Oklahoma Values...

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

To borrow a phrase & then paraphrase a bit more "Hearts & minds my ass. Take 'em by the balls, that's the only way they'll ever follow."

I disagree with this.

If it meant saving the life of one American or one ally, soldier or civilian -- now, 2 months, 2 years, 2 decades, or 2 centuries from now -- I'd willingly & without hesitation eliminate every Iraqi man, woman, and child on the planet today. And more of the same for their neighbors if they object in a fashion that poses a threat to this nation or it's allies.

Which is partly why I really disagree with this, the other being that I don't tolerate genocide.

Look at the Kurdish part of Iraq. They love us. Not like, not tolerate, love. That's partly because of circumstances where the alternative was much, much worse, but we've won the hearts and minds of that part of the country. The more time we spend in Iraq and interact with the people, the more they like us. Other than Iran and Israel, where the majority of the population supports us, and maybe an emirate or two, Iraq is the Arab country with citizens most supportive of the United States, because they get to see more of Americans than other places where it is only anti-American propaganda. The reaction of most Iraqis to Abu Ghraib appears to be best described as indifference, while in most other Arab countries there was outrage.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Btw, any attempts to censure Senator Asshole... er, Inhofe?

Wouldn't happen since the Republicans control Congress. How about censuring Ted Kennedy for saying "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management."

[ISiddiqui]

Ted is probably more correct than Inhofe, sadly.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Ted is probably more correct than Inhofe, sadly.

In a word, no. Inhofe wasn't condoning the abuse, he was just saying he was more pissed off at the amount of outrage and how much it was being used in partisan ways. Senator Kennedy was providing propaganda, if not aid and comfort, to our enemies.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Look at the Kurdish part of Iraq.

I must conceed that I was thinking of areas of Iraq other than the Kurdish region. (Without realizing it at all, I believe I've come to think of it as something other than "Iraq" -- I don't know what exactly "the Kurdish region" maybe, but I wasn't thinking of them in that statement)

The reaction of most Iraqis to Abu Ghraib appears to be best described as indifference ...

Interesting observation you make there. Sounds a lot like my own reaction (which upsets some people considerably). Not that the connection means anything, it just struck me interesting.

[ISiddiqui]

Inhofe wasn't condoning the abuse, he was just saying he was more pissed off at the amount of outrage and how much it was being used in partisan ways.

Sorry, but that's just apologizing for his remarks. I think Inhofe was pulling a Limbaugh and poo-pooing the abuse. That seems evident from his remarks. I mean how can you POSSIBLY condemn the outrage?

Senator Kennedy was providing propaganda, if not aid and comfort, to our enemies.

<- I guess that's the best response to such a statement.

'Cause raping female prisioners is so distinct from what Saddam's guards used to do?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Sorry, but that's just apologizing for his remarks. I think Inhofe was pulling a Limbaugh and poo-pooing the abuse. That seems evident from his remarks. I mean how can you POSSIBLY condemn the outrage?

"I hasten to say, yes, there are seven bad guys and gals that didn't do what they should have done. They were misguided. I think maybe even perverted. And the things they did have to be punished, and they're being punished. They're being tried right now and that's all taking place. But I'm also outraged by the press and the politicians and the political agendas that are being served by this, and I say political agendas because that's actually what is happening."

<- I guess that's the best response to such a statement.

'Cause raping female prisioners is so distinct from what Saddam's guards used to do?

I guess degree matters none. A few isolated incidents where the perpetrators are punished and condemned versus a systematic state-run system. Nope, no difference, America=Evil, Great Satan, move along.

[ISiddiqui]

"I am also outraged that we have so many humanitarian do-gooders right now crawling all over these prisons looking for human rights violations, while our troops, our heroes are fighting and dying," he said.

"These prisoners, you know they're not there for traffic violations," said Inhofe, whose senatorial Web site describes him as an advocate of "Oklahoma values."
"If they're in cellblock 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands and here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals."

Yeah, he wants these guys punished bad. It's a nice backtrack by him. But his words are out there. Yes we ARE concerned about the treatment of those individuals Senator Fuckface!

I guess degree matters none. A few isolated incidents where the perpetrators are punished and condemned versus a systematic state-run system. Nope, no difference, America=Evil, Great Satan, move along.

It's not seeming very isolated now, after Senators have seen tons of incidents:

(From the BBC)
Speaking after seeing the unpublished abuse images, Senator Ron Wyden said : "I expected that these pictures would be very hard on the stomach lining and it was significantly worse than anything that I had anticipated."

"Take the worse case and multiply it several times over," he added.

So except for a little hyperbole, how far off the mark is Senator Kennedy? We are torturing these people. Whether it is ordered from the top or not matters not, the fact that it is systematic does.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It's not seeming very isolated now, after Senators have seen tons of incidents:

# of deaths of Iraqi prisoners in our custody: 25.
# ruled homicide: 2
# of rapes: not sure, but probably not very many.
# killed by Saddam on average each year: 20,000 would be a low estimate

So except for a little hyperbole, how far off the mark is Senator Kennedy? We are torturing these people. Whether it is ordered from the top or not matters not, the fact that it is systematic does.

A - It's not systematic. B - What has been shown so far is abuse, humiliation. Not torture. Not murder. Does that matter at all?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yes we ARE concerned about the treatment of those individuals Senator Fuckface!

No ISiddiqui, YOU'RE concerned about it. And those who oppose the President are concerned about it (or, more accurately, concerned with how they can best exploit the situation).

But the average American? I really don't believe, deep down, he/she particuarly gives much of a rat's ass about it one way or the other. They aren't (a majority at least) happy it happened, heck, we'll even agree that those responsible should be disciplined, but they aren't wringing their hands over it a lot either. Oh, there'll be some temporary discomfort, more because they didn't enjoy watching it than anything else, but that's about it -- it's temporary, because it isn't nearly as important as any of a hundred other things.

Most importantly, given the timing, it won't sway a significant number of votes, so I suggest that you find a different dog, 'cause this one ain't gonna hunt.

Or better yet, go ahead & continue to rave about shit that really doesn't matter ... I like it when the opposition wastes its time.

[ISiddiqui]

But the average American? I really don't believe, deep down, he/she particuarly gives much of a rat's ass about it one way or the other.

Look at the poll numbers. They've plummeted after this scandel hit. Bush is now tied with Kerry. The number that support our presense in Iraq has dropped to very low depths. So yeah, I think the average American is VERY concerned about this.

go ahead & continue to rave about shit that really doesn't matter

Yep, Americans violating the Geneva Convention is something which REALLY DOESN'T MATTER! Let's talk about important stuff like if Kerry got Botox injections. I'm sorry, but I can't find things which matter MORE than this! I mean, really, our whole occupation in Iraq is seriously compromised by this. And we could have made this great.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Look at the poll numbers. They've plummeted after this scandel hit.

I alluded to that already, it's temporary. Predicatable even. It's knee-jerk stuff that you can count on every time.

So yeah, I think the average American is VERY concerned about this.

You're confusing answering poll questions with, well for lack of a better word, "reality".

I don't believe I've mentioned Botox here or anywhere else (actually, I think you may be the first time I've seen anyone anywhere mention it, now I gotta go look around).

I'm sorry, but I can't find things which matter MORE than this!

Then, I'm sad to say, that you either aren't paying attention very well or
a) don't get it.
b) refuse to get it.
c) never will get it.

And there ain't much I can do about any of the above.

So go have yourself a good cry, or a good mad, or whatever works for you. Get yourself all lathered up over it, throw a fit, write your Congressman, march the soles off three pair of shoes, or whatever tickles your fancy.

Somewhere along the way though, I strongly & sincerely suggest that you take steps to prepare yourself for GOP control of both chambers of the state legislature, and 4 more years of the best President this nation has had in my lifetime. Because that's what you're gonna get, and there's too many voting Americans who understand what's really important to allow anything else to happen.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

# of deaths of Iraqi prisoners in our custody: 25.
# ruled homicide: 2
# of rapes: not sure, but probably not very many.
# killed by Saddam on average each year: 20,000 would be a low estimate
[i]A - It's not systematic. B - What has been shown so far is abuse, humiliation. Not torture. Not murder. Does that matter at all?

Does homicide not mean murder in your book? Does sodomization with glow-sticks not mean torture? Just because we're not torturing and killing as many as Hussein doesn't make it right.

Again, if American soldiers were killed or sodomized while in captivity, I have a feeling I know which of the defensive folks around here would be leading the charge, screaming for blood.

[ISiddiqui]

You're confusing answering poll questions with, well for lack of a better word, "reality".

Sorry, but I think human rights abuses committed by American soldiers DOES impact on reality.

you either aren't paying attention very well

Actually I'd say that about you. You're poo-pooing American soldiers committing human rights violations ON TAPE! For God sakes, man! This could (probably will) doom any success we can possibly have in Iraq and then what? The Middle East will NEVER be on our side after this.

I mean what can be worse? We've done Al Queda's recruiting work for them for the next 50 years! All they have to do is point to Iraq and say look what happens when we allow the Americans to enter the Muslim world! It's a damned catastrophe!

I mean, can you please look into the long term? I know it is fucking hard for you, but long term consequences are kind of important.

4 more years of the best President this nation has had in my lifetime

Sorry, but Reagan can't run. And the second best President can't either (ie, Clinton). Bush.. man, I think I'd almost rather take Carter the way things are going. And I can't believe I freaking voted for the idiot.

[ISiddiqui]

Here is something fun:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....tm/index.html

"We're going to live with the consequences of this for the next 40 years," says a senior White House official, and few would accuse him of exaggeration. Most immediately, the scandal has imperiled the U.S. effort to pacify Iraq by turning even more ordinary Iraqis against the occupation and reinforcing the sense that control is slipping everywhere, less than two months before the U.S. is due to hand sovereignty back to the nation.

Nothing the Bush Administration said or did could contain the damage. The President, who says he first learned of the existence of the photographs when they were aired two weeks ago on CBS's 60 Minutes II, went on Arab television to proclaim the abusive treatment "abhorrent" behavior that "does not represent the America that I know."

His words weren't enough to dent the outrage of Muslims who wondered why he failed to apologize. A day later Bush finally said he was sorry, but America's image in much of the Arab world may well be irredeemable. U.S. officials tried to portray the sordid scenes as the isolated acts of a few low-ranking soldiers who were violating U.S. policy. The military, they pointed out, has already rooted out the offenders and is disciplining them.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Does homicide not mean murder in your book? Does sodomization with glow-sticks not mean torture? Just because we're not torturing and killing as many as Hussein doesn't make it right.

It's murder. It's torture. Those numbers were in response to the systematic claims. The abuse and humiliation are possibly widespread. The torture (like the glow-sticks) is a few isolated incidents. The rapes/murders are probably at most 10 incidences across Iraq over a year from over 300,000 soldiers. And the military is taking steps to reduce these numbers. Compare to the number of prisoners raped/murdered in our prisons every year and it's no contest. I'm not condoning or saying it's acceptable in any way. I'm just saying this whole thing is ridiculously overblown and, to combine two analogies, grasping at trees while missing the forest. When the pine cones up the ass thing happened on Long Island, we didn't have a Congressional investigation into high school athletics; when the UVM hazing incident occurred we didn't have a congressional investigation into college athletics; when prisoners in our prisons are regularly abused, humiliated and raped we turn the other way. Doesn't mean any of these things are right, but the reasons why people have chosen to highlight these specific abuses and how they are expressing their outrage are enlightening.

Again, if American soldiers were killed or sodomized while in captivity, I have a feeling I know which of the defensive folks around here would be leading the charge, screaming for blood.

Round here, I'm pretty certain the usual suspects in these threads are already set in their opinions. I don't think Dutch or JoninMiddleGA are going to have their opinions changed by one incident, and you/ISiddiqui won't believe our war is any more right and just if that occurs. Personally, I'd be calling for the people responsible to be killed or arrested and punished for their actions. I'd also be arguing against those who wish to take an isolated incident and use it to generalize about the entire group of people. Same as I'm doing here.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The Middle East will NEVER be on our side after this.

And who, in their right mind, honestly believes that would or could happen no matter what happens?

We could pave their streets with gold, beat our women to death, kill at their behest, even stop bathing regularly ... and they still would seek our destruction at the first reasonable opportunity.

Until you manage to come to grips with that reality, nothing else is really going to matter much.

The last word is all yours. Enjoy.

[ISiddiqui]

And who, in their right mind, honestly believes that would or could happen no matter what happens?

Before Iraq, after 9/11, there may have been a chance. In fact Bush believed it himself.

We could pave their streets with gold, beat our women to death, kill at their behest, even stop bathing regularly ... and they still would seek our destruction at the first reasonable opportunity.

Until you manage to come to grips with that reality, nothing else is really going to matter much.

Ah yes, ugly American generalizing the whole Muslim world = Al Queda. The wonders of American educational system.

[McSweeny]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

No ISiddiqui, YOU'RE concerned about it. And those who oppose the President are concerned about it (or, more accurately, concerned with how they can best exploit the situation).

But the average American? I really don't believe, deep down, he/she particuarly gives much of a rat's ass about it one way or the other. They aren't (a majority at least) happy it happened, heck, we'll even agree that those responsible should be disciplined, but they aren't wringing their hands over it a lot either. Oh, there'll be some temporary discomfort, more because they didn't enjoy watching it than anything else, but that's about it -- it's temporary, because it isn't nearly as important as any of a hundred other things.

Most importantly, given the timing, it won't sway a significant number of votes, so I suggest that you find a different dog, 'cause this one ain't gonna hunt.

Or better yet, go ahead & continue to rave about shit that really doesn't matter ... I like it when the opposition wastes its time.

ya know Jon, i disagree with pretty much all of your political views and i don't usually post in these threads... but i pretty much agree with what you've said here.

