so great, why was he flagged for holding?. He sucks." And that's the wrong way to look at whether or not Walter Jones is a bad offensive tackle.

You have to look at the whole picture before you judge. And this article is another story to tip the scales of reality in the wrong direction.
Well said.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

LOL. So you refuse to take a stand when terrorists or guerrillas hide behind and use women and children? It's not right or wrong? You're judgmental of our armed forces yet you refuse to pass judgment on them?


If the United States were overrun by a foreign military, would you support the use of guerilla tactics to resist them (i.e. Red Dawn)? What is your feeling on the Allied resistance forces in WWII?

[Dutch]

If the United States were overrun by a foreign military, would you support the use of guerilla tactics to resist them (i.e. Red Dawn)? What is your feeling on the Allied resistance forces in WWII?

Whose family would you bomb first just to "stick it" to the foreign military?

[sterlingice]

I dunno, I see a couple of different things here:

1) I don't see how guerrillas taking cover behind civilians has anything to do with taking hostages. One is being put in a no-win situation while the other is voluntarily putting yourself in the situation.

2) I think JW is right, saying we didn't get the whole story from the journalist. It just seems like there are some inconsistencies in the story.

3) The "if you're not fer' us yer' agin' us" rhetoric is tired, tho, too. It's the "ends justify the means" theory. What it fails to note is that there are other ways to reach the ends that don't involve those means. Thankfully not a lot in this thread so far.

SI

[sterlingice]

Whose family would you bomb first just to "stick it" to the foreign military?There's these jerks downstairs who always play their music too loud. Not only that, but it's at all hours of the day and night. No one ever needs that much bass unless they're trying to be asshats to the neighbors. I'd uh-- never mind, perhaps I've said too much. http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/wink.gif http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/tongue.gif http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

SI

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Whose family would you bomb first just to "stick it" to the foreign military?

Based on the examples I gave, I would guess that you'd bomb military convoys and such first...

[Dutch]

Based on the examples I gave, I would guess that you'd bomb military convoys and such first...

Do you believe that the "resistance" in Iraq is primarily bombing military convoys? Are most of the people who have died at their hands American soldiers?

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Do you believe that the "resistance" in Iraq is primarily bombing military convoys? Are most of the people who have died at their hands American soldiers?

I thought we were having a discussion about guerilla tactics (the hiding behind women and children thing)...

But in answer to your question, it's pretty clear that most of the people who have died are not American soldiers, but I'm not sure that proves anything. There are Iraqi soldiers and police as well, and a damned lot of them have been killed. According the U.S. military statistics released less than a week ago (http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=51304&SelectRegion=Middle_East&SelectCountry=IRAQ) "most" of 34,000 insurgent attacks from last year were aimed at military targets (U.S. and/or Iraqi).

Suicide and car bombings amounted to approx. 1.4% of attacks. Perhaps 99% of their military is strictly monitored and doesn't attack civilians. Maybe if you put 27 million Iraqis in a hostile environment you're bound to find a some insurgents who target civilians. But to use that to infer that the Iraqi insurgency is fucked up, well, it's being 99% uninformed and short sighted... or whatever...

Maybe everyone likes to be very selective about what data they read, and is just looking for something to fuel their existing prejudices... And maybe the reason that the U.S. military gets held to a higher standard is the fact that Iraqi insurgents have never claimed to be saints, while the U.S. has spent every day since 9/11/2001 explaining how vile and cowardly it is to wage war in a manner that does not respect human rights and the rules of warfare. Hypocracy always sells newsprint.

I know I was very upset to hear about the kidnapping of Jill Carroll. Truly this practice of kidnapping and executing journalists is about as low as you can go. I don't think it means I'm finding a "moral equivalence" to find it sad that at the same time we're violating internationally recognized human rights by kidnapping Iraqi women and holding them hostage. We don't execute them at the end, so that's a nice thing. Carroll will probably die. But it's still sad.

[Dutch]

I thought we were having a discussion about guerilla tactics (the hiding behind women and children thing)...

But in answer to your question, it's pretty clear that most of the people who have died are not American soldiers, but I'm not sure that proves anything. There are Iraqi soldiers and police as well, and a damned lot of them have been killed. According the U.S. military statistics released less than a week ago (http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=51304&SelectRegion=Middle_East&SelectCountry=IRAQ) "most" of 34,000 insurgent attacks from last year were aimed at military targets (U.S. and/or Iraqi).

I'm not sure how an "attack" is defined by the military, but I'm not sure that number in any ratio means much of anything. Most of the "attacks" I'm guessing were during our numerous counter-insurgency operations last year. That, daily mortar fire, and suicide bombers at checkpoints is the bulk of the contact as far as I'm aware.

Suicide and car bombings amounted to approx. 1.4% of attacks. Perhaps 99% of their military is strictly monitored and doesn't attack civilians. Maybe if you put 27 million Iraqis in a hostile environment you're bound to find a some insurgents who target civilians. But to use that to infer that the Iraqi insurgency is fucked up, well, it's being 99% uninformed and short sighted... or whatever...

Do you have any meaningful numbers that reflect what % of deaths caused by the "Resistance" is Iraqi women and children and what % is American soldiers. 17,000+ attacks against American soldiers has caused how many casualties? 17,000- attacks against Iraqi civilians has caused how many casualties? That might help us better understand the motivations of the "Resistance".

Maybe everyone likes to be very selective about what data they read, and is just looking for something to fuel their existing prejudices... And maybe the reason that the U.S. military gets held to a higher standard is the fact that Iraqi insurgents have never claimed to be saints, while the U.S. has spent every day since 9/11/2001 explaining how vile and cowardly it is to wage war in a manner that does not respect human rights and the rules of warfare. Hypocracy always sells newsprint.

The US Military and the terror-insurgency get their respective reputations not based on what they claim, but how they have acted and reacted. Again, the media is distorting this for their own personal gain. Perceptions slowly becomes reality if you ignore the facts.

I know I was very upset to hear about the kidnapping of Jill Carroll. Truly this practice of kidnapping and executing journalists is about as low as you can go. I don't think it means I'm finding a "moral equivalence" to find it sad that at the same time we're violating internationally recognized human rights by kidnapping Iraqi women and holding them hostage. We don't execute them at the end, so that's a nice thing. Carroll will probably die. But it's still sad.

I've already responded to this sort of nonsense.

[st.cronin]

It's standard propaganda in any war to accuse the other side of conducting the war immorally or unfairly. What's curious is that American media, since Vietnam, has leveled that accusation primarily against American soldiers.

[MrBigglesworth]

Question for Dutch et al: This is not the first report of the US taking hostages, so even if it is not correct in this case it is more than likely happening. Is taking hostages justified for the US military?

[st.cronin]

Question for Dutch et al: This is not the first report of the US taking hostages, so even if it is not correct in this case it is more than likely happening. Is taking hostages justified for the US military?

There are many, many military situations where taking hostages is not merely justified but the correct strategic move. The problem in Iraq, is that the military is acting more like a police force, and police obviously should never be taking hostages. So it really depends on how you're looking at it.

[MrBigglesworth]

What's curious is that American media, since Vietnam, has leveled that accusation primarily against American soldiers.
Karl Rove couldn't have said it better.

[st.cronin]

Karl Rove couldn't have said it better.

I'm sure he could have - he's a lot smarter than I am.

[MrBigglesworth]

There are many, many military situations where taking hostages is not merely justified but the correct strategic move. The problem in Iraq, is that the military is acting more like a police force, and police obviously should never be taking hostages. So it really depends on how you're looking at it.
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons...

- Taking of hostages
The slow moral decay of America.

[st.cronin]

The slow moral decay of America.

Obviously, you have no idea what that actually means. When I was in the service I actually recieved training on how to take hostages, one aspect of which was how to make sure no laws were broken.

[MrBigglesworth]

Obviously, you have no idea what that actually means. When I was in the service I actually recieved training on how to take hostages, one aspect of which was how to make sure no laws were broken.
Enlighten me. How did you take hostages?

[Dutch]

Taking innocent civilians hostage is against the Geneva conventions. Detaining combatants or unlawful combatants is not.

It should at least be investigated by the Army to find out what it's all about. There's no excuses on our side for behaving badly.

[WVUFAN]

Taking innocent civilians hostage is against the Geneva conventions. Detaining combatants or unlawful combatants is not.

It should at least be investigated by the Army to find out what it's all about. There's no excuses on our side for behaving badly.It's lawful to detail "civilians" who have information, or in the case of the mother in the article linked, is giving aid and confort to the enemy.

[MrBigglesworth]

Taking innocent civilians hostage is against the Geneva conventions. Detaining combatants or unlawful combatants is not.

It should at least be investigated by the Army to find out what it's all about. There's no excuses on our side for behaving badly.
I think Jesse and I would both agree with you.

[st.cronin]

So, we all agree that there are legal and illegal ways to take hostages, and nobody really knows what this article describes. Where's the usual partisan bickering? Why can't we always be this reasonable?

[MrBigglesworth]

So, we all agree that there are legal and illegal ways to take hostages, and nobody really knows what this article describes. Where's the usual partisan bickering? Why can't we always be this reasonable?
No, Dutch and I agreed that taking hostages is illegal. We both agreed that detaining enemy compatants is legal. You said that there were legal ways to take hostages. Did you mean arresting someone?

[Desnudo]

There are many, many military situations where taking hostages is not merely justified but the correct strategic move. The problem in Iraq, is that the military is acting more like a police force, and police obviously should never be taking hostages. So it really depends on how you're looking at it.

I think that highlights the real problem in Iraq. As soon as any military organization starts having to behave like a police force, things become confused. It's not what we should ask them to do, and not what they are primarily trained to do. I think it's probably why Colin Powell thought invading Iraq was a bad idea, that this result was likely.

So what I'm saying is that people like this reporter shouldn't act suprised when the military carries out police-type orders in a military fashion. If they have a problem with it, they should be pushing the government to change how security is handled in Iraq, not hounding the Army for doing the job they were sent in to do.

[st.cronin]

No, Dutch and I agreed that taking hostages is illegal. We both agreed that detaining enemy compatants is legal. You said that there were legal ways to take hostages. Did you mean arresting someone?

There are legal ways to take hostages, but I'm not a lawyer, so don't take my word for it and start taking hostages.

[st.cronin]

I think that highlights the real problem in Iraq. As soon as any military organization starts having to behave like a police force, things become confused. It's not what we should ask them to do, and not what they are primarily trained to do. I think it's probably why Colin Powell thought invading Iraq was a bad idea, that this result was likely.

So what I'm saying is that people like this reporter shouldn't act suprised when the military carries out police-type orders in a military fashion. If they have a problem with it, they should be pushing the government to change how security is handled in Iraq, not hounding the Army for doing the job they were sent in to do.

Exactly, couldn't agree more.

[Dutch]

Someone who is providing aid or assistance to a combatant or unlawful combatant (Iraqi insurgents are unlawful combatants (not legal combatants) by the Geneva convention standards) become a legal belligerant target by Geneva standards.

[Dutch]

I think Jesse and I would both agree with you.

I brush my teeth everyday. Do you and Jesse do that as well? We could hang out sometimes and share a cherry coke maybe? :)

[MrBigglesworth]

I brush my teeth everyday. Do you and Jesse do that as well? We could hang out sometimes and share a cherry coke maybe? :)
Plaque is a figment of the liberal media and the dental industry to scare you into buying useless appliances and pastes. Now, I've heard the arguments on both sides, and there is nothing to convince me of the need to brush your teeth. Ever. I got rid of my teeth at a young age because... I'm straight. Teeth are for gay people. That's why fairies come and get them.

hxxp://www.mcpeepants.com/s015.shtml

[WVUFAN]

As for 'why don't they stand up and fight us man-to-man?' Well, if the soliders in the American Revolution did that, I'd be sitting down for teatime right now. Guerriela warfare is what works when fighting an enemy with much larger numbers and firepower. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's a tactic. Asking them to fight fair is like Mike Tyson asking me to stay still when he punches me in the face. I don't think so. Stick and move and then hit him with a lead pipe.The reason WHY the British lost the war is because they refused to "lower themselves" to the guerrila tactics of the Americans. Oftentimes abiding by the rules when absolutely no one else does causes you to lose. Of course, to some liberals, that's exactly what they want to have happen -- anything to make Bush look bad. This is why the liberal media just refuses to print anything positive about this war, or anything positive to what our soldiers are doing there -- just this drivel.

[MrBigglesworth]

The reason WHY the British lost the war is because they refused to "lower themselves" to the guerrila tactics of the Americans. Oftentimes abiding by the rules when absolutely no one else does causes you to lose. Of course, to some liberals, that's exactly what they want to have happen -- anything to make Bush look bad. This is why the liberal media just refuses to print anything positive about this war, or anything positive to what our soldiers are doing there -- just this drivel.
Let's assume for a second that Iraq isn't so dangerous that reporters can't venture outside a couple mile square area without a full military escort. What should be reported on that isn't that is more important than the 'drivel' of credible allegations of the US engaging in war crimes?

[WVUFAN]

Well, firstly, your assumption that US Solders are participating in war crimes is patently FALSE. Let's get that out of the way.

How about how the US is helping rebuild roads, and schools and buildings? How about what the US is doing in a positive way/ That's more important that anything else, in my opinion, but instead we get a bunch of crap like this article.

But keep on focusing on your "negative" since that's what you seem want to do.

[Dutch]

Let's assume for a second that Iraq isn't so dangerous that reporters can't venture outside a couple mile square area without a full military escort. What should be reported on that isn't that is more important than the 'drivel' of credible allegations of the US engaging in war crimes?

These things happened this week. I'm not sure if you were aware of it. Not just Americans taking innocent Iraqi's "hostage". Surprised?







Title: IRAQI, COALITION FORCES CONTINUE OPERATION KOA CANYON

Release Date: 1/23/2006

Release Number: 06-01-27

Description: January 23, 2006
Release Number: 06-01-27

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

IRAQI, COALITION FORCES CONTINUE OPERATION KOA CANYON
FORWARD OPERATING BASE HIT, Iraq – Eight days of back-breaking searches through villages and fields along the western Euphrates River valley have yielded thousands of pieces of ordnance as Iraqi Army Soldiers and U.S. Marines continue Operation Wadi Aljundi (Koa Canyon) in Iraq’s Al Anbar province.
Aimed at isolating insurgents and their weapons, the combined Iraqi and U.S. force began the latest sweep Jan. 15, and have uncovered a staggering amount of weaponry. The Soldiers and Marines are making their way inch-by-inch through caves, fields, wadis, and islands in an attempt to disrupt the insurgents.
So far, the combined force has found and destroyed more than 4,300 artillery and mortar rounds, rockets, and mines; 267 kilograms (590 pounds) of explosive powder, 10,000 rounds of various types of ammunition (ranging from small-arms to tank main gun rounds), 300 blasting caps, approximately 100 feet of detonation cord, and several working machine guns and mortar systems.
"Every piece of ordnance that is uncovered is one less potential IED that may be used against Iraqi civilians, Iraqi Security and Coalition forces," said Marine Col. Kenneth F. McKenzie, Jr., the commander of the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable).
McKenzie also stated that the future of the Iraqi Army is bright, based upon the individual courage of the Iraqi Soldiers. "The basic ingredient is courage, and these Iraqi Soldiers are showing it," said McKenzie.
The Iraqi Army Soldiers are with the 1st Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 7th Iraqi Army Division and the Marines are with the 22nd MEU (SOC).
The 22nd MEU (SOC) is comprised of its Command Element, Battalion Landing Team 1st Bn., 2nd Marines, MEU Service Support Group 22, and Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron (Reinforced) 261.
The 22nd MEU (SOC) is conducting counterinsurgency operations with an Iraqi battalion in the Al Anbar province under the tactical control of the 2nd Marine Division.

Title: 7-10 CAVALRY SOLDIERS FIND LARGE CACHE

Release Date: 1/27/2006

Release Number:

Description: TAJI, Iraq -- A patrol from Troop A, 7th Squadron, 10th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, found a large weapons cache north of Baghdad about noon Jan. 22.
Responding to a tip, the patrol found a large cache, consisting of a complete 120 mm mortar system, 14 57 mm rockets, 11 152mm artillery rounds, 10 130mm artillery rounds, 19 B-5 rocket fuses, 50 hand grenades and a wide assortment of other ammunition.
“It was a great find,” said Maj. David Olson, the brigade spokesman. “It is great to see people standing up and doing their civic responsibility to help maintain a safe and secure environment for their fellow citizens by providing tips such as this one.”

Title: MND-B SOLDIERS DETAIN SUSPECTED TERRORISTS, FIND WEAPONS CACHE

Release Date: 1/27/2006

Release Number:

Description: BAGHDAD, Iraq – Elements of Multi-National Division – Baghdad’s 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment and Explosive Ordnance Disposal found a roadside bomb south of Baghdad Jan. 25.
EOD performed a controlled detonation of the unexploded ordnance.
Post-blast analysis of the previous bomb strike determined that three daisy-chained charges were placed in oil barrels with 30 to 40 pounds of homemade explosives in each barrel.
There were no injuries or damages in this incident.
MND-B’s 2nd Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment discovered a weapons cache late Jan. 25.
The cache consisted of 56 sticks of TNT, one box of .50 caliber rounds, one block of C4 explosive, four 60mm rounds, three individual fuses and one box of fuses.
Soldiers from 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment conducted a cordon and search based on a tip from a local national Jan. 25.
The patrol found two local nationals whose names and descriptions matched those in the tip, a pistol and a diagrammed location of a planned ambush on Coalition Forces.
The patrol continued to search the house and detained the two local nationals for questioning.
The above incidents are under investigation.

Title: SHEIKS MEET WITH 2ND BCT COMMANDER

Release Date: 1/27/2006

Release Number:

Description: FOB KALSU, Iraq -- Local tribal leaders of the Babil province met here Jan. 22 to discuss issues and concerns within the community.
Col. John Tully, commander, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, and Iraqi Brig. Gen. Qais Hamza, Babil, provincial police chief, took the opportunity to discuss security and project building in the area with more than 15 sheiks.
This event marks the first time a meeting of this caliber was organized since the Warhorse brigade assumed responsibility of the area earlier this month.
“Our main mission is to help the Iraqi army and police establish security in the Babil province,” said Tully, in his opening statement to the forum.
The central and southern parts of the province have seen steady progress over the past three years, and the desire is that the north can soon catch up with the rest of the province, said Sheik Taha Al Janabi. The security there is still in question and it’s anticipated that the pressure being put on terrorists by 2nd BCT Soldiers will result in stability in the area.
Most of the sheiks spoke about the security and how it was important to continue to strive for a good life in Iraq, said Chief Warrant Officer Desi Roberts, information officer, 2nd BCT. Several of them discussed the need for water and road projects and school refurbishment in their tribal area.
With security comes stability, and with stability come investments, projects and jobs, Tully said. He asked the leaders, who have great influence with their villagers, to tell people to stop attacking Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces so stability can materialize.
“Iraqis have accomplished much in the past year and have much to be proud of,” he said. “Every day, more and more Iraqis want to be part of the new government.”
Democracy was a success when we had it in the 1940s, and it was a good era in Iraq history, said Sheik Kader Abass Shided. The spate of elections in 2005 renews hope that those times are on the horizon.
Both Tully and Qais explained to the sheiks how to contact the appropriate people to discuss any problems or issues they may have. Qais set a time when sheiks could come to his office and voice concerns, and Tully talked about bases and battalion leaders in the region available to offer assistance to anyone who needs it.
The group agreed to continue these meetings in the future in order to help move nation and its people in a positive direction

Title: SUSPECTS CAPTURED THROUGHOUT NORTHERN IRAQ

Release Date: 1/26/2006

Release Number:

Description: TIKRIT, Iraq -- Iraqi security forces and Task Force Band of Brothers Soldiers detained 51 suspected terrorists during a series of unrelated actions throughout northern Iraq Jan. 24.
In the largest action of the day, Iraqi troops from the 2nd Brigade, 5th Iraqi Army Division planned and conducted a large early morning raid in three villages outside of Baqubah. The unit detained 19 suspects, including eight known to have strong ties to terrorists in the area.
In the Bayji area, Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division’s 3rd Brigade Combat Team continued to make progress against terrorists that have plagued the area. Ten known or suspected terrorists were captured in and around the city.
Tips from Bayji area residents generated a series of early-morning searches south of the city which led to the capture of four men closely tied to a terrorist ring responsible for committing murders and beheadings in the area. A fifth man was killed after firing a pistol at the Soldiers searching his home.
In another positive development, a local tribal leader brought three suspected members of an IED cell from the Bayji area to a coalition base and turned them in to coalition forces.
Soldiers from the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment also had a good day taking terrorists off the streets in Tall Afar and the nearby city of Bi’aj.
Working with Iraqi troops from the 2nd Brigade, 3rd Iraqi Army Division, the unit discovered two caches of weapons and stolen Iraqi Army uniforms and captured 12 suspects.
The troops began their mission working from one tip and with each turn of events, another tip surfaced that carried the Soldiers to two separate caches and 12 individuals.
The citizens of northern Iraq continue to build confidence in the security forces protecting the newly established democracy, as the Iraqi Soldiers grow into a mature, capable force, directly responsible for safeguarding the rights and lives of the people of Iraq.

Title: IRAQI SECURITY FORCES TAKE CONTROL OF MNDCS BATTLESPACE

Release Date: 1/26/2006

Release Number:

Description:
CAMP ECHO, Iraq – Iraqi security forces took control of security of Diwaniya and Wasit provinces from Multinational Division Central South Jan. 26.
Battlespace assumption documents were signed by Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, Multinational Corps - Iraq commander, Lt. Gen. Quadir, Iraqi Land Forces commander, Maj. Gen. Piotr Czerwinski, MNDCS commander, Maj. Gen. Othman Ali Ferhood, 8th Iraqi Army Division commander, the governors of Diwaniyah and Wasit prowinces, chiefs of police and Iraqi Border Police.
Ryszard Krystosik, ambassador of Poland, Gen. George Casey, Multinational Force – Iraq commander, and Gen. Nazir, deputy Chief of Iraqi Army General Staff, as well as local sheiks and administration representatives were also in attendance.
During the ceremony, Casey underlined that battlespace assumption was the demonstration of growing capabilities of Iraqi security forces. He thanked the MNDCS commander for the results achieved in training process.
“People of Diwaniyah and Wasit provinces can be proud of Iraqi Army units,” said Czerwinski.
MNDCS in cooperation with Iraqi security forces started building the combat power of Iraq at the beginning of 2005. MNDCS Military Transition Teams conducted intensive training created by Polish, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Salvadorian and U.S. instructors. They focused their efforts in training the units of the 8th Iraqi Army Division and Iraqi Border Police.
As a part of the training, Iraqi soldiers took part in numerous counterinsurgency operations shoulder to shoulder with MNDCS troops. Their knowledge and experience was gained in combat.
In September 2005, as a result of the training process and good cooperation, MNDCS certified six 8th IA Div’s battalions operating in Babil, Diwaniyah and Kut (former Wasit) provinces.
The next step was certification on the brigade level in November 2005 when the staffs of two Iraqi brigades (3rd Brigade in Kut and 2nd Brigade in Babil provinces) were certified by MNDCS. As a result of the certification, these brigade’s staffs took over command of their battalions.
On December 20, 2005, training of the division level concluded and the 8th Iraqi Army Division’s staff was certified.
During the same time period, MNDCS trained Iraqi Border Police (Kut province) and cooperated and supported the Iraqi Police Service.
In total, MNDCS trained more than 20,000 Iraqi soldiers and policemen.

[MrBigglesworth]

Well, firstly, your assumption that US Solders are participating in war crimes is patently FALSE. Let's get that out of the way.
Liberals and conservatives alike have already said that taking hostages is a war crime. There have also been a number of soldiers already convicted of war crimes in the Abu Ghraib etc. hearings. So, you're wrong, there are some soldiers that are participating in war crimes. The pandemic nature of some of the war crimes also suggests a central organization to it. There is also the fact that many people believe Guantanamo Bay to be a violation of the Geneva Convention.

How about how the US is helping rebuild roads, and schools and buildings? How about what the US is doing in a positive way/ That's more important that anything else, in my opinion, but instead we get a bunch of crap like this article.

But keep on focusing on your "negative" since that's what you seem want to do.
So what positive stories haven't been covered?

[MrBigglesworth]

These things happened this week. I'm not sure if you were aware of it. Not just Americans taking innocent Iraqi's "hostage". Surprised?
I think you are confusing news with propaganda.

[WVUFAN]

I think you are confusing news with propaganda.
No, you and Jesse are by referencing the article referenced at the beginning of the topic.

If it's a positive aspect of the Iraqi occupation, it's "propaganda". If it's anything that tears down the military, it's news. Funny, that.

:rolleyes:

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Do you have any meaningful numbers that reflect what % of deaths caused by the "Resistance" is Iraqi women and children and what % is American soldiers. 17,000+ attacks against American soldiers has caused how many casualties? 17,000- attacks against Iraqi civilians has caused how many casualties? That might help us better understand the motivations of the "Resistance".


I would be more than happy to look at official numbers, but I'm sure you're aware that the U.S. military does not track civilian deaths. IraqBodyCount.org shows that approx. 25,000 civilians were killed (http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/a_dossier_of_civilian_casualties_2003-2005.pdf) between March, 2003 and March, 2005. 18% of them were women or children. 37.3% of the deaths were caused by U.S. or U.S.-led forces. 13.3% were caused by anti-occupation forces. 2.5% were caught in the cross-fire between occupation and anti-occupation combatants. 11% were cause unknown, the rest was linked to criminal activity.

[MrBigglesworth]

If it's a positive aspect of the Iraqi occupation, it's "propaganda". If it's anything that tears down the military, it's news. Funny, that.
If it is from a news organization, Jesse and I tend to think it is news. If it is from an official propaganda organ of the US Military, we tend to think it's propaganda. That doesn't just seem funny, that seems logical to me.

BTW, what were the stories that you don't think the news agencies are covering?

[MrBigglesworth]

These things happened this week. I'm not sure if you were aware of it. Not just Americans taking innocent Iraqi's "hostage". Surprised?
I finally put my finger on what these stories reminded me of:
"'Not While We're Eating. NVA learn Marines
don't like to be interrupted while eating chow.'
...Joker, the enemy never runs. He flees...
patrols aren't dangerous, they're danger-filled...
Style...style, Joker."
"Yes, sir."
"And, Joker, where's the weenie?"
"Sir?"
"The kill, Joker. The kill. All that fire,
the grunts must have hit something"
"Didn't see 'em, sir."
"Were you actually there on that op?"
"Yes, sir."
"Joker, I've told you we run two basic
stories here. Grunts who give half their pay to
buy gooks toothbrushes and deodorants - Winning Of
Hearts and Minds. Okay? And combat action which
result in a kill - Winning the War. I don't ask
much of you people but I do expect you to adhere
to my editorial policy. You must have seen blood trails, drag
marks?"
"It was raining, sir."
"Okay, well that's why God passed the law of
probability." He tosses the pages to Joker.
"Re-write it and give it a happy ending. One
killed. Make it a sapper. Or an officer.
Which?"
"Whatever you say," Joker says.
"Grunts like reading about dead officers."

-------------------------------------------------
47

"Okay - an officer. How about a general?"
"Joker, maybe you'd like our guys to read the
paper and feel bad. In case you didn't know it,
this is not a particularly popular war, and it's
our job to report the news that the why-are-we-here
civilian newsmen ignore."

[st.cronin]

If it is from a news organization, Jesse and I tend to think it is news. If it is from an official propaganda organ of the US Military, we tend to think it's propaganda. That doesn't just seem funny, that seems logical to me.

BTW, what were the stories that you don't think the news agencies are covering?

The US military doesn't have an 'official propaganda organ.' What you mean to say is that if the military news says something, it can't be trusted, or doesn't count, or ... actually, I have no idea what your point is. Are you seriously suggesting those stories are fabrications? Or just that they're not newsworthy, because they're not reporting possible war crimes by US soldiers?

[WVUFAN]

The US military doesn't have an 'official propaganda organ.' What you mean to say is that if the military news says something, it can't be trusted, or doesn't count, or ... actually, I have no idea what your point is. Are you seriously suggesting those stories are fabrications? Or just that they're not newsworthy, because they're not reporting possible war crimes by US soldiers?
Yeah, he seems to discount anything that doesn't tear down the military, or the current Administration.

[MrBigglesworth]

The US military doesn't have an 'official propaganda organ.' What you mean to say is that if the military news says something, it can't be trusted, or doesn't count, or ... actually, I have no idea what your point is. Are you seriously suggesting those stories are fabrications? Or just that they're not newsworthy, because they're not reporting possible war crimes by US soldiers?
What I mean to say is that the US Military is about the most biased place to get news on Iraq in the world. And all of that may be true, I have no reason to think otherwise, but it's not really news. It's basic stuff that has been going on forever. Take the first story. The biggest revelation in it is that they have found some ammunitions and destroyed them. I read about 2 dozen of those stories on CNN over the past two years.

[WVUFAN]

What I mean to say is that the US Military is about the most biased place to get news on Iraq in the world.
Actually, that'd be CNN.

[MrBigglesworth]

Yeah, he seems to discount anything that doesn't tear down the military, or the current Administration.
You know what, fuck this. I feel like I am in bizarro world, trying to explain why the AP is less biased than the US Military's news organization. I'm not going to dignify it with any more responses.

[Desnudo]

It's up to the individual to try and remain objective based on the information they have access to. Personally, I think the media leans more towards sensationalism rather than a liberal or conservative bias. If the story will bring readers or viewers, they will spend a lot of time on it, regardless of the overall value or slant of the story. That isn't to say that different media outlets aren't predisposed to emphasize different aspects of a story.

If you have an agenda, you are always going to see what you want to see and ignore other factors. That applies to both sides of an issue. Usually if you make an effort to be objective, then you find that the reality lands somewhere in the middle. Of course if people expended effort towards being objective, we wouldn't have nearly as many POL threads here.

[rexallllsc]

The slow moral decay of America.

You said it.

[Chubby]

Actually, that'd be CNN.
Because they don't get on their knees and offer oral sex (can't forget the women) to every member of the miltary and the administration on a daily basis?

Yeah, he seems to discount anything that doesn't tear down the military, or the current Administration.
Replace "tear down" with "put on a pedastal" and we have you and others so what's your point?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Actually, that'd be CNN.

Hey now ... keep up that sort of talk & you're just going to make CBS try harder ;)

[Dutch]

I would be more than happy to look at official numbers, but I'm sure you're aware that the U.S. military does not track civilian deaths. IraqBodyCount.org shows that approx. 25,000 civilians were killed (http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/a_dossier_of_civilian_casualties_2003-2005.pdf) between March, 2003 and March, 2005. 18% of them were women or children. 37.3% of the deaths were caused by U.S. or U.S.-led forces. 13.3% were caused by anti-occupation forces. 2.5% were caught in the cross-fire between occupation and anti-occupation combatants. 11% were cause unknown, the rest was linked to criminal activity.

US Forces just went out there and killed these people? Why?

[Raiders Army]

Well, the only conclusion that I can come to is that you cannot change anyone's mind on the internet. Believe what you want to believe.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

US Forces just went out there and killed these people? Why?

Read the report. Over 6600 were killed during the initial invasion phase, 630 during the first assault on Fallujah (Apr. 04), 775 during the second assault on Fallujah (Nov. 04), and there were a few other minor peaks in activity, but generally 20-40 civilian casualties per month. A large number of these, particularly during the invasion (over 6000 during that time alone), were related to air strikes. Shock and awe...

[Desnudo]

Well, the only conclusion that I can come to is that you cannot change anyone's mind on the internet. Believe what you want to believe.

You change people's minds about politics in real life? When's the book coming out? ;)

[Dutch]

Read the report. Over 6600 were killed during the initial invasion phase, 630 during the first assault on Fallujah (Apr. 04), 775 during the second assault on Fallujah (Nov. 04), and there were a few other minor peaks in activity, but generally 20-40 civilian casualties per month. A large number of these, particularly during the invasion (over 6000 during that time alone), were related to air strikes. Shock and awe...

We didn't target Iraqi civilians. Shock and awe, or rather, what happened at the beginning of the Iraq invasion is widely misunderstood. It was not really Shock and Awe. At least not to the Iraqi people or the television viewing audience back home. The primary goal of the bombing campaign was destroy command and control, AA systems, and communications throughout Baghdad while targeting any and all known military targets of high value. The only people that were shocked or awed by our military was the old Iraqi military, which ceased to function effectively within 48 hours of the beginning of the war. Shock and awe.

I can assure you that we were not about to waste this high-precision ordanance on killing innocent civilians. If we wanted to do that, we would take the smart bombs out of our planes and load them with old 1940's gravity bombs.

This is how I see the opposition's logic.

"The reputation of a terrorist, on a scale of 1-10 is a zero. But you can cite a day when they didn't kill a civilian, so they are now a 1 on that scale. And to commended and even called a "militant" or the "resistance"."

"The reputation of the US military, on a scale of 1-10 is a 10. But you can cite a day when they killed a civilian, so they are now a 9 on that scale. And to be ripped apart and called "terrorists"."

It's flawed logic when put into perspective.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

A little touchy, are we? No one suggested that the US targets civilians. Nor has anyone called them terrorists. You can relax your persecution complex for a moment. You asked for the numbers on civilian casualties and I gave 'em to you. Maybe they didn't prove what you wanted them to prove. I'm sure they still had no impact on what you think about it. I don't think anything would. But so it goes...

[Dutch]

A little touchy, are we? No one suggested that the US targets civilians. Nor has anyone called them terrorists. You can relax your persecution complex for a moment.

Reread the thread.

You asked for the numbers on civilian casualties and I gave 'em to you. Maybe they didn't prove what you wanted them to prove. I'm sure they still had no impact on what you think about it. I don't think anything would. But so it goes...

I know that we do not target civilians. The terrorists do. I don't think you can see that.

[Solecismic]

Civilian deaths, World War II: about 37 million (35,000 alone in the bombing of Dresden, and about 100,000 immediately during the atomic bomb drops on Nagasaki and Hiroshima).

Civilian deaths, Vietnam War (including leadup): about 3 million.

I think we're improving. Still not perfect by any means, but our military is doing its best to go after only the people who are active participants. If they didn't care, Baghdad would have been a big puddle of blood long ago and the long-romanticized "insurgency" would be just part of a landfill, indiscriminately lumped in with their neighbors.

My standard disclaimer: nothing I say here should be construed as support for Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. I just give our military credit for being the best in the world and the most conscientous at what they do, which is very, very difficult and unpleasant work.

[MrBigglesworth]

Reread the thread.
I reread it. Mojo said he would bomb military convoys. You asked if the resistance in Iraq were targetting military convoys. Mojo produced a government report saying that, yes, most Iraqi attacks were against military targets. You countered with saying that the military probably doesn't define 'attack' correctly, because otherwise your point would be completely wrong. Mojo the produced evidence that said that the US killed some civilians. You created a strawman and asked why Mojo thought the US targeted those civilians. Mojo countered that they were byproducts of invasions. You attacked your strawman again, telling Mojo that no matter what he thought, the US did not target civilians. Mojo mentioned that nobody said that the US targetted civilians. You said to read the thread.

[Dutch]

Civilian deaths, World War II: about 37 million (35,000 alone in the bombing of Dresden, and about 100,000 immediately during the atomic bomb drops on Nagasaki and Hiroshima).

Civilian deaths, Vietnam War (including leadup): about 3 million.

I think we're improving. Still not perfect by any means, but our military is doing its best to go after only the people who are active participants. If they didn't care, Baghdad would have been a big puddle of blood long ago and the long-romanticized "insurgency" would be just part of a landfill, indiscriminately lumped in with their neighbors.

And that sort of relativity is missing from iraqbodycount.org and from most news reports. The truth is we have turned in our 1940's carpet bombing doctrine for high-tech "shock and awe" which targets the destruction of an enemies command and control and communications infrastructure. The reason for that was to be more surgical, more precise. To limit civilian deaths, and to reduce the effects of bad PR at home and abroad about how we fight wars.

The problem, as you correctly assertained, is that after the campaign of "Shock and Awe" was over, the Iraqi's, most notably the insurgents and their recruiting base weren't afraid to continue the fight. They never saw "Shock and Awe" because it wasn't aimed at them.

The insurgency by Nazi forces after Germany surrendered lasted maybe a month. And the people of Germany wouldn't hide or shelter them or support them. The german people had enough. The Iraqi people primarily missed the invasion. One day they woke up and said, "Is Saddam really gone? Are the Americans really in control of Baghdad?"

My standard disclaimer: nothing I say here should be construed as support for Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. I just give our military credit for being the best in the world and the most conscientous at what they do, which is very, very difficult and unpleasant work.

I know you didn't support the decision. These soldiers that are there joined up for a lot of reasons. But none joined up to kill civilians, so I can assure you that they could appreciate your remarks. That much I can guarantee. As for the insurgents? It's hard to figure why they would be so willing to kill civilians. To actually target them. Perhaps I'll leave that up to some others to defend. Maybe iraqbodycount.org has the answer, but I doubt it.

[MrBigglesworth]

And that sort of relativity is missing from iraqbodycount.org and from most news reports.
Why is that relativity important? The idea of anti-war people isn't that the war kills as many people as other wars, the idea is that the war kills a lot of people and they think it's not worth it. Is putting on trial a cruel dictator a good thing? Yes. Is it worth 1 life? 10 lives? 30,000? 100,000? 1 million? 1 billion? Sooner or later even you Dutch would say it isn't worth it. So it doesn't matter that more people died in WWII or in Vietnam. What matters is the people dying now, and the benefit derived from that cost. I, along with a clear majority of the world and an increasing majority in our own country, do not believe that the loss of life and money is worth anything that there is to gain in Iraq.

[Dutch]

Why is that relativity important? The idea of anti-war people isn't that the war kills as many people as other wars, the idea is that the war kills a lot of people and they think it's not worth it. Is putting on trial a cruel dictator a good thing? Yes. Is it worth 1 life? 10 lives? 30,000? 100,000? 1 million? 1 billion? Sooner or later even you Dutch would say it isn't worth it. So it doesn't matter that more people died in WWII or in Vietnam. What matters is the people dying now, and the benefit derived from that cost. I, along with a clear majority of the world and an increasing majority in our own country, do not believe that the loss of life and money is worth anything that there is to gain in Iraq.

My belief is that Saddam Hussein was willing to support terror and it is my belief that if given the chance he would reconstitute his nuclear program and my belief that he would be willing to give a nuclear device to a terror group such as Hamas to be used against millions of people in Tel Aviv.

I don't support war for war's sake. At best, any sort of war, even war waged by the most technically sufficient army in the world is flawed.

But to me, the argument has never been about war and peace. It's been about war and war^10.

[Raiders Army]

You change people's minds about politics in real life? When's the book coming out? ;)
I'm working on my mind control through the internet. I'm having a problem with DSL subscribers and there are quite a few bugs with those people on AOL. Other than that, I have mind control down when I have line of sight.

[st.cronin]

I just give our military credit for being the best in the world and the most conscientous at what they do, which is very, very difficult and unpleasant work.

Speaking as a veteran, thank you for your kind words.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

My belief is that Saddam Hussein was willing to support terror and it is my belief that if given the chance he would reconstitute his nuclear program and my belief that he would be willing to give a nuclear device to a terror group such as Hamas to be used against millions of people in Tel Aviv.

I don't support war for war's sake. At best, any sort of war, even war waged by the most technically sufficient army in the world is flawed.

But to me, the argument has never been about war and peace. It's been about war and war^10.

The only problem with that argument is that Saddam basically had his nuclear program stopped after the 1991 War in Iraq, save when ordered a "crash program" to extract enough fissile material for a bomb that could be used against invading coalition forces or Israel right before the current War, which was unsuccessful. To quote the Post, Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."

[Chubby]

My belief is that Saddam Hussein was willing to support terror and it is my belief that if given the chance he would reconstitute his nuclear program and my belief that he would be willing to give a nuclear device to a terror group such as Hamas to be used against millions of people in Tel Aviv.

I don't support war for war's sake. At best, any sort of war, even war waged by the most technically sufficient army in the world is flawed.

But to me, the argument has never been about war and peace. It's been about war and war^10.
Yet your belief would be wrong. It however, would hold true to other countries that for some reason we aren't invading. Imagine that...

[Jesse_Ewiak]

C'mon Chubby, Pakistan are our allies! Who cares that their lead scientist probably sold more useful info to terrorists than Saddam ever did.

[duckman]

Some of the liberals in this thread make me sick. I literally tore my body apart to make this country safer and yet I have read the drivel like that in the article and what is stated in the thread.

Despite what the article is trying to portray, the US military is one the most ethical fighting forces in the world. It's drilled into our skulls from the time we entered basic training to be ethical in what we do on- and off-duty. 99.95% of the entire military does what they are supposed to do. Unfortunately, we have to deal with that .05%. Instead of attacking the military as a whole, you should be going after the individuals who actually make those unethical decisions. And what I mean by "individuals" is the troop(s) who committed the act.

What's being done here is "bush league" and is the actual moral decay that most of the liberals are clamoring about.

[CamEdwards]

C'mon Chubby, Pakistan are our allies! Who cares that their lead scientist probably sold more useful info to terrorists than Saddam ever did.

This is a stunning lack of knowledge of the realities of foreign policy. It of course would have been better to demand Musharraf hand over Khan to the United States to stand trial (or demanded Khan stand trial in Pakistan), which would have led to a coup and a takeover by anti-American forces in Pakistan. :rolleyes:

Sometimes in foreign policy, your choices aren't going to be between the guy in black hat and the guy in the white hat. You might have to choose between two guys who are both wearing black. But you make the choice that is in this country's best interest. And right now, playing ball with Musharraf is much better than dealing with the guys most likely to take over in a coup.

[Chubby]

This is a stunning lack of knowledge of the realities of foreign policy. It of course would have been better to demand Musharraf hand over Khan to the United States to stand trial (or demanded Khan stand trial in Pakistan), which would have led to a coup and a takeover by anti-American forces in Pakistan. :rolleyes:

Sometimes in foreign policy, your choices aren't going to be between the guy in black hat and the guy in the white hat. You might have to choose between two guys who are both wearing black. But you make the choice that is in this country's best interest. And right now, playing ball with Musharraf is much better than dealing with the guys most likely to take over in a coup.
And when you pick wrong simply ignore the fact that you backed the person who you now say is the spawn of Satan...

[CamEdwards]

And when you pick wrong simply ignore the fact that you backed the person who you now say is the spawn of Satan...

Who says we picked wrong? Are you really suggesting that a) should have and b) could have allied ourselves with Iran in the 1980's? If so, please give me some details on how that would have worked. I'd love to hear it.

Or maybe you're suggesting that we should have backed the Soviets in their invasion of Afghanistan, rather than supporting the mujahadeen. Again, I'd love to hear details of how that would have worked.

[Chubby]

Who says we picked wrong? Are you really suggesting that a) should have and b) could have allied ourselves with Iran in the 1980's? If so, please give me some details on how that would have worked. I'd love to hear it.

Or maybe you're suggesting that we should have backed the Soviets in their invasion of Afghanistan, rather than supporting the mujahadeen. Again, I'd love to hear details of how that would have worked.
I just love all the hate and rhetoric spewed forth against OBL and Saddam (obviously not saying that they aren't evil guys) while it's convienently forgotten that they were once our allies. And this isn't a partisan attack, it falls on both parties.

We may have been allies with them but were they allies with us? Or did they merely accept our guns/money in order to ensure self-preservation? Couldn't we have merely chosen to not support either? Sure doesn't look like we've supported either Iran or Iraq in the last decade or so...

[MrBigglesworth]

Some of the liberals in this thread make me sick. I literally tore my body apart to make this country safer and yet I have read the drivel like that in the article and what is stated in the thread.

Despite what the article is trying to portray, the US military is one the most ethical fighting forces in the world. It's drilled into our skulls from the time we entered basic training to be ethical in what we do on- and off-duty. 99.95% of the entire military does what they are supposed to do. Unfortunately, we have to deal with that .05%. Instead of attacking the military as a whole, you should be going after the individuals who actually make those unethical decisions. And what I mean by "individuals" is the troop(s) who committed the act.

What's being done here is "bush league" and is the actual moral decay that most of the liberals are clamoring about.
I think people are more concerned with the systemic nature of the problems, which suggests some centralized direction. After all, if people in Cuba, Iraq, and Afghanistan are all using the same immoral techniques, it's hard to believe it is some kind of coincidence or just a couple of bad apples. Dismissing a story of hostage taking and violating the Geneva Convention as 'drivel' does not give you the moral high ground.

[Desnudo]

I just love all the hate and rhetoric spewed forth against OBL and Saddam (obviously not saying that they aren't evil guys) while it's convienently forgotten that they were once our allies. And this isn't a partisan attack, it falls on both parties.

We may have been allies with them but were they allies with us? Or did they merely accept our guns/money in order to ensure self-preservation? Couldn't we have merely chosen to not support either? Sure doesn't look like we've supported either Iran or Iraq in the last decade or so...

That's because the Soviet Union isn't still around.

[rexallllsc]

Sometimes in foreign policy, your choices aren't going to be between the guy in black hat and the guy in the white hat. You might have to choose between two guys who are both wearing black. But you make the choice that is in this country's best interest. And right now, playing ball with Musharraf is much better than dealing with the guys most likely to take over in a coup.

Here's a novel concept: Choose neither.

[Chubby]

That's because the Soviet Union isn't still around.
You're right, now we can be the only bully on the block.

[CamEdwards]

I just love all the hate and rhetoric spewed forth against OBL and Saddam (obviously not saying that they aren't evil guys) while it's convienently forgotten that they were once our allies. And this isn't a partisan attack, it falls on both parties.

We may have been allies with them but were they allies with us? Or did they merely accept our guns/money in order to ensure self-preservation? Couldn't we have merely chosen to not support either? Sure doesn't look like we've supported either Iran or Iraq in the last decade or so...

Who says we were allies with them? Perhaps we were using them as much as they were using us. Could we have chosen not to support either? Why would we have done that? We're not isolationists, and there were tactical reasons to root for an Iraq victory, most notably stopping the Ayatollah's pronounced goal of spreading his theocratic style of government to Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and other Middle Eastern countries. Plus, there was that whole hostage taking situation (to bring this thread back full circle) in Tehran in the early 80's.

Hindsight's 20/20, and I'm sure we'll always be able to look back and say "mmm, wish we hadn't made that decision". But it's entirely unrealistic to say we'll never have to ally ourselves with people we don't like. You think the picture of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam is bad? Take a look at Roosevelt hanging out with STALIN, fer chrissakes.

[CamEdwards]

Here's a novel concept: Choose neither.

Dola:

Not really feasible, especially when you're dealing with a region in which we have a vital interest at stake.

[Chubby]

Dola:

Not really feasible, especially when you're dealing with a region in which we have a vital interest at stake.
You're right, blast USSR for trying to increase their sphere of influence then turn around and do the same thing while being righteous.

[st.cronin]

Dola:

Not really feasible, especially when you're dealing with a region in which we have a vital interest at stake.

I actually like the implications of his idea; raise the American flag over the entire region, declare ourselves a true imperial power, a la Athens or Rome, and start building schools and hospitals. In a couple of generations everything will be great.

[CamEdwards]

You're right, blast USSR for trying to increase their sphere of influence then turn around and do the same thing while being righteous.

I don't think we were blasting the USSR for trying to increase their sphere of influence as much as we were blasting them for what their influence meant for other countries.

And it's not as if we were attempting to annex Iraq, or even bring them into NATO. As a matter of fact, we came down on the same side as the Soviets in the Iran-Iraq war.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Who says we were allies with them? Perhaps we were using them as much as they were using us. Could we have chosen not to support either? Why would we have done that? We're not isolationists, and there were tactical reasons to root for an Iraq victory, most notably stopping the Ayatollah's pronounced goal of spreading his theocratic style of government to Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and other Middle Eastern countries. Plus, there was that whole hostage taking situation (to bring this thread back full circle) in Tehran in the early 80's.


But then, maybe if we hadn't already been meddling in Iran, the Ayatollah would never have gained power. Supporting Saddam was closing the barn door once the horse was out...

I'm receptive to your argument that sometimes foreign policy is messy and you can't always be too picky about who you work with. For example, I agree that we're doing about as well as we can in our current dealings with Pakistan. However, the history of our foreign interventions suggests that we were tremendously lacking in foresight. Often times our later compromises were a result of trying to clean up after the blowback of our previous compromises. We wouldn't have to coddle Pakistan right now if we hadn't screwed the pooch on post-Soviet Afghanistan.

How much of the resentment we face in these various countries relates to the fact that we regard manipulating their governments as "the great game"? I just think that in the past we've been too quick to compromise our core values, without fully thinking through why we hold those values and what will be the long-term ramifications of our actions.

[CamEdwards]

But then, maybe if we hadn't already been meddling in Iran, the Ayatollah would never have gained power. Supporting Saddam was closing the barn door once the horse was out...

I'm receptive to your argument that sometimes foreign policy is messy and you can't always be too picky about who you work with. For example, I agree that we're doing about as well as we can in our current dealings with Pakistan. However, the history of our foreign interventions suggests that we were tremendously lacking in foresight. Often times our later compromises were a result of trying to clean up after the blowback of our previous compromises. We wouldn't have to coddle Pakistan right now if we hadn't screwed the pooch on post-Soviet Afghanistan.

How much of the resentment we face in these various countries relates to the fact that we regard manipulating their governments as "the great game"? I just think that in the past we've been too quick to compromise our core values, without fully thinking through why we hold those values and what will be the long-term ramifications of our actions.

If you want to withdraw from the world stage and turn this country into Fortress America, I suggest you run for office on that platform. I actually think the right politician could win on that message.

But, if you think that the United States will have to have dealings with the rest of the world, then you'd be an idiot to think that we should approach our foreign policy in any other way other than "what best benefits the United States?"

Again, hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure we could have done things differently in post-Soviet Afghanistan. I'm sure we could have done things differently in Iran. And maybe ten years from now, we'll look at Pakistan and say "well, we should have done this instead of that". We're playing chess with 168 different opponents. Sometimes it's hard to look ahead and see what the board will look like in 20 or 30 turns.

[Chubby]

If you want to withdraw from the world stage and turn this country into Fortress America, I suggest you run for office on that platform. I actually think the right politician could win on that message.

But, if you think that the United States will have to have dealings with the rest of the world, then you'd be an idiot to think that we should approach our foreign policy in any other way other than "what best benefits the United States?"

Again, hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure we could have done things differently in post-Soviet Afghanistan. I'm sure we could have done things differently in Iran. And maybe ten years from now, we'll look at Pakistan and say "well, we should have done this instead of that". We're playing chess with 168 different opponents. Sometimes it's hard to look ahead and see what the board will look like in 20 or 30 turns.
So this justifies completely ignoring looking at what the future ramifications may be of our actions? Of course, it is easier to just spout off "hindsight is 20/20" in response to everything...

[CamEdwards]

So this justifies completely ignoring looking at what the future ramifications may be of our actions? Of course, it is easier to just spout off "hindsight is 20/20" in response to everything...

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that it's very easy for critics of this country to point out mistakes that were made in the past, but it's a very different thing to ask them for a plan for the future.

But if we want to look at the future ramifications of our actions, let me ask: what's your plan? What do you think we should be doing now that we're not?

[Chubby]

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that it's very easy for critics of this country to point out mistakes that were made in the past, but it's a very different thing to ask them for a plan for the future.

But if we want to look at the future ramifications of our actions, let me ask: what's your plan? What do you think we should be doing now that we're not?
let me ask: why is it my job to come up with a plan? Am i running for office/in office? Nope, I'm not.

I think we should not be wasting our soldiers lives in Iraq. I think we should have found OBL by now but obviously Iraq is more important :rolleyes: I think we should be decreasing our national dependance on oil.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Cam, I realize that we couldn't have asked for Khan's extradition. But since it seems like Musharraf in power does nothing, since Osama is likely in Pakistan - why back him if in twenty years, it's likely we'll be talking about his 'torture chambers' and 'rape rooms' when a President needs a new target.

Now, I don't have a degree in International Relations or get a daily e-mail from the RNC telling me who to attack daily, but two things are to me abundanty clear.

1. Figure Out a Withdrawl Plan - Why? Because we're never going to win. Nations occupying others never end well unless there's a plan for getting out from the beginning (see Japan, Germany post-WWII. We set current reasonable expectations, those nations hit them, we got the hell out aside from bases we neogotiated for.) Fifty percent of Iraqi's now think the invasion was a 'bad idea.'

Is it likely Iraq will break down to sectarian warfare the moment we leave? Yeah. But it's likely to happen no matter when we leave, whether it's one year or ten years from now. Look at Yugoslavia. The moment their strongman fell, the nation fell apart almost immediatedly. Remember, Iraq has no centuries long history of being a united nation. It's like were drawn on a map by the British less than a century ago. There's an insane amount of tension in that nation and it's not likely to calm down whether we're there or not.

We've already won the war, but we're going to lose the occupation no matter what.

2. Actually finish the job in Afghanistan - Outside of Kabul, Afghanistan is still largely the same warlord controlled, crumbling nation it was before we got there. Actually get that done, then we can focus on the rest.

As for the rest, I don't know. I'll be honest with you. But what I do know is that it isn't 1985 anymore. We don't have to be an ally with a nation because otherwise, the Russians/Fundamentalists/Enemy of the Week will take it over. Any supposed idealism doesn't really take with me when we're buddies with some mini-Saddams already.

[rexallllsc]

Dola:

Not really feasible, especially when you're dealing with a region in which we have a vital interest at stake.

What's the vital interest? US corporations?

Many other countries of the world seem to do quite alright (in regards to oil) without invading Middle Eastern countries.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

If you want to withdraw from the world stage and turn this country into Fortress America, I suggest you run for office on that platform. I actually think the right politician could win on that message.

But, if you think that the United States will have to have dealings with the rest of the world, then you'd be an idiot to think that we should approach our foreign policy in any other way other than "what best benefits the United States?"

Again, hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure we could have done things differently in post-Soviet Afghanistan. I'm sure we could have done things differently in Iran. And maybe ten years from now, we'll look at Pakistan and say "well, we should have done this instead of that". We're playing chess with 168 different opponents. Sometimes it's hard to look ahead and see what the board will look like in 20 or 30 turns.

What I'm suggesting is just this: we have some broad principles that we stand for. Let's take promotion of democracy as an example. In some cases in the past we have decided to compromise that principle for what looks like immediate necessity (overthrowing democratic governments that oppose us or our interests). This has sometimes come back to haunt us (Iran). I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't interact with the rest of the world, but maybe we should not be so quick to jettison our basic principles in pursuance of immediate benefits. Maybe we should consider why we hold those principles to be important in the first place and realize that there may be bad consequences for ignoring them. This could be applied to arming and supporting terrorists and religious extremists (School of Americas, Al Qaeda) or supporting dangerous dictators (Iraq) or to the use of torture, etc., etc. The question is not whether we should act on the international stage, but how we should act. Lofty principles generally attain their high status for very sensible reasons. We would do well to remember what those are. But neither would I suggest that we never make compromises, but just on a scale from perfect adherence to principle to complete abandonment, we've leaned a bit to far towards abandonment for my tastes.

[Crapshoot]

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that it's very easy for critics of this country to point out mistakes that were made in the past, but it's a very different thing to ask them for a plan for the future.

But if we want to look at the future ramifications of our actions, let me ask: what's your plan? What do you think we should be doing now that we're not?

To be fair to Cam, this is a reasonable point to make - and one the critics are apt to ignore. Geopolitics, by its very nature, is a field that lends itself to extreme hindsight - the usefulness of which is often more limited than it appears at first sight. Politics, as they say, makes for strange bedfellows sometimes.

My point (and it may have been in this or the Hamas thread - hard to tell in the last couple of days) is that's lets at least acknowledge the realpolitik for what it is, as opposed to bullshitting about a "moral imperative". What the administration tried to do in Iraq is change the rules of the game - the initial arguement was based almost primarily on WMD's, and then it came it full circle to the terrorism and "moral imperative" bit (I don't think these facts are disputable - and I'd be curious if you will try and make the case that WMD's were not the initial focus). What hindsight can tell us is that one ought to carefully evaluate the decisions made - and it appears as if there was some pressure on the CIA to produce certain answers - the right questions weren't being asked - rather, the right answers were being sought. Look, I believed Iraq had WMD's, and general evidence had suggested that most people (including, for the most part, the Europeans and even the Indians/Chinese/Russians) thought they had, or were gaining the capability. However, the means for making the decision (and the flat out ignorance of opposing evidence) is what is worrysome, and is open to criticism, above and beyond the decision itself.

Cam, doesn't it terrify you that the propoganda after the war started was such that 40% of Americans (and a significantly higher proportion of self-identified Republicans) thought that Sadaam was responsible for 9-11 ? If this is a war of ideas (one thing Bush is dead-on about), than does not one bear the responsibility to full portray those ideas, as opposed to hiding behind fig leaves (my primarily problem with the Dutch's of the world, as opposed to the JIMGA's) ?

[Dutch]

And to be clear, we did not find WMD's, we did not prove they did not exist or still exist.

[JPhillips]

Again, hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure we could have done things differently in post-Soviet Afghanistan. I'm sure we could have done things differently in Iran. And maybe ten years from now, we'll look at Pakistan and say "well, we should have done this instead of that". We're playing chess with 168 different opponents. Sometimes it's hard to look ahead and see what the board will look like in 20 or 30 turns.

That's not really the argument, Cam. I know we can't see everything in advance, but a lot of the people running this war have repeatedly made mistakes that they were warned about at the time. This isn't a case of nobody knew any different. Lots of people warned that what we're in the middle of was the most likely outcome and nobody in authority listened.

But its no surprise since a lot of these folks ignored the warnings about Afghanistan in the eighties. Read Charlie Wilson's war if you want a good history. We were warned not to back some of the extremist warlords that we supported and we ignored it. We could have allied ourselves with the resistance without pouring millions in cash and weapons to extremists that we assumed would turn against us. We were also warned to stop supporting the Mujahideen after the Soviet withdrawal, but we didn't and continued to give money and weapons to many of the guys we're either hunting or have already killed.

For all of the talk of putting the grown ups in charge, this has been a disaster not of intent but of planning, the very thing that the adults should have been doing.

[CamEdwards]

Cam, doesn't it terrify you that the propoganda after the war started was such that 40% of Americans (and a significantly higher proportion of self-identified Republicans) thought that Sadaam was responsible for 9-11 ? If this is a war of ideas (one thing Bush is dead-on about), than does not one bear the responsibility to full portray those ideas, as opposed to hiding behind fig leaves (my primarily problem with the Dutch's of the world, as opposed to the JIMGA's) ?

Honestly (and i doubt you believe me), I don't remember any "propaganda" suggesting Hussein was behind 9/11. I just don't. Does it terrify me that 40% of Americans believed it? No. I'm more terrified that almost 50% of Americans believed John Kerry would be a better leader for this country.

[Solecismic]

And 45% believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, speaking of statistics that just blow the mind.

[Crapshoot]

Honestly (and i doubt you believe me), I don't remember any "propaganda" suggesting Hussein was behind 9/11. I just don't. Does it terrify me that 40% of Americans believed it? No. I'm more terrified that almost 50% of Americans believed John Kerry would be a better leader for this country.

It doesn't bother you that 40% of Americans (or wherabouts) believed in a demonstarted falsehood ? That's worrysome, IMO. If you have faith in your ideas as winners, than why aren't you bothered by the need to misguide in order to support it ?

[Crapshoot]

And 45% believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, speaking of statistics that just blow the mind.

You're kidding - right ? No way.

[CamEdwards]

In 1964, only 38% of Americans knew the Soviet Union wasn't a part of NATO.

In 1970 30% of Americans believed we didn't really go to the moon (Knight Newspapers poll). In 1993 a poll of Ivy League students showed half of them couldn't identify their U.S. Senators.

Polls in 2004, according to Jeff Jacoby with the Boston Globe, showed nearly 65% of Americans didn't know Congress had banned partial birth abortions.

So no, I'm not terrified by your statistic. I'm not even surprised by it.

[rexallllsc]

No. I'm more terrified that almost 50% of Americans believed John Kerry would be a better leader for this country.

I'm not a John Kerry fan, but it's hard for me to understand why it terrify you that 50% of the country thought he would be a better leader than George Bush. Both of them are pretty unappealing as far as leadership goes, IMO. George Bush certainly hasn't created any distinction from Kerry, in my mind.

[rexallllsc]

You're kidding - right ? No way.

I'm surprised that 45% number isn't even higher, just based on two different factors:

-Religion
-Lack of education

[Jesse_Ewiak]

I'm not a John Kerry fan, but it's hard for me to understand why it terrify you that 50% of the country thought he would be a better leader than George Bush. Both of them are pretty unappealing as far as leadership goes, IMO. George Bush certainly hasn't created any distinction from Kerry, in my mind.

Because Kerry if he was President would personally take Cam's guns away from him.

[Warhammer]

If you want to withdraw from the world stage and turn this country into Fortress America, I suggest you run for office on that platform.

As long as we get laser cannons, I'm on board!

Hope someone gets the reference...

[CamEdwards]

Because Kerry if he was President would personally take Cam's guns away from him.

Actually, it's because people like you would be running the country. That's enough to give me the willies.

[Glengoyne]

Honestly (and i doubt you believe me), I don't remember any "propaganda" suggesting Hussein was behind 9/11. I just don't. Does it terrify me that 40% of Americans believed it? No. I'm more terrified that almost 50% of Americans believed John Kerry would be a better leader for this country.
That's because it doesn't exist. It's just that GW is such a brilliant communicator that he has convinced us of this through some verbal (or is it mental) sleight of hand. I've long argued that the polls that show that are so unabashedly biased that they are worthless, but all I've gotten is response is classification as a Bushie Ostrich with my head in the sand, and some political insight from Flasch's house keeper.

On the Kerry bit. I'm pretty sure a good sized chunk of that nearly 50% that voted for Kerry were actually thinking that even Kerry would be better than Bush.

[Raiders Army]

VOTE JESSE_EWIAK

[Jonathan Ezarik]

As long as we get laser cannons, I'm on board!

If I can get a Hovertank, I'm in as well.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Honestly (and i doubt you believe me), I don't remember any "propaganda" suggesting Hussein was behind 9/11. I just don't.

You're right. I don't believe you. How can you forget any of these gems?

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants. … But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization Ansar al-Islam that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000, this agent offered al-Qaida safe haven in the region. We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service. Saddam became more interested as he saw al-Qaida’s appalling attacks. A detained al-Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist al-Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by al-Qaida’s attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.”

The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the ‘beginning of the end of America.’ By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.

The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that still goes on. al-Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist networks still operate in many nations. And we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend our homeland and, more importantly, we will continue to hunt the enemy down before he can strike. No act of terrorists will change our purpose or weaken our resolve or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory.

Granted, no one in the administration came out and blamed Hussein for 11 September, but they used every opportunity they could get to link him to al-Qaida.

If (al-Qaida=11 September) and (Hussein=al-Qaida), then Hussein=11 September.


I'm more terrified that almost 50% of Americans believed John Kerry would be a better leader for this country.

And I'm appalled that over 50% felt that Bush was a better leader.

[MrBigglesworth]

That's because it doesn't exist. It's just that GW is such a brilliant communicator that he has convinced us of this through some verbal (or is it mental) sleight of hand. I've long argued that the polls that show that are so unabashedly biased that they are worthless, but all I've gotten is response is classification as a Bushie Ostrich with my head in the sand, and some political insight from Flasch's house keeper.

On the Kerry bit. I'm pretty sure a good sized chunk of that nearly 50% that voted for Kerry were actually thinking that even Kerry would be better than Bush.
Blen, most Americans don't distinguish between brown people. So when Bush et al say, "The terrorists attackes us first on 9/11, so we have to take out Saddam", that equates to linking the two. That's Propaganda 101, and this administration has a masters degree in it, so that type of association is amatuer hour to them. You are pretty well informed, so I suspect that you already see that, and just think that the ends justify the means, which is why you dismiss even the thought of it as ludicrous to keep the people that are really clueless from catching on.

[CamEdwards]

so... in order to prove the point that President Bush said Iraq was responsible for September 11th, you post a bunch of quotes that don't say that, and then you yourself say that he didn't say that.

Of course President Bush talked about links to Iraq. Hell, Bill Clinton's government talked about Iraq and al Queda's links. Look up Osama's 1998 indictment. It's fairly interesting.

And I'm sorry you're appalled at the results of the election. I sincerely hope your candidate in 2008 has a better message than your candidate in 2004 did. I'd love to be torn between who I'm going to vote for.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Actually, it's because people like you would be running the country. That's enough to give me the willies.

Nah. I'm the first to admit that I'm to the left of even large parts of the Democratic Party. BTW, you do realize that according to the rules of how the world works, your kid is going to go to Berkeley and my future child's hero will be Reagan, right? :-)

[MrBigglesworth]

so... in order to prove the point that President Bush said Iraq was responsible for September 11th, you post a bunch of quotes that don't say that, and then you yourself say that he didn't say that.

Of course President Bush talked about links to Iraq. Hell, Bill Clinton's government talked about Iraq and al Queda's links. Look up Osama's 1998 indictment. It's fairly interesting.

And I'm sorry you're appalled at the results of the election. I sincerely hope your candidate in 2008 has a better message than your candidate in 2004 did. I'd love to be torn between who I'm going to vote for.
Like I mentioned in the other thread, Bush is now stealing Kerry's ideas on foreign policy, ideas that he mocked during the election. So I'm curious what message you are looking for. Big talk that doesn't work in the real world, I guess.

BTW, is it possible for Bush and Clinton to both be wrong, or does agreement equate to being right? You trot out 'Clinton said it too' as if it's self-evident that that proves your point.

[CamEdwards]

Nah. I'm the first to admit that I'm to the left of even large parts of the Democratic Party. BTW, you do realize that according to the rules of how the world works, your kid is going to go to Berkeley and my future child's hero will be Reagan, right? :-)

Actually, considering how liberal my wife is, I'm guessing that most of my kids will be completely apolitical. My stepdaughter voted for Kerry last year, but I love her anyway. :)

[CamEdwards]

Like I mentioned in the other thread, Bush is now stealing Kerry's ideas on foreign policy, ideas that he mocked during the election. So I'm curious what message you are looking for. Big talk that doesn't work in the real world, I guess.

BTW, is it possible for Bush and Clinton to both be wrong, or does agreement equate to being right? You trot out 'Clinton said it too' as if it's self-evident that that proves your point.

President Bush has declared that the Yazuka is the biggest threat to this country? Well, that's scary.

Of course it's possible for both President Bush and President Clinton, and their respective Justice Departments, and their respective CIA's, and their respective FBI's, and their respective NSA's, etc. etc. to be wrong.

It's also possible the 9/11 Commission was wrong. Yet you seem to be completely unwilling to accept that premise (or at least as unwilling as I am to accept that they're right).

[MrBigglesworth]

President Bush has declared that the Yazuka is the biggest threat to this country? Well, that's scary.
I don't understand your right wing talking point. I don't even know what a Yazuka is.

Of course it's possible for both President Bush and President Clinton, and their respective Justice Departments, and their respective CIA's, and their respective FBI's, and their respective NSA's, etc. etc. to be wrong.
Hmmm...every agency has said that there was no link between Al-Q and Saddam (except for the FBI, as far as know, because they don't really deal with foreign intelligence). Because there wasn't. So I'm curious as to why you say they were wrong.

It's also possible the 9/11 Commission was wrong. Yet you seem to be completely unwilling to accept that premise (or at least as unwilling as I am to accept that they're right).
It's possible they were wrong, but when you have zero evidence, it's kind of hard to be taken seriously, and even harder to start a war based on it.

[CamEdwards]

I'm going to provide you with a series of links. Yes, they are all from right wing publications, which will allow you to dismiss them out of hand. But considering your side of the political spectrum would never actually admit that there were connections, it's kind of difficult to find a Mother Jones article on the subject.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092503F

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/nation_world/topstory.asp?ID=12798

Actually, that last one was from Knight-Ridder syndicate, so perhaps it will meet with your approval.

Again, I'm not suggesting that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

Oh, one more: here's the 1998 indictment of bin Laden:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html


Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development.


That information could not have been determined without help from the CIA, NSA, etc., which is why I pointed out that the agencies believe there were connections.

[Glengoyne]

Hey I'm just happy that both Jessie and Giggles have both admitted that Bush never directly linked Saddam with the attacks on 9/11.

Now to bookmark this thread.

As for the ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Based on the argument the admin was making, all that was required, in my opinion, was that the two had a dialogue. If they are willing to talk, and they both hate the United States, I'm willing to concede that the two of them might find a way to work together. The links that even the liberals will admit to seem to constitute a history of the two entities communicating.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Come on, now. Please tell my you guys are smarter than this.

Of course Bush never claimed Hussein ever had anything to do with 11 Sept (although Cheney has come close several times), because that's how politicians speak. They don't come out and say something directly. They let their words dance around the subject and let pundits make the connections for them. You know, that whole "liberal media" you guys are always complaining about. I don't recall hearing anyone in the Bush administration coming out before the war saying definitively that Iraq had nothing to do with 11 Sept.

Cam, go read those quotes I posted again and tell me that Bush and Powell don't imply a connection between Hussein and al-Qaida.

Based on the argument the admin was making, all that was required, in my opinion, was that the two had a dialogue. If they are willing to talk, and they both hate the United States, I'm willing to concede that the two of them might find a way to work together. The links that even the liberals will admit to seem to constitute a history of the two entities communicating.

Does this mean that every time two groups that hate America talk to each other that gives us an excuse to invade? If so, we had better get that draft going because there are a lot of countries out there that need to get that good 'ole 'Merican smack-down.

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm going to provide you with a series of links. Yes, they are all from right wing publications, which will allow you to dismiss them out of hand. But considering your side of the political spectrum would never actually admit that there were connections, it's kind of difficult to find a Mother Jones article on the subject.
It kind of says something about your argument when the only sources you can find are right wing rags, and not even a FoxNews story, not to even mention a reputable foriegn policy journal. But let's look at the content:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp
Big theory: "The CIA has confirmed, in interviews with detainees and informants it finds highly credible, that al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998."

Obvious logical inconsistency of the argument: Al Queda wasn't formed until later in 1998, after the supposed meeting.

Other problems: No evidence is presented in the article, beyond the nebulous 'Iraqi defectors', which were also the evidence that we used to say that Iraq was crawling with WMD's. Solid sources, no doubt.

Bonus wingnuttery:
Contrary to the claims of its critics, the Bush administration has consistently underplayed the connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. emphasis theirs
Yeah, that sounds like them.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
Big theory: The connection between a plant that turned out to be making aspirin and Iraq is from an ABC correspondent in 1998: "The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program."

Obvious logical problem: Iraq had no chemical weapons program, hence the person who runs it is a figment of someone's imagination.

Bonus wingnuttery:
But there is bound to be more discussion of al Shifa and Iraq-al Qaeda connections in the coming weeks. The Senate Intelligence Committee is nearing completion of its review of prewar intelligence. And although there is still no CIA team assigned to look at the links between Iraq and al Qaeda, investigators looking at documents from the fallen regime continue to uncover new information about those connections on a regular basis.
That's so accurate, it's nearly prophetic!

I don't know why the MSM isn't ALL OVER THIS!

Oh right, probably because it's just conspiracy theory.

[sterlingice]

It's so damning that some people don't take unabashedly biased news sources as truth :rolleyes:

Critics have claimed that the Weekly Standard lacks objectivity, citing an interview with senior Standard writer Matt Labash published by JournalismJobs.com in May 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_2003). Asked why conservative media outlets had enjoyed recent popularity, Labash responded "Because they feed the rage. We bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly, but it's true somewhat. We come with a strong point of view and people like point of view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Forum) types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket. I'm glad we found it actually." [1] (http://www.journalismjobs.com/matt_labash.cfm) (*Note: The White House also receives over 100 copies daily of the Wall Street Journal.)SI