Don't get mad, it's for our troops
POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Sunday, May 16, 2004 12:45
VIEWED: 14196
PAGE 7 of 10
Not lack of evidence, just lack of photos. I'm not quibbling or meaning to offend either, but just because we didn't have photos of Saddam gassing Iranians and Kurds doesn't mean it didn't happen. And just because there were no photos of American troop coffins doesn't mean there weren't any.
Photos can move people, which is why the Bush administration -and all administrations since Vietnam- have been very, very, very careful about what gets on your TV screen.
I like to try what I think of as "analysis", although I'm sure professional intelligence analysts would laugh at my pitiable attempts. Sometimes the most important evidence is the timing of the news. Sometimes the most important evidence is what is NOT in the news. For example, what was world reaction to Berg's beheading? Under the CNN headline "Beheading Sparks Outrage" there were comments from UAE, Bush, Blair, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the governor of Pennsylvania, Jordon (which expressed "sympathy" for the family but did not condemn) and Berg's parents. THEIR outrage was actually directed against the USA government, altho you'd have to read to the very end of the article to find that out. What's wrong with this picture?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In fact, there are photos of Saddam gassing Iranians and Kurds, as well as substantially more evidence then that. It is a lack of evidence that you are operating on here.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not lack of evidence, just lack of photos. I'm not quibbling or meaning to offend either, but just because we didn't have photos of Saddam gassing Iranians and Kurds doesn't mean it didn't happen. And just because there were no photos of American troop coffins doesn't mean there weren't any.
Quote:As far I can tell, the problem may be that you may be so insistent on searching for reasons to condemn the US that you have found evidence where none exists. In an article that spells out how brutal these monsters we are fighting can be, you have instead decided that there is some mysterious unspoken underlying pretext that makes the US the bad guys.
Originally posted by SignyM:
I like to try what I think of as "analysis", although I'm sure professional intelligence analysts would laugh at my pitiable attempts. Sometimes the most important evidence is the timing of the news. Sometimes the most important evidence is what is NOT in the news. For example, what was world reaction to Berg's beheading? Under the CNN headline "Beheading Sparks Outrage" there were comments from UAE, Bush, Blair, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the governor of Pennsylvania, Jordon (which expressed "sympathy" for the family but did not condemn) and Berg's parents. THEIR outrage was actually directed against the USA government, altho you'd have to read to the very end of the article to find that out. What's wrong with this picture?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's not "some mysterious unspoken underlying pretext". What I am trying to point out is that a lot of our news is government press releases by anybody from the local dog catcher to the President of the USA.
So, what was wrong with that situation, as described in my post? Unlike after 9/11, there was no reaction to the beheading from Spain, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Italy, Poland, etc. I went to The Guardian, to Christian Science Monitor, Asia Times etc. and I couldn't find a thing.
Here's another example: During Gulf War I, after about eight days of heavy bombing (when we were dropping over 2000 bombs per day on Baghdad and other cities) Saddam claimed eight civilian casulties and the USA claimed not to have killed any. The picture on TV ad infinitum ad nauseum was the "smart" bomb homing in on a fortified bunker.
I AM getting to a point! I'm just going by a roundabout route.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Someone wrote:
Quote:
However, none of this changes the fact that the individuals in question are killers and I have far less sympathy for them then I do for their victims. None of this changes the reality that information obtained from these killers has certainly been used to save innocent lives. No one denies that torturing prisoners is bad, but so is killing and torturing American soldiers and civilians and Iraqi civilians. Are we to avoid completely an avenue that will save these lives, so that we may self-righteously proclaim ourselves good people to terrorists who could care less if we were good or not?
First of all, we do not know anything about the people being interrogated, except that they presumably had information wanted by the Intelligence community.
Second of all, if they WERE killers, there are punishments for that. Punishments that follow a trial. Punishments that do not include torture.
Third of all, is it acceptable to harvest souls and imprison them in hell for the purpose of putting the devil out of business?
Becoming the enemy doesn't suit me.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Someone said:
Quote:
The same type of situation likely applied at Abu Ghraib (please do also remembered that the problems were confined to Abu Ghraib with one particular MP company; the rest of the prisons/detention units in Iraq performed in outstanding manners.). The local leadership there failed miserably in getting the MPs in their units the proper training in running a detention center (remember, being a policemen and being a prison guard are different things - even in real life civilian world), these were also National Guard units that do not have much proper training and practice other than 2 days out of every month. Furthermore, the national guard units were also rapidly demoralized from being told several times that their tour would be over RSN (real soon now).
I see this sort of thing a lot. Soldiers saying they weren't properly trained. Hadn't read the Geneva conventions. Didn't know what they did was wrong.
I'm curious as to what kind of training you need to act like a human being. These people were likely encouraged to do what they did by the Intel community... but they sure weren't somberly obeying orders. They were grinning like cheshire cats. Mmmm. Yeah. Reading the Geneva convention woulda cleared that right up.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
While the photos were shocking (and by the way, the guy who several posts ago wondered "where the arbiters of morality were" etc. etc., they were saying the same thing they are saying today when those guys got hung in Falluja) etc. I think they are really beside the point. The US is fighting an insurgency, i.e. combatants who use their ability to blend into the population as a military tactic, and the only way to figure out who is who is to knock down doors and torture the poo out of folks. It is horrifying to contemplate but its necessary. I would go further and say that the central problem confronting the military is that the only way to stamp out the insurgents would be to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
The real questions are, a) what are our aims? and b) how can we achieve them? A lot of folks, including myself, opposed the war because we believed it would result in precisely the situation in which we find ourselves now, but that too is beside the point. If we believe that governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed then I don't think there is any way to argue that what is going on in Iraq fills that bill. And if the US continues the fight there it will only get worse--even if we buck history and manage to "win."