[ISiddiqui]

ISiddiqui won't believe our war is any more right and just if that occurs

Um... but I believe the war is right and just (I kinda have to if I want to keep refering to myself a neo-conservative)... I just don't like the way it is being carried out. Do you have me confused with someone else? FYI, I'm the moderate neo-conservative, who believes diplomacy is just as important as force at times.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I alluded to that already, it's temporary. Predicatable even. It's knee-jerk stuff that you can count on every time.


You're confusing answering poll questions with, well for lack of a better word, "reality".

I don't believe I've mentioned Botox here or anywhere else (actually, I think you may be the first time I've seen anyone anywhere mention it, now I gotta go look around).


Then, I'm sad to say, that you either aren't paying attention very well or
a) don't get it.
b) refuse to get it.
c) never will get it.

And there ain't much I can do about any of the above.

So go have yourself a good cry, or a good mad, or whatever works for you. Get yourself all lathered up over it, throw a fit, write your Congressman, march the soles off three pair of shoes, or whatever tickles your fancy.

Somewhere along the way though, I strongly & sincerely suggest that you take steps to prepare yourself for GOP control of both chambers of the state legislature, and 4 more years of the best President this nation has had in my lifetime. Because that's what you're gonna get, and there's too many voting Americans who understand what's really important to allow anything else to happen.

From http://www.thehill.com/mellman/051204.aspx -

In the latest Gallup poll, John Kerry leads George Bush by five points among registered voters when Nader is included, and by 6 when he is not.

......No challenger has ever done as well against an elected incumbent at this point in the cycle. Every incumbent who won re-election had a double-digit lead over his challenger at this stage. Lyndon Johnson led Barry Goldwater by 59 points in the spring of ’64. Bill Clinton led Bob Dole by 14 points, Ronald Reagan led Walter Mondale by 17 and Richard Nixon was ahead of George McGovern by 11.

Of course, some incumbents who went on to lose were doing better than Bush is today. The president’s father led Clinton by six points at this stage but was beaten anyway.

Thus, Kerry’s margin is 11 points better than was Bill Clinton’s at a similar point in time against Bush I. What, you haven’t seen that “Kerry stronger than Clinton” headline?

Only one challenger has ever done as well against an incumbent at a comparable time in the election cycle. Jimmy Carter had a similar six-point lead over the unelected and subsequently defeated Gerald Ford. The nation had just been through the long national nightmare of Watergate and Ford had pardoned Nixon.

.....campaigns are events that unfold over the course of the cycle. Most of the movement in polls comes in the aftermath of the conventions. Incumbent presidents are the best-known politicians around. Challengers are usually not as well known. Kerry is no exception. Today, many voters are expressing a preference for the Kerry they don’t know over the Bush they do. That is striking. Often, unpopular politicians still lead at this stage.

/end of article/

Yeah sure it's May and anything could change in the next few months, but anybody who thinks Bush is going to waltz into second term isn't thinking straight. This is still basically a 43-43 nation with a bunch of moderates in the middle. Plus, in the battleground states...Kerry is leading. National polls really mean nothing, state by state do. Because quite frankly, it doesn't matter if Bush wins Texas by 30 points or Kerry does the same in Massachusetts. Those 15-16 states will decide the election, and they're beginning to break for Kerry. Yeah, it could all change. We could capture Osama tomorrow or the Golden Gate Bridge could blow up.

Sorry to but in on the torture thread, but I had to put on my amateur polisci hat on when I saw that line by Jon.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

I'm glad to hear you say this, Cam. I was listening to Michael Savage* last night while driving home and he claimed that, quote, "liberal democrats" were to blame for Berg's death. Interestingly, Sen. Inhofe was on the show, and he called Savage a hero.

When it comes to outrage, I try to apply the opposites test. What do you think the American public's reaction would be if photographs were released showing American military personnel being treated in the same manner as those Iraqis?

*And wow...how insane is that guy?

Personally, I think most American military prisoners would probably be toasted beyond human recognition and hung out for display while a large crowd cheered. Or perhaps some would get the special "Berg/Pearlman" treatment, Al Qaeda style.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Honestly, very little if any, and very likely none at all.


If it meant saving the life of one American or one ally, soldier or civilian -- now, 2 months, 2 years, 2 decades, or 2 centuries from now -- I'd willingly & without hesitation eliminate every Iraqi man, woman, and child on the planet today. And more of the same for their neighbors if they object in a fashion that poses a threat to this nation or it's allies.

I don't think there's much left on the line below that one.

Jon

Acolytes always scare me- the quote above is a classic example why. I respect your right to think they way you do, but this is very Goering like speak. Then again, the utopia you seem to want is remarkably Goering like in nature.