The fantasy many talking heads implicitly ascribe to is that there is a quick solution; Iraq is going to be a bloody mess for at least 5 years whether we are there or not. We did some Iraqis a favor (probably not the 500,000 that worked for Saddam's internal security apparatus, but who's counting) by getting rid of him. Maybe we should get the hell out of the way and let them figure out the rest for themselves.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not sure we could win, even if we went all-out. Let's look at Israel and the Palestinians.
Israel has a tremendous military tech advantage: they have missiles, helicopter gunships, bullet-proof vests and helmets, tanks, nuclear wepaons etc etc. At one point they were even manufacturing chemical weapons. Palestinians have light arms, some RPGs, and explosives.
Israel has a technological economy and billions of dollars of US support. The Palestinians have a 70% unemployment rate and are by and large displaced farmers and shopkeepers.
Israel has physical control of their nation plus their occupied territories. While Israelis can travel pretty freely, Palestinians are hemmed in by walls and checkpoints- it can take a Palestinian literally half a day and three checkpoints to cover 10 miles.
Israel has a well-developed intelligence system: they live cheek by jowl with Palestinians (with whom they share physical characteristics) and know their language. Israel has practiced group punishment, preventive detention, military occupation for decades. Fighting the Palestinians has all the challenge of shooting fish in a barrel. I don't think that anyone could say that Israel hasn't been fighting effectively. But, can anyone say that Israel has "won"? Can anyone say that Israel is "safe"?
Now, if Israel hasn't won, why do we think we can?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Someone Said:
Quote:
I think they are really beside the point. The US is fighting an insurgency, i.e. combatants who use their ability to blend into the population as a military tactic, and the only way to figure out who is who is to knock down doors and torture the poo out of folks. It is horrifying to contemplate but its necessary.
Wow. So the only way to stop Terrorist cells in the United States (combatants who use their ability to blend into the population as a military tactic)is to knock down doors and torture the poo out of folks.
What? No? Oh. Maybe that tactic is only 'necessary' for us to use in other nations.
Hmmm...
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AnthonyT: If you scroll up you will see I have already posted some excerpts from Taguba's report that show that the majority of detainees at Abu Gharib were not deemed terrorists or insurgents with much intelligence value compared to say Guantanamo Bay:
1. (S/NF) MG Miller’s team recognized that they were using JTF-GTMO operational
procedures and interrogation authorities as baselines for its observations and
recommendations. There is a strong argument that the intelligence value of detainees held at JTF-Guantanamo (GTMO) is different than that of the detainees/internees held at Abu Ghraib (BCCF) and other detention facilities in Iraq . Currently, there are a large number of Iraqi criminals held at Abu Ghraib (BCCF). These are not believed to be international terrorists or members of Al Qaida, Anser Al Islam, Taliban, and other international terrorist organizations. (ANNEX 20)
33. (S/NF) The various detention facilities operated by the 800th MP Brigade have
routinely held persons brought to them by Other Government Agencies (OGAs)
without accounting for them, knowing their identities, or even the reason for their
detention.
So there is no evidence to suppose that these prisoners were all killers, combatant insurgents and terrorists who 'deserved' to be brutalised in the name of revenge.
Besides I really don't get the notion that cruelty and inhumane treatment of people is ONLY bad if it's done to us. Those extremist fanatics do evil acts so we should be allowed to do evil acts on their people (who may or may not be members of these extreme factions) in retaliation???
It's bad and wrong PERIOD IMO.
And it looks even worse when perpetrated by a coalition who has been claiming the moral high ground and asserting that their invasion is benevolent and liberating.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero: This is what a texan friend of mine (Lisa) had to say when she saw your post. I wish I could be as articulate as she was, I am not technically from the US though (although a US citizen), and I thought you deserved a response from a fellow american -
"Just because we believe everyone has those rights, it does not give us the right to impose by force of will (and force of arms) it upon other sovereign nations, no matter how despicable we find them to be.
Our people are NOT "everyone". Our people are citizens of the U.S. The world did not elect Bush, hell, less than half the U.S. did.
Our "great experiment" still has plenty of screwups and has all the way along. We had our own taint of slavery even after our beautiful constitution.
"Because instruments of mass destruction and terror are too dangerous to be left in the hands of those who would use them." Do you think that we should also deprive the U.S., UK, and our allies of those weapons? Because we have them too, and we HAVE used them.
What we have said is "no one should have them except the people who believe as we do". That is not democracy, it's despotism.
"The whole world has come here, every nation, every culture, every religion, has come to share in our vision." <--?? Until the "whole world" participates in our democractic election process, and has a voice in who is doing the leading here and, if I might say, we don't even have that HERE, considering the outcome of the 2000 election), then we have no right to impose upon the WHOLE WORLD. If we do that, we are dictators, no better than Colonialists, full of Noblesse Oblige, patting the head of Little Brown Brother."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME