News from the Colonies - America's War in Iraq

Tiassa

04-30-03, 09:36 PM

Yes, when they breach your compound to get at your weapons, shoot them. Much more humane that having them walk naked.Two words vital to any semblance of freedom: Due Process. Yeah, I parade naked people through the street daily. Do you support this war and occupation? These are the things brought by that which you advocate.You and I may disagree on this, but I'm not the one attempting to chaste you like some miscreant child. Stop being childish and I will stop treating you as such. At some point, I have to acknowledge that this is how you want to be treated. Otherwise, I would think you would grow up at some point and start treating these issues seriously.Too late. I have a 16 year old daughter who, btw, was opposed to the war. I don't 'indoctrinate' her...period. And again...that was a rather petty chastisement. Yes, do you treat her with the contempt you treat the rest of the peace movement? Or do you take the hypocritical but merciful route?Who said they like war? War dogs like wars. Elsewise, they would try harder to avoid them.

Seems pretty straightforward.

Look, people who license the mistreatment of others are licensing the mistreatment of others. Period. It's not that hard to figure out, Coldrake. If you make excuses for the devil, don't be upset if people ask why you're making excuses for the devil.I respect your posts for the most part, and agree with much of what you have to say, but I think you can find much more to be upset about in Iraq than this. And as long as I treat each violation of the Geneva Conventions as a separate and insignificant issue ...? The people of the United States could have used a little of that logic during the Drug War. But it seemed much more logical to overstuff our prisons with possessors and users and petty-level dealers.

It's a bunch of little things our politicians and troops are doing during this period that bring it to this point. And people continue to make excuses for them. It's pathetic.

What's the line? At what point does it count? As far as I can tell, we now have at least four more people looking to stuff grenades up the asses of American troops. Very effective, indeed.

A lot of things that seem like a good idea are banned. Some attention was given to RCA's, non-lethal riot-combat (I think) agents. These weapons are banned because in almost every case of chemical warfare, the lethal chemicals were preceded by nonlethal chemicals. It's not that the weapons themselves are a bad idea, but that the statistics speak soundly against them.

Should the United States withdraw from the Geneva Conventions? We have subscribed to a set of rules that makes this treatment of human beings inappropriate. Should we rescind that subscription?

Just like the United Nations, the Geneva Conventions just seem too inconvenient for American style.

Stop advocating a bad situation. I suppose I could simply consider you that mean and downright evil, but I'd rather think it's some quirk of personality that leads you to such pettiness.

Remember, you're the one advocating the commission of conventionally-recognized crimes. If you choose to dislike my low regard for the philosophical abettors of war criminals, that's your own problem.

Just ... stop being part of the problem.

Perhaps people are just incapable of figuring out that I don't care what side who is on. All I care about is that there are people who are advocating a continuance of human strife for no better reason than they are too lazy to do anything better. What's important here? Iraqi oil? Iraqi people? Human rights? Decency? Freedom? Democracy? What? American egotism?

What is so important that it licenses violations of conventionally-recognized wartime protocol to which the United States has chosen to subscribe?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Clockwood

04-30-03, 10:12 PM

Just about every complaint you make about the prowar crowd can also be applied to the various members of anti war crowd. You are not so virtuous yourself.

Coldrake

04-30-03, 11:50 PM

Two words vital to any semblance of freedom: Due Process.

As soon as they get a judicial system up and running I agree. As for now, no.

Do you support this war and occupation? These are the things brought by that which you advocate.

I'm not for occupation, but I do realize that to pull out at this point virtually guarantees anarchy and civil war. That is why I was against the war, not for humanitarian reasons like yourself, but because I didn't feel like the administration had planned for the long term. My lack of humanitarianism may offend your senses, but I never said otherwise.

Stop being childish and I will stop treating you as such. At some point, I have to acknowledge that this is how you want to be treated. Otherwise, I would think you would grow up at some point and start treating these issues seriously.

Say what? How very big of you. How about this? You talk to me any way that makes you feel better about yourself.

Yes, do you treat her with the contempt you treat the rest of the peace movement? Or do you take the hypocritical but merciful route?

I don't treat the peace movement with contempt. I've never had a problem with protestors, just whiners, particularly whiners who believe they can cure the world by bitching on a net forum. And I have more respect for my daughter's attitude than yours.

War dogs like wars. Elsewise, they would try harder to avoid them.

Seems pretty straightforward.

I agree, but since you directed all of this at heflores and I originally, can you kindly link me to a post where I said I like war? And what did you do to avoid the war? According to Allah's Mathematics, you're as much a part of the problem as me, because like me, you're guilty by association.

Look, people who license the mistreatment of others are licensing the mistreatment of others. Period. It's not that hard to figure out, Coldrake. If you make excuses for the devil, don't be upset if people ask why you're making excuses for the devil.

So, ask me, Tiassa, although I think I've already explained it.

What's the line? At what point does it count? As far as I can tell, we now have at least four more people looking to stuff grenades up the asses of American troops. Very effective, indeed.

I doubt the Americans will hear from those four again.

Stop advocating a bad situation. I suppose I could simply consider you that mean and downright evil, but I'd rather think it's some quirk of personality that leads you to such pettiness.

You can consider me Satan if it comforts you, but I think you've got some issues.

Just ... stop being part of the problem.

:rolleyes:

Perhaps people are just incapable of figuring out that I don't care what side who is on.

Maybe people just don't care what you care or don't care. Join International Amnesty if you want to make a difference, because you're not going to change the world by harping on this board at everybody that doesn't think just like you.

Allahs_Mathematics

05-01-03, 04:53 AM

According to Allah's Mathematics, you're as much a part of the problem as me, because like me, you're guilty by association.

In that sense yes , but ofcourse one can shift because of how one exactly associates .

According to Allah's Mathematics

1)What position is a person in ?
2)How does he use this position ?

Its not like ur all guilty by being represented (the civillian-government relation) by this administration , you are by defintion of living in USA , but there is plenty shit to do about it .

First u can make sure none (least possible) money goes into the pockets of the opressors . And u can make sure that as much as possible money goes into the pockets of the opressed (and those fighting oppression) .

A positive balance (for the oppressed) here gets U out of being guilty by association , as you oppose and fight the problem , and if all would do like you , there wouldnt be a problem .

Now this all implies action , merely
1)being a USA profiter
2)caring for those u profit off

doesnt get u out of the guilty chair .

And till now I only spoke of money , think of how many wonderfull ways one can exploit his wonderfull position of being an oppressor for the benefice of the oppressed .

Think of Schindler , a devil German , but off the hook if u ask me (as far as I can tell and know about him) .
But do we really need to get into such deep shit before people realize whats the deal , and start acting instead of talking ?

everybody can do plenty , yet people are boycotting france
:rolleyes:

Psycho-Cannon

05-01-03, 09:07 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He told Dagbladet:"This was terrible. Now I only want to go home and find a hand grenade and throw it at the soldiers. Not only against those who did it to us but at everybody. I hate the Americans for this."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like he was as good as his word

Seven U.S. Soldiers Wounded in Iraq Grenade Attack (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2665829&src=eDialog/GetContent)

goofyfish

05-01-03, 09:40 AM

Well, at least we've got our priorities straight. The libraries have been sacked, the museums looted, hospitals are almost non-functional, schools are closed... Chief executive for the Recording Industry Association of America, Hilary Rosen, is helping draft copyright legislation for the New Iraq, according to investigative journalist Gregory Palast.

"Who's really going to win this war? It looks like Madonna," Palast told Democracy Now radio. "Where before, they feared Saddam Hussein, now they have to fear Sony Records will chop off their hands if they bootleg a Madonna album." (Full text here (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/30441.html))...the water isn't running, there's not enough food, there's civil unrest continues. But! We're going to make sure that people can't pirate the latest CD or VHS movie.

:rolleyes: Peace.

Coldrake

05-01-03, 09:41 AM

Looks like he was as good as his word

Seven U.S. Soldiers Wounded in Iraq Grenade Attack

Unless he traveled from Baghdad to Fallajah, I doubt it. And if he was actually going to do it, seems he would want to seek revenge on the soldiers he blamed, rather than soldiers in another town.

Psycho-Cannon

05-01-03, 10:38 AM

Yeah sorry i mentioned in another thread about that but i forgot to update this one ^_^.

Tiassa

05-01-03, 02:15 PM

ColdrakeAs soon as they get a judicial system up and running I agree. As for now, no.If it's not God, it's something else. I knew that Pledge of Allegiance was bad news.My lack of humanitarianism may offend your senses, but I never said otherwise.Fair enough. I'm just curious if you're excusing criminals because they're American?You talk to me any way that makes you feel better about yourself.What are you arguing? Are you supporting an idea or merely arguing against me? I find the licensing of war crimes for convenience to be childish at best.I don't treat the peace movement with contempt. I've never had a problem with protestors, just whiners, particularly whiners who believe they can cure the world by bitching on a net forum. And I have more respect for my daughter's attitude than yours.Well, that hypocrisy is expected. I admit, it's hard to complain about what I expect.I agree, but since you directed all of this at heflores and I originally, can you kindly link me to a post where I said I like war? You both are arguing to excuse war crimes. That's enough for me.According to Allah's Mathematics, you're as much a part of the problem as me, because like me, you're guilty by association.Why do you think this war is so important to me? You're a day late and more than a few dollars short.So, ask me, Tiassa , although I think I've already explained it. And I hold myself answered: You would excuse war crimes for some reason that does not make sense to me, and you have not provided much of a reason in the post I'm responding to.I doubt the Americans will hear from those four again.We can all hope. How many other Iraqis and Arabs in general will we not hear from in the future?You can consider me Satan if it comforts you, but I think you've got some issues.Like I said, I'd rather think it's some quirk of personality. But yes, I have serious issues with people who, like you, make excuses for war criminals. Justice is justice, and if it is to be for all, then it is to be for all at all times. Merely because justice is inconvenient is no reason to turn one's back coldly on the foundations of the United States of America.:rolleyes:Denial is not just a river ... oh never mind.Maybe people just don't care what you care or don't care. That part is obvious, but without reinventing the English language, the basis of many of those cares simply doesn't make sense. Convenience is more important than human rights? A soldier who has volunteered to partake in an illegal invasion is more important than the civilians he alleges to protect? Whatever.Join International Amnesty if you want to make a difference, because you're not going to change the world by harping on this board at everybody that doesn't think just like you. It's the argument of the year. What's your excuse?

Anything to get rid of a dissenting voice, eh? "Go away, do your work somewhere else so I can stop holding my hands over my ears ...."?

Good show, Coldrake. I applaud you. Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to attempt to pull the knife you've just jammed into American's chest free and treat the wound. It would appear you've missed any vital organs, but the defense of war criminals is absolutely absurd. You wouldn't defend Saddam Hussein, would you? What's the matter? Just a little too nationalist to swallow justice if it is demanded of Americans?

Clockwood

Interesting assertion. Back it and we might be able to discuss it.

:m:
Tiassa :cool:

Coldrake

05-01-03, 04:10 PM

If it's not God, it's something else. I knew that Pledge of Allegiance was bad news.

Nobody has had to recite it in years, so what's the problem?

Fair enough. I'm just curious if you're excusing criminals because they're American?

Well see, there's the problem. We can't seem to agree on who the criminals are in this. To you, those 4 Iraqis were victims. That leaves us standing on opposite sides of the chasm.

What are you arguing? Are you supporting an idea or merely arguing against me? I find the licensing of war crimes for convenience to be childish at best.

Merely arguing against you? Get over yourself. I couldn't care less about you. You jumped in on me in this thread. I've had very little to say to you on this forum before this and would have likely had little to say to you in the future had you not decided to make it personal.

Well, that hypocrisy is expected. I admit, it's hard to complain about what I expect.

Oh please. Define my hypocrisy.

You both are arguing to excuse war crimes. That's enough for me.

And you want to excuse the real criminals as victims.

Why do you think this war is so important to me? You're a day late and more than a few dollars short.

Because it gives you yet another reason to be a voice of dissent.

And I hold myself answered: You would excuse war crimes for some reason that does not make sense to me, and you have not provided much of a reason in the post I'm responding to.

I gave a reason that was good enough for me. That it was not good enough for you is seemingly because of your own internal conflicts.

It's the argument of the year. What's your excuse?

My excuse? I don't need one. I'm not preaching on the board. I'm here because I enjoy chatting with people from different global perspectives. I have no pretentions that people will take what I say seriously on here. Some of us realize that, and I guess some of us don't.

Anything to get rid of a dissenting voice, eh? "Go away, do your work somewhere else so I can stop holding my hands over my ears ...."?

Please don't leave on my account. I can grin and bear you. The question is, can you bear what you consider my inhumanity?

We can all hope. How many other Iraqis and Arabs in general will we not hear from in the future?

Time will tell. It's up to them.

Like I said, I'd rather think it's some quirk of personality. But yes, I have serious issues with people who, like you, make excuses for war criminals. Justice is justice, and if it is to be for all, then it is to be for all at all times. Merely because justice is inconvenient is no reason to turn one's back coldly on the foundations of the United States of America.

OK, consider it a quirk of personality then. As I said, if it helps fit your ideas of good and evil, then by all means.

Denial is not just a river ... oh never mind.

Thank you for putting that silly overused quip back in the closet. It doesn't fit here.

Good show, Coldrake. I applaud you. Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to attempt to pull the knife you've just jammed into American's chest free and treat the wound. It would appear you've missed any vital organs, but the defense of war criminals is absolutely absurd. You wouldn't defend Saddam Hussein, would you? What's the matter? Just a little too nationalist to swallow justice if it is demanded of Americans?

You're the one that deserves applause for that ham act. I said in the thread about US war crimes that I would support war crimes against US soldiers, but I don't consider this a war crime. Period. Sooner or later you'll figure out that this argument is not over what you consider my lack of morals but rather the fact that I don't consider that incident a war crime. Had they put them up against a wall and shot them, it would have been different.

EI_Sparks

05-01-03, 04:15 PM

I don't consider this a war crime.
It's not. It's a violation of the Geneva Convention - the two are not the same thing.

From curiosity, what would you classify as a war crime, specifically?

Tiassa

05-01-03, 05:08 PM

Nobody has had to recite it in years, so what's the problem?No specific problem, except that most Americans don't want to Pledge Allegiance by the terms of the pledge. It's ironic that we fought over "God" in the courts when in reality it is the "Liberty and Justice for All" that people reject.Well see, there's the problem. We can't seem to agree on who the criminals are in this. To you, those 4 Iraqis were victims. That leaves us standing on opposite sides of the chasm.Suspend due process and human dignity and the Geneva Conventions and you turn them into victims.

Under what conditions would you subject your daughter to the same punishment?Merely arguing against you? Get over yourself. I couldn't care less about you. You jumped in on me in this thread. I've had very little to say to you on this forum before this and would have likely had little to say to you in the future had you not decided to make it personal.Yet you do choose to go on.

Yes, I'll get over myself. I'll get over horrible ol' me who does not wish to license crimes merely because the perpetrators are American.

Provide me a better reason for your advocacy of crimes and I'll deal with that. But nationalism seems most evident, judging by the symptoms.Oh please. Define my hypocrisy.Well, you'll afford your daughter more respect for her views than others. By what standard is it whining to point out that crimes are being committed? By what standard is it whining to point out that people are advocating the commission of those crimes and supporting the perpetrators? By what standard is it whining for me to consider such petty advocacy despicable?And you want to excuse the real criminals as victims.Oh, yes ... that's right. Equal protection before the law--any law--is just too inconvenient.

Who said anything about excusing the "real criminals"? Did you miss those two very important words? Due Process--remember those? You made an excuse why they shouldn't apply to certain human beings.Because it gives you yet another reason to be a voice of dissent.Further evidence of your disrespect and hypocrisy. Remind me not to be rhetorical or sarcastic with you. I'll try to limit the number of syllables I use.

But since you haven't the capacity to give proper regard to the idea, I'll fill you in: One of the reasons I oppose this war is because I am aware of the concept of guilt by association you invoked from A/M's posts.

That's what I mean by "arguing against me". You chose, for whatever reasons, to ignore your own point in reference to the response you cited in order to what ... make another petty, disrespectful assertion?

Please ... have an issue to argue.
I gave a reason that was good enough for me. That it was not good enough for you is seemingly because of your own internal conflicts. Convenience and nationalism are not good enough. Period. It was "good enough" for the tyrants we seek to defeat; why is their tyranny "good enough" for us? Is it an issue of scale? What's the line, then?My excuse? I don't need one.So get off this damn board and go beat up some Iraqi criminals.I have no pretentions that people will take what I say seriously on here.Sad. A great communication medium further reduced by the indolence of its users. Why do you aim so low? I'm convinced that the answer to that question will shed much light on what motivates you to license crimes against human beings, seemingly along a nationalist permission.

Why waste your time or the kilobytes?

Should I simply put you on ignore, then, and spare us both the issue?Please don't leave on my account. I can grin and bear you. The question is, can you bear what you consider my inhumanity? You seem to have a problem with my methods. In the future, don't imply people should leave, then. It really makes you look bad. You're the one who chooses to not take issues seriously; I would apologize for oppressing you with my genuine concern for the peoples of the world, but I sincerely doubt you would care.

In the future, if you choose to not address a serious point seriously, please consider both the merits and the demerits of doing so before you simply shoot your mouth off. I'm willing to stand behind my words. Are you?

Oh, wait ... why bother asking. It's quite obvious that you are not.Time will tell. It's up to them.Sounds a little like the Requerimiento in that context. You wouldn't happen to have been a Spaniard in a previous life, would you? Perhaps around the 1500's? (As Stephen Ambrose put it: "Poor Coronado!")OK, consider it a quirk of personality then. As I said, if it helps fit your ideas of good and evil, then by all means.Man, you really don't understand, do you?Thank you for putting that silly overused quip back in the closet. It doesn't fit here. Here's an underused one: O-tay!

Whatever you say ... sure, you have that much credibility. :rolleyes: Sooner or later you'll figure out that this argument is not over what you consider my lack of morals but rather the fact that I don't consider that incident a war crime. Had they put them up against a wall and shot them, it would have been different. Why?

I actually will accept El Sparks' assertion, especially when it's explained to me how failures to adhere to the Geneva Conventions can become charges for war crimes, but what makes it different to you? It's vigilante justice at best.

Furthermore, we can also consider the convention of the term "war crimes". At the time you justified the actions of US soldiers we were merely speaking of violations of the Geneva Conventions inside a topic about war crimes.

In the meantime, it does not change the fact that you are advocating these crimes. What is the point of "liberating" the Iraqi people if justice is not good enough for them?

My disgust arises from your support of criminals at a time when integrity is more important than it usually is.

And that support of criminals is in itself hypocritical.

Seriously: My primary issue is how anyone who can acknowledge the alleged good that can or will come out of the Iraqi-Bush War can possibly license criminal behavior among our troops. It makes no sense, and is sickeningly uncivilized.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Coldrake

05-01-03, 08:05 PM

Suspend due process and human dignity and the Geneva Conventions and you turn them into victims.

Under what conditions would you subject your daughter to the same punishment?

This is what I'm talking about. Your pettiness. Since you want to keep bringing my daughter into the issue, I don't think my daughter would be trying to sneak into the compound of an armed force. If she did, then I suppose that would make her a combatant, and she would deserve whatever fate came to her.

Yet you do choose to go on.

I guess that makes me more like you than is comfortable for either of us. I don't like giving up the last world either. This could go on indefinitely.

Provide me a better reason for your advocacy of crimes and I'll deal with that. But nationalism seems most evident, judging by the symptoms.

If nationalism helps you pidgeonhole, fine. But again, I don't consider chasing off someone naked with 'thief' written on there chest, someone who had just broken into a military compound to steal weapons, a crime. I don't care if you attempt to invoke the Geneva Convention or not. If they had bludgeoned them with weapons, put them up against a wall and shot them, cut off body parts, then yes, I would consider those war crimes, and I wouldn't even care about the Geneva Convention, I would expect them to be duly court-martialed.

Well, you'll afford your daughter more respect for her views than others. By what standard is it whining to point out that crimes are being committed? By what standard is it whining to point out that people are advocating the commission of those crimes and supporting the perpetrators? By what standard is it whining for me to consider such petty advocacy despicable?

No, it's just that my daughter doesn't continue to beat a dead horse. And I'm not talking about your feelings about the war. I'm talking about right here and now, you and me. I've no doubt you will continue your crusade on this board, but you asked me for an explanation, I gave it to you, you don't except it, get over it. You're the one wasting bandwidth. I'm merely responding to what I consider a rather tired sermon.

Further evidence of your disrespect and hypocrisy.

You noticed.

Remind me not to be rhetorical or sarcastic with you. I'll try to limit the number of syllables I use.

Make it easy on yourself.

But since you haven't the capacity to give proper regard to the idea, I'll fill you in: One of the reasons I oppose this war is because I am aware of the concept of guilt by association you invoked from A/M's posts.

That's what I mean by "arguing against me". You chose, for whatever reasons, to ignore your own point in reference to the response you cited in order to what ... make another petty, disrespectful assertion?

Yes, I admit it that at this point I'm beginning to merely argue back at you, to make 'disrespectful assertions', because, quite frankly, you've gotten extremely repetitive. But like you, I feel compelled to reply.

Please ... have an issue to argue.

I do. But you can't live with it. So you feel compelled to continue to harp about 'disrespect' and 'pettiness'.

Convenience and nationalism are not good enough. Period. It was "good enough" for the tyrants we seek to defeat; why is their tyranny "good enough" for us? Is it an issue of scale? What's the line, then?

Again, and maybe this will sink in at some point - in my eyes they got off light considering what they were caught doing. I haven't asked you to find that acceptable to your way of seeing the world. I'm simply telling you that is my way of thinking. You can label it however you wish.

So get off this damn board and go beat up some Iraqi criminals.

Do I sense some hostility seeping through the pores? It doesn't become such a pacifist.

Sad. A great communication medium further reduced by the indolence of its users. Why do you aim so low? I'm convinced that the answer to that question will shed much light on what motivates you to license crimes against human beings, seemingly along a nationalist permission.

A great communication medium? It's a message forum. No more, no less. I visit several of them. I do so for my amusement. Does that help you 'shed much light on what motivates' me?

Why waste your time or the kilobytes?

Because I can.

Should I simply put you on ignore, then, and spare us both the issue?

You can do whatever you choose. But if you continue to directly address me I will always have a response. Whether we treat each other civilly is up to you.

You seem to have a problem with my methods. In the future, don't imply people should leave, then. It really makes you look bad. You're the one who chooses to not take issues seriously;

I have no problem with your methods. You are what you are. I am what I am. I don't hold what you believe against you, but I get the feeling you dislike me intensely for what I think. But, so be it. But for the record, I never implied you should leave and I think you know that. I said, if you really want to make a difference, and you did imply it, you could find better places to actively do so than on a message forum. If you take that to mean me telling you to leave, that's your problem. I have absolutely no desire for you to leave. If everybody on this board thought alike, I wouldn't be here.

In the future, if you choose to not address a serious point seriously, please consider both the merits and the demerits of doing so before you simply shoot your mouth off.

Pardon? Are you actually presuming to tell me how to behave on this board? Shoot my mouth off? I said that I didn't consider the incident a war crime and you took that and ran with it. I gave you my reason; you couldn't deal with it, and started in with little personal digs, and you're accusing me of shooting my mouth off? You really are a fraud.

I'm willing to stand behind my words. Are you?

I've stood behind what I've said to date, apparently much to your discomfort.

Oh, wait ... why bother asking. It's quite obvious that you are not.

What was that about Denial is not a river...?

Here's an underused one: O-tay!

Whatever you say ... sure, you have that much credibility.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sooner or later you'll figure out that this argument is not over what you consider my lack of morals but rather the fact that I don't consider that incident a war crime. Had they put them up against a wall and shot them, it would have been different.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why

Why? I've explained it through 3 posts.

El Sparks}
From curiosity, what would you classify as a war crime, specifically?

Sparks, if you've read this far through the post, then your question should be answered.

norad

05-01-03, 08:45 PM

I'm not proud of this, but when I was younger I was incarcerated. I was treated with a hell of a lot more respect than these guys. The American government just doesn't get it, but when someone tries to make a point aka terrorism, the American government doesn't think, it acts, and I must say, quite stupidly! This includes the military. Way to go guys. Hope that grenade doesn't get shoved up your ass!

EI_Sparks

05-02-03, 09:54 AM

Coldrake,
I've tried to read through all of it (and it's been tough because of the level of fallacious arguments), but I still don't have a clear image of what you consider to be a war crime. Can you just state it clearly once?

Coldrake

05-02-03, 02:09 PM

Just for you, Sparks. Torture, mutilation, starvation of prisoners, beatings, rape of citizenry, forcibly removing citizens from homes, wholesale slaughter of citizens, execution of soldiers after surrender.

EI_Sparks

05-02-03, 02:31 PM

Coldrake,

Torture
Guantanamo bay. And for the nastier physical torture, it appears prisoners are shipped to other countries who are "less squeamish", in the words of the pentagon.

mutilation
Well, I've not heard of the US doing that. Other than the results of torture.

starvation of prisoners
Guantanamo bay again.

beatings
Guantanamo bay. Two prisoners recently beaten to death during interrogation.

rape of citizenry
If by that you mean sexual rape of civilians, I've not seen reports of this.

forcibly removing citizens from homes
*blink*
Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and pretty much every foreign campaign the US has been on has resulted in that.

wholesale slaughter of citizens
Tens of citizens? We saw that a few days ago.
Hundreds? We saw that during the invasion.
Thousands? Total dead in Afghanistan - 3500 civilians or so. In Iraq, 2500 so far. And that's just during direct action, it doesn't cover deaths due to destroyed infrastructure and other effects from the war.

execution of soldiers after surrender.

http://reviewjournal.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&urlID=6109477
http://reviewjournal.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&urlID=6119230&fb=Y
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4660067,00.html

And that's just in the last few days. Those annihilated on the highway to basra at the end of the last Gulf war had been ordered to stand down and withdraw from Kuwait twelve hours earlier, and that fact had been widely broadcast. They were by definition covered by the Geneva Convention, article 3, and the UNSC resolution (678) that authorised military action was no longer in force since Iraq was in compliance with UNSC resolution 660.

See, I don't point to the prisoners being stripped and forced to march naked through the streets and say "war crime", because it wasn't one. It was a breach of the geneva conventions and about the worst thing they could have done short of shooting them in public and urinating on the corpses, but it wasn't a war crime.
That doesn't mean that the US hasn't committed war crimes.

ps. You missed some interesting ones - the primary one I've seen in the belgian case against Franks were the bombings of civilian hospitals and the shooting of marked civilian ambulances.

Tiassa

05-02-03, 02:51 PM

This is what I'm talking about. Your pettiness. Yes, human rights for all. How petty.Since you want to keep bringing my daughter into the issue, I don't think my daughter would be trying to sneak into the compound of an armed force. If she did, then I suppose that would make her a combatant, and she would deserve whatever fate came to her. I hold myself answered.I guess that makes me more like you than is comfortable for either of us. I don't like giving up the last world either. This could go on indefinitely. If that's all it's worth to you ... well, it's your right to think that's an important stake.But again, I don't consider chasing off someone naked with 'thief' written on there chest, someone who had just broken into a military compound to steal weapons, a crime.If a black man stole your bike, would you expect the court to strip him naked, write "thief" on his chest, and then have armed personnel chase him down the street screaming, "Kunta Kinte!"?If they had bludgeoned them with weapons, put them up against a wall and shot them, cut off body parts, then yes, I would consider those war crimes, and I wouldn't even care about the Geneva Convention, I would expect them to be duly court-martialed.A typical American attitude, it seems. Law and order, except when it's inconvenient, and then we'll pretend that because they're smaller violations, it doesn't really matter.

It's one of the reasons I laughed so bitterly when I heard Dubya wonder aloud why "they" hate us.You're the one wasting bandwidth. I'm merely responding to what I consider a rather tired sermon.Your assessment, your choice, your responsibility.You noticed.I can't imagine you would have painted the bright pink, "I am a dishonest person!" on your forehead without a reason.Make it easy on yourself.But then I exceed your comprehension, as is demonstrated by this topic.Yes, I admit it that at this point I'm beginning to merely argue back at you, to make 'disrespectful assertions', because, quite frankly, you've gotten extremely repetitive. Yes, it beats the idea that I should simply hop on the bandwagon merely because other people are apparently incapable of understanding the difference between the principles of the United States of America and what we do now, the difference between respect and what we do now, the difference between human dignity and what we do now.I doArguing against me is something best left for Free Thoughts. Aside from exempting Americans from international agreements in order to foster inappropriate treatment of human beings, what is your point?Again, and maybe this will sink in at some point - in my eyes they got off light considering what they were caught doing. I used to hear that whenever someone got five to eight for possessing marijuana. You've managed to cheapen that idea even further.I haven't asked you to find that acceptable to your way of seeing the world. And that shows you're not utterly devoid of wisdom.I'm simply telling you that is my way of thinking. Do me a favor, please: Never wonder why "they" hate us.Do I sense some hostility seeping through the pores? Well, since you seem to think you're wasting your time on this board, you ought to go do something. Isn't that approximately what you recommended to me? Go beat up some Iraqi criminals; you probably won't have to stand accountable for it. Why would someone like you turn down the opportunity? I'm sure we can take a collection for your plane ticket and maybe even a lepip.It doesn't become such a pacifist True, but if I thought violence would solve anything, I wouldn't be. It's no more attractive a color on you, despite what you may think.A great communication medium? It's a message forum. No more, no less. I visit several of them. I do so for my amusement .One of the biggest stinging tragedies for my brother, for instance, is the nature of communication via the net. I remember how he used to tell me I ought to embrace the e-culture. Authors on the web, the new Golden Age of the written word, the return of literacy to the masses ....

Wrong! I think it was the last time he marked society around hm with the presumption of positive potential.

A great communication medium--the internet--is being wasted by its users all over the place. Why? Largely because Americans would rather find amusement in other people's misery and apparently consider it oppressive to be asked to communicate instead of merely babble.Does that help you 'shed much light on what motivates' me? Well, sure. But it certainly doesn't help my regard for you. I'm starting to think I'm going too easy on you.

I mean, if you want to take amusement from other people's suffering, that's ... well, that's not fine by me. But you're a human being and you have the right to aim as high or low as you want. No of course you won't go out and commit these crimes yourself, but you'll certainly cheer on the folks who do. :rolleyes: Because I can. And what a sterling statement of your character.You can do whatever you choose. But if you continue to directly address me I will always have a response. Whether we treat each other civilly is up to you.I treat people according to their wishes. You seem to prefer this level of disrespect. It would be impolite to ask you to be more respectful of your fellow human being. But for the record, I never implied you should leave and I think you know that. Liar. Maybe people just don't care what you care or don't care. Join International Amnesty if you want to make a difference, because you're not going to change the world by harping on this board at everybody that doesn't think just like you. Like I said, Anything to get rid of a dissenting voice, eh? "Go away, do your work somewhere else so I can stop holding my hands over my ears ...."?Pardon? Are you actually presuming to tell me how to behave on this board?It would behoove you to try giving better respect to people than you have so far. _You treat serious issues lightly for amusement. If you don't like the way I or anyone else regards you because of your attitude, perhaps you should consider how stupid you're being before you open your mouth. Hell, I thought it kind advice. Silly me. You really are a fraud.And you really are a desperate liar. Observe:I've stood behind what I've said to date, apparently much to your discomfort.So you say. But do you remember writing this?I have no pretentions that people will take what I say seriously on here. Real easy to stand behind what isn't supposed to be taken seriously, eh?

Now then ... if you care to continue harassing me with your lies designed to perpetuate an avoidance of the issues, you're more than welcome to.

Honesty, Coldrake. Honesty is a very important measure of a person. It's a functional measure.

Try it sometime.What was that about Denial is not a river...?Why don't you tell me? Especially in light of my demonstration of the point. See ... turning a line back at me only works if the circumstances agree with use of the quip. In this case, you're still the one in denial, as I have documented your rhetorical inconsistency.You took the words right out of my mouth. Gee, maybe you should burn my clothes, paint thief on my chest, grab a gun, and chase me down the street shouting "Hirohito! Hirohito!" Why? I've explained it through 3posts.No, you haven't. The nearest I can figure is that they're Iraqis over there and we're Americans over here, and you know that idea won't fly with me.

Should we presume that it's only a crime if it ends in someone's death? That's a common standard to your expressions. But no, you haven't made it clear. You've made repeated anti-identifications.

Here's a counterpoint question: Why is the US preparing to prosecute at least one and as many as seven journalists, as well as a handful of military personnel, for attempting to remove property from Iraq?

Inherent in that representation is the recognition of a nation of Iraq, a people of Iraq, and what is theirs. Tell me how they deserve the right to pillage gold-plated rifles but not the right to due process. Please. I'd love to know what you think about that. And why does an American journalist stealing what belongs to the Iraqi people get due process while an Arab in Iraq doesn't get due process at all?

All people are created equal, except we're just a little more equal than the rest? Is that it? Are Americans a separate species which deserves greater freedom and respect?

That's still a nationalist reek coming off you. Convince me otherwise, please. If you can possibly take yourself seriously for the moment.

Of course, that would explain the lies I've documented, wouldn't it? Perhaps you should take yourself just a little more seriously.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Coldrake

05-02-03, 05:01 PM

This is what I'm talking about. Your pettiness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, human rights for all. How petty.

Uh, no. You can't sidestep what I was talking about. I'm talking about your petty personal attacks, trying to use my daughter against me.

If a black man stole your bike, would you expect the court to strip him naked, write "thief" on his chest, and then have armed personnel chase him down the street screaming, "Kunta Kinte!"?

A worthless analogy. You're comparing a black man, no less, stealing my bike ( a weak attempt at tossing racism at me, no doubt) to Iraqis who snuck into a military compound to steal weapons (I would remind you they had a bag of weapons parts on them, but I know you would prefer to believe Iraqi versions over US soldiers). I would think you could do better, but then again...

Arguing against me is something best left for Free Thoughts. Aside from exempting Americans from international agreements in order to foster inappropriate treatment of human beings, what is your point?

Then take it to Free Thoughts. My point is what I said it was from the beginning.

And that shows you're not utterly devoid of wisdom.

So you think there's hope for me?

But then I exceed your comprehension, as is demonstrated by this topic.

And what exactly is this topic?

Do me a favor, please: Never wonder why "they" hate us.

I don't wonder.

A great communication medium--the internet--is being wasted by its users all over the place. Why? Largely because Americans would rather find amusement in other people's misery and apparently consider it oppressive to be asked to communicate instead of merely babble.

You actually think the Internet is being wasted because people actually have some fun on message forums? I'm sorry my life is not as devoid of pleasure as yours. And I'm sorry you can't find anything good in life.

Well, since you seem to think you're wasting your time on this board, you ought to go do something. Isn't that approximately what you recommended to me? Go beat up some Iraqi criminals; you probably won't have to stand accountable for it. Why would someone like you turn down the opportunity? I'm sure we can take a collection for your plane ticket and maybe even a lepip.

Err...I haven't said I'm wasting my time here. It's you that seems to think that for me. But I do find your insistance I go beat up some Iraqis humorous.

Well, sure. But it certainly doesn't help my regard for you. I'm starting to think I'm going too easy on you.

Bring it on.

I treat people according to their wishes. You seem to prefer this level of disrespect. It would be impolite to ask you to be more respectful of your fellow human being.

Hmm...I was under the impression it was you who disrespected me first. You called me indecent and told to be sure not to reproduce. Did you really think that would simply go unanswered?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But for the record, I never implied you should leave and I think you know that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liar.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe people just don't care what you care or don't care. Join International Amnesty if you want to make a difference, because you're not going to change the world by harping on this board at everybody that doesn't think just like you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like I said, Anything to get rid of a dissenting voice, eh? "Go away, do your work somewhere else so I can stop holding my hands over my ears ...."?

And that is what you call me telling you to leave the board? You really are senstive, aren't you?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pardon? Are you actually presuming to tell me how to behave on this board?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would behoove you to try giving better respect to people than you have so far. _You treat serious issues lightly for amusement.

So, because I take a different view on an issue than you, you presume that I'm not giving people on this board enough respect? Grow up.

If you don't like the way I or anyone else regards you because of your attitude, perhaps you should consider how stupid you're being before you open your mouth. Hell, I thought it kind advice. Silly me.

I agree. Silly you. You either keeping missing the point or refusing to acknowleged it - I don't care what you think of me. You think I'm stupid, I think you're stupid. I can apparently accept it better than you.

And you really are a desperate liar. Observe:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've stood behind what I've said to date, apparently much to your discomfort.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you say. But do you remember writing this?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no pretentions that people will take what I say seriously on here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Real easy to stand behind what isn't supposed to be taken seriously, eh?

Let me rephrase it then to make it easier for you. I've argued on message forums for a long time. I've never found that what people say change people's preconceived beliefs, therefore I don't expect to change minds. It doesn't mean I don't stand behind what I say. You're not going to change my mind, so does that mean you won't stand behind what you say in the future? No, of course not. You'll still believe what you say, regardless of if anybody excepts it.

Now then ... if you care to continue harassing me with your lies designed to perpetuate an avoidance of the issues, you're more than welcome to.

As long as you keep directly posting to me, I'll keep responding. I already made that clear. As I said, how we do it is up to you.

Honesty, Coldrake. Honesty is a very important measure of a person. It's a functional measure.

Try it sometime.

I think the problem you're having is that I'm blatantly honest, and because I've said things that make you uncomfortable, you've reduced yourself to nitpicking and pathetic little personal attacks, even trying to bring my daughter in to it. That's juvenile.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why don't you tell me? Especially in light of my demonstration of the point. See ... turning a line back at me only works if the circumstances agree with use of the quip. In this case, you're still the one in denial, as I have documented your rhetorical inconsistency.

I must have missed your documentation. All I saw was the same anal BS about nothing you've presented in each of your posts.

Gee, maybe you should burn my clothes, paint thief on my chest, grab a gun, and chase me down the street shouting "Hirohito! Hirohito!"

I had a thought here but I won't drop to your level.

No, you haven't. The nearest I can figure is that they're Iraqis over there and we're Americans over here, and you know that idea won't fly with me.

I don't care if it won't 'fly' with you. I explained it, you don't understand it, that's your problem.

Here's a counterpoint question: Why is the US preparing to prosecute at least one and as many as seven journalists, as well as a handful of military personnel, for attempting to remove property from Iraq?

Inherent in that representation is the recognition of a nation of Iraq, a people of Iraq, and what is theirs. Tell me how they deserve the right to pillage gold-plated rifles but not the right to due process. Please. I'd love to know what you think about that. And why does an American journalist stealing what belongs to the Iraqi people get due process while an Arab in Iraq doesn't get due process at all?

Because some Iraqis who continue to fight American forces need a clear and direct message that attempting to infiltrate an American compound and steal weapons won't be tolerated.

All people are created equal, except we're just a little more equal than the rest? Is that it? Are Americans a separate species which deserves greater freedom and respect?

Of course not. There's nothing nationalistic in my thought process on this. If it was the other way around I wouldn't be like these Americans who were yammering about Geneva Convention violations against American soldiers. Nasty shit happens in a war zone. To both sides.

That's still a nationalist reek coming off you. Convince me otherwise, please. If you can possibly take yourself seriously for the moment.

Of course, that would explain the lies I've documented, wouldn't it? Perhaps you should take yourself just a little more seriously.

No. Not nationalist. Realist.

Coldrake

05-02-03, 08:02 PM

See, I don't point to the prisoners being stripped and forced to march naked through the streets and say "war crime", because it wasn't one. It was a breach of the geneva conventions and about the worst thing they could have done short of shooting them in public and urinating on the corpses, but it wasn't a war crime.
That doesn't mean that the US hasn't committed war crimes.

If 'war crimes' were commited I have no problem with the guilty being prosecuted. But you actually think making them run naked was almost as bad as shooting them and urinating on the corpses? Interesting.

EI_Sparks

05-03-03, 10:49 AM

you actually think making them run naked was almost as bad as shooting them and urinating on the corpses?
No, my bad. I meant in terms of (and excuse the expression) "winning hearts and minds", but I didn't make that clear enough.

In relation to the war crimes however, we both agree that prosecution is the right thing to do - the problem is that the US has specifically defended it's right to carry out these crimes and will not permit independent prosecution or even american-supervised prosecution.

Tiassa

05-03-03, 05:23 PM

I'm talking about your petty personal attacks, trying to use my daughter against me. So illustrative limits of your philosophy and the discussion thereof are petty personal attacks? Paranoia will destroy ya. You're comparing a black man, no less, stealing my bike ( a weak attempt at tossing racism at me, no doubt) to Iraqis who snuck into a military compound to steal weapons (I would remind you they had a bag of weapons parts on them, but I know you would prefer to believe Iraqi versions over US soldiers). You talk about pettiness, yet you try to write the argument for me. As with all people, the Iraqis are innocent until proven guilty. Remember those two important words? Due Process?

Furthermore, I think the racism is apparent: The degraded prisoners had the words "Ali Baba, Haram'' - "Thief, Unclean" - scrawled in Arabic on their chests. (Mirror (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12892683&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=THIEVES%20IN%20NAKED%20SHAME))My point is what I said it was from the beginning. That makes it even more clear.So you think there's hope for me?Well, you're human, aren't you?And what exactly is this topic?In general it seems to be a discussion of the crimes being committed and allowed by an occupying force, contradictory to the Geneva Conventions, which conventions that force has subscribed to. More specifically, though, a big part of it is you making excuses for Americans and reserving from Iraqis what you would award to Americans. Well, that's presumptuous; you might refuse due process of your fellow Americans. I haven't asked yet.I don't wonder. Does that, then, mean that your excuses for crimes against Iraqis means that you advocate continued injustice?You actually think the Internet is being wasted because people actually have some fun on message forums? I'm sorry my life is not as devoid of pleasure as yours. And I'm sorry you can't find anything good in life.Is that the depth of your comprehension? I can't properly skip stones on the surface because the mud is showing. You're the one afraid to stand behind your words; you're the one who wants to write volumes that you don't want taken seriously.

And yes, it is a tragedy that the internet has become a source for the perpetuation of functional illiteracy. It's a mere comparison between the "potential" of our world wide web and the reality that it best serves porno and idiocy.

You don't want to be taken seriously; I just don't see why you're making light of such human indignity as this topic discusses. It's your own choice how you would like to be viewed, but flippant and cowardly is, I admit, a strange choice.I haven't said I'm wasting my time here. It's you that seems to think that for me. But I do find your insistance I go beat up some Iraqis humorous. Well, you seem to have some feelings worth expressing despite your unwillingness to stand behind those words. If you want, treat me with the same flippant disregard you expect for your own posts that you don't expect people to take seriously. Everybody around here knows that I take myself somewhat seriously at this board; I can't believe you would have missed that though your reading comprehension is somewhat in doubt at the moment. However, at the moment, you're appearing to take yourself very seriously.

Unless, of course, you expect me to sit back while you sling paranoia and lies and say, "Oh, Coldrake! You are such a funny kidder!"

So let's put the question to you directly: Do you want to be taken seriously?I was under the impression it was you who disrespected me first. Yes, but I also count your lack of respect for humanity.You called me indecent and told to be sure not to reproduce. You are; you defend criminals on some ethereal basis that looks and smells like ethnocentrism at best. You decry Due Process. You presume the worst in people. As to that, my biggest mistake was presuming not the worst but something better: that you actually wished to be taken seriously. And I advise against reproduction on a similar scale to advising against unprotected sex. Yes, you can get away with it, but it doesn't mean the decision itself was wise. Look at me: I'm the last mother#^@&er that should be reproducing in the world, but ... what entertains my friends and family is that they're all waiting with baited breath to see how long I can remain an idealist, or how quickly parenthood turns me into a crotchety old f--k.Did you really think that would simply go unanswered? But even without an Iraqi Bush War, one of my goals for my child is to cultivate a human being that doesn't add to the bloodlust.No. But I figured the response would have at least some merit of integrity. Other posters advising me on the recklessness of my pen in recent days have been much more effective than your poor-man's Krusty the Klown routine.And that is what you call me telling you to leave the board? You really are senstive, aren't you?Well, the counterpoint is that you really are stupid if you can't figure a better way to make your point, but that doesn't really do either of us any good. But what do I expect of someone who isn't willing to stand behind his words? I know, I know, I wasn't supposed to take you seriously. I mean, look at this: You seem so upset at the undeniable fact that your advocacy of criminal behavior is seen in the negative that you're not even discussing those issues anymore. You can bring it on all you want, but at some point we'll start annoying the shite out of our fellow posters. It's not that I'm bulletproof by any means, but that most people see me standing in front of a barn and they shoot the barn. Or the hills behind it. Or the mountains beyond that. Or sometimes their own foot. It's really weird.I agree. Silly you. You either keeping missing the point or refusing to acknowleged it - I don't care what you think of me. You think I'm stupid, I think you're stupid. I can apparently accept it better than you. Well, my stupidity doesn't necessarily beget more violence. Yours does. You think I'm stupid? You can rest easy because that stupidity isn't going to harm you. You're stupid? Guess what? Aren't we both aware that there are reasons why "they" hate "us"?

Stop being part of the problem.I've argued on message forums for a long time. I've never found that what people say change people's preconceived beliefs, therefore I don't expect to change minds. I don't expect to change a whole lot of minds directly. But one of my rewards is that we're all human beings and all who read my words add them to their living experience. And perhaps it's an insignificant addition, but you'd be amazed at some of the stuff I remember from my life, and I'm sure that, being human, you're occasionally amazed at the minutiae you've archived in your memory. Very often I've come to understand what someone I was disagreeing with was saying at some random point later on. And while it rarely closes the gap entirely, I am entirely aware of the power of the insignificant. I'm an American; in this society, it's a pretty good gamble.It doesn't mean I don't stand behind what I say. I actually prefer the idea that this is all a big, distasteful joke. It would actually raise my assessment of whatever aspect of you it is I'm getting to know.You're not going to change my mind, so does that mean you won't stand behind what you say in the future? Are you admitting that your mind is officially shut tight? That's all you have to do: tell me that you've closed your mind entirely to the situation and I'm perfectly willing to take the hint.No, of course not. You'll still believe what you say, regardless of if anybody excepts it. I'm used to being held accountable for every word I say. Would you believe that some people who know me personally think I have no sense of humor? It's all relative, though. They think Seinfeld was funny; I fell over laughing when Bush said "God is on our side". At neither time did the one understand why the other was laughing.As I said, how we do it is up to you. No, Coldrake, you choose to lie.I think the problem you're having is that I'm blatantly honest, and because I've said things that make you uncomfortable, you've reduced yourself to nitpicking and pathetic little personal attacks, even trying to bring my daughter in to it. That's juvenile. All I did was say, "Don't reproduce". You could have said, O-tay! But no, you instead introduced the example of your daughter. If you don't want those considerations on the table, then perhaps you shouldn't have brought your daughter into it. What really was the point you got out of that? Telling me that I was "too late" with a cheap line? Great, great. I'm happy for you. Was it worth it? Now that's the question. You don't seem to want to examine the issues in a context you've introduced.I must have missed your documentation. Nope. You didn't. You just tried whining and denying.I had a thought here but I won't drop to your level.O-tay!I explained it, you don't understand it, that's your problem.Well, I just don't see why Due Process is too good for Iraqis. You haven't explained that at all.
Because some Iraqis who continue to fight American forces need a clear and direct message that attempting to infiltrate an American compound and steal weapons won't be tolerated.Well, I've come to expect that brand of answer from you, so I can't say I'm surprised.Nasty shit happens in a war zone. To both sides. There is a difference between the nasty shit that happens and the nasty shit that people go out of their way to make. Remember, the US is supposed to be the good guys.No. Not nationalist. Realist. Okay, now explain the assertion. Please.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Coldrake

05-04-03, 01:04 AM

So illustrative limits of your philosophy and the discussion thereof are petty personal attacks? Paranoia will destroy ya

Ermm...OK. Nice footwork.

You talk about pettiness, yet you try to write the argument for me.

If so, I apologize. Maybe I was wrong and you weren't trying to paint me as a racist. Maybe you used the black man analogy because you are the racist.

Furthermore, I think the racism is apparent:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The degraded prisoners had the words "Ali Baba, Haram'' - "Thief, Unclean" - scrawled in Arabic on their chests. (Mirror)

Nope. I was right after all. You were trying to paint me as a racist. Yeah, 'thief' and 'unclean' are clear examples of racism.:bugeye:

As with all people, the Iraqis are innocent until proven guilty. Remember those two important words? Due Process

You have to actually be arrested to be afforded Due Process. I suppose they could have been summarily arrested, summarily tried, and then summarily executed. Instead they stripped them naked and scrawled those terribly racist words 'thief' and 'unclean', on the advice of locals. If I had a choice of the two I know which I would take.

Is that the depth of your comprehension? I can't properly skip stones on the surface because the mud is showing.

And yet another abstract from left field that has nothing to do with what I said.

You're the one afraid to stand behind your words; you're the one who wants to write volumes that you don't want taken seriously.

I stand behind everything I say. Doesn't mean I always get it right, but I will admit my mistakes. Can you do as much? I said I'm here because I enjoy it, because it amuses me. If you want to construe that as that I'm never serious, o-tay, although I will admit that I'm not always as serious as you, and don't really expect that I'm going to change people's minds, although I don't see that as a problem, as you apparently do.

Does that, then, mean that your excuses for crimes against Iraqis means that you advocate continued injustice?

I have as yet to 'advocate continued justice' against Iraqis, but then, I still don't consider the incident in question a war crime. That seems to be the crux of our problem, although you've taken that difference in interpretation of it between us and attempted to insinuate that I'm a completely inhumane warmonger. Sparks apparently understood that, although I'm sure he still disagrees with me on the particular incident. But that's OK. That you won't accept it, only makes me assume that you simply are arguing for argument's sake. Isn't that ironic? You're no different from me; your ego demands you get the last word.

Everybody around here knows that I take myself somewhat seriously at this board; I can't believe you would have missed that though your reading comprehension is somewhat in doubt at the moment.

Yes, I know you take yourself seriously; I acknowledged that way back when somewhere in this thread. I wouldn't have minded you questioning me in the beginning about my opinion on the incident if you had simply done so respectfully, as you normally seem to in your posts. But you didn't question me. You simply made some crude remarks instead, and only after I responded in kind did you decide to ask the question. I'll ask you again. Did you really think I would not respond in kind to those remarks? You obviously would not let such remarks go, so I find it hard to believe you weren't purposely inviting what this thread has turned into. Am I wrong?

I mean, look at this: You seem so upset at the undeniable fact that your advocacy of criminal behavior is seen in the negative that you're not even discussing those issues anymore.

Umm...I wouldn't say upset, but I do admit I don't know how many ways I can say I don't consider it a war crime. You seem to be the one upset that you can't change my mind.

However, at the moment, you're appearing to take yourself very seriously.

Unless, of course, you expect me to sit back while you sling paranoia and lies and say, "Oh, Coldrake! You are such a funny kidder!"

Isn't that what the emoticons are for? To convey emotions?:confused: People generally know by those little smileys when I'm quipping.

Are you admitting that your mind is officially shut tight? That's all you have to do: tell me that you've closed your mind entirely to the situation and I'm perfectly willing to take the hint.

My mind is officially closed on this incident.

Would you believe that some people who know me personally think I have no sense of humor?

Not at all. But I would think the herb would lighten you up.:m:

Look at me: I'm the last mother#^@&er that should be reproducing in the world, but ... what entertains my friends and family is that they're all waiting with baited breath to see how long I can remain an idealist, or how quickly parenthood turns me into a crotchety old f--k.

Parenthood doesn't have to do that.

No, Coldrake, you choose to lie.

So you keep claiming.

All I did was say, "Don't reproduce". You could have said, O-tay!

Yes, and you could have simply asked me at the beginning why I didn't consider it a war crime. But you didn't, did you?

If you don't want those considerations on the table, then perhaps you shouldn't have brought your daughter into it.

I suppose I never considered that you would try and then use my daughter in your examples. I've seen you bring your daughter up in posts. I can bring mine up too; that doesn't give any one else license to use them against either you or me.

What really was the point you got out of that? Telling me that I was "too late" with a cheap line? Great, great. I'm happy for you. Was it worth it? Now that's the question. You don't seem to want to examine the issues in a context you've introduced.

I don't see "too late" as any cheaper a line than "Coldrake; don't reproduce," but hey, that's just me.

Nope. You didn't. You just tried whining and denying.

Kettle, meet Pot.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Not nationalist. Realist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, now explain the assertion. Please.

I believe that in a war zone there are situations that need to be handled expediently, and sometimes harshly. I've been there; sometimes situations dictate it. That's all I'll say about that, but such is the realities of war. I don't expect you to understand that. I also don't expect you to understand my dislike of war because you've completely judged me based on this incident. But I know that when there is war, there will be a lot that goes on that wouldn't be expected to happen during peacetime. And I know you will say 'Geneva Convention', but I think the Convention was created by men who tried to make war 'civilized' because, despite all the great speeches after both world wars about wanting to end war, the great powers never really considered that a reality. Instead, they decide to make war more 'civile'. And I suppose to a great degree that can be done, but that doesn't mean war can be made completely clean. The extreme cruelties can, and should, be dealt with, and dealt with severely, but there are some things that I just don't consider criminal in a war, and this incident is one of them, because sometimes expediency achieves the best results as long as we're not talking about physical violence on someone. That has nothing to do with nationalism, but to me is just a reality of war, because it happens in all wars by all belligerents. I'm just an old soldier and I won't apologize for that.

Tiassa

05-05-03, 07:42 PM

You have to actually be arrested to be afforded Due Process. I suppose they could have been summarily arrested, summarily tried, and then summarily executed. Instead they stripped them naked and scrawled those terribly racist words 'thief' and 'unclean', on the advice of locals. If I had a choice of the two I know which I would take. Well, it took you a few tries in that one to have a real point to make. Now then, can you tell me why the alternatives are summary execution and summary violations of the Geneva Conventions? Why in the world would you hide behind such a pale logical quirk (you have to be arrested) in order to justify the suspension of Due Process?

As to the racism - hey: Like I said, would you scrawl "Kunta Kinte" on a black man's chest? "Ali Baba" is quite racist in the sense that mentioned a while ago: Man, why I always gotta be Jerome? Why can't I be Tommy or Philbert? Why do you have to avoid small matters of reality in order to make your points?

All you have to do is hear a Muslim man insulted as Ali Baba the same way a black man is insulted as Kunta Kinte. Get used to it. Americans ruin a lot of words and phrases that might otherwise be effective.

Nonetheless, the only real difference I can figure about why Iraqis don't deserve due process is because they're over there and not here. You haven't given much of a reason that makes any sense. And, in the end, you're left defending violations of the Geneva Conventions. So my question to you is simple: Should the United States rescind its agreement to the Geneva Conventions?

A simple yes or no will do. I stand behind everything I say. If you say so.Doesn't mean I always get it right, but I will admit my mistakes. Can you do as much? Generally speaking, yes. What mistake have I made? Oh yes, I'm sorry for not thinking you're a sparkling saint of a soul on the basis that you advocate violations of the Geneva Conventions by American soldiers against Iraqi citizens.

You have my most ... heartfelt ... apology. I have no idea what I was thinking; why ever would I ask for justice for anybody on the face of the Earth? It's so ... un-American, isn't it? To want justice for anybody?

Stop advocating violations of the Geneva Conventions.I have as yet to 'advocate continued justice' against Iraqis, but then, I still don't consider the incident in question a war crime. Right. We've already established that violating the Geneva Conventions isn't a war crime, even though we've threatened to prosecute Iraqis who violated the Geneva Conventions under the pretext of "war crimes".That seems to be the crux of our problem, although you've taken that difference in interpretation of it between us and attempted to insinuate that I'm a completely inhumane warmonger I understand that you're advocating violations of the Geneva Conventions. You have chosen by your own declarations to forsake the humane approach. I need not insinuate anything.That you won't accept it, only makes me assume that you simply are arguing for argument's sake. Isn't that ironic? You're no different from me; your ego demands you get the last word.Actually, I just have a serious problem with people who pretend they're noble while advocating violations of human dignity and the abandonment of civility for the sake of convenience. That you presume that nobody can change anybody's mind around here and choose to not give honest consideration to the issues is your own choice.I wouldn't have minded you questioning me in the beginning about my opinion on the incident if you had simply done so respectfully, What respect do you think you deserve? You who advocates violations of the Geneva Conventions? What respect do I owe you, Coldrake? Apparently a hell of a lot more than you owe anybody else on the face of the planet.

Tell me, Coldrake, what f--king respect do I owe you?Did you really think I would not respond in kind to those remarks? Of course I expected a response. I didn't expect such a cowardly one, though. I had thought better of you.You obviously would not let such remarks go, so I find it hard to believe you weren't purposely inviting what this thread has turned into. Am I wrong?You could have stopped pretending nobility long ago. What I have before me is someone advocating the suspension of due process, the abrogation of the Geneva Conventions, and for what? Convenience? I ask you: Did you really think that nobody would call you out? I'll be damned the day I let your brand of disrespect win the day.I wouldn't say upset, but I do admit I don't know how many ways I can say I don't consider it a war crime. You seem to be the one upset that you can't change my mind.You're so right. Violations of the Geneva Conventions are never raised as war crimes.

You're the one who makes the baseless assertion that the failure of the occupying power to honor its obligations to the Geneva Conventions is not a war crime. It's "not a war crime" only because "we won". And we all know that winners don't get tried for war crimes.Isn't that what the emoticons are for? To convey emotions? People generally know by those little smileys when I'm quipping.There aren't enough emoticons allowed to cover your position.My mind is officially closed on this incident .Noted.Not at all. But I would think the herb would lighten you up.There's not enough herb in the world to make me so stupid as to appear to have a sense of humor to that part of the tribe. Some people you just can't satisfy, you know.Parenthood doesn't have to do that.Right, but nobody's betting on the idealism, which has had a zero percent success rate in their view.Yes, and you could have simply asked me at the beginning why I didn't consider it a war crime. But you didn't, did you? Well, what would you have said? That a violation or abrogation of the Geneva Conventions is not a war crime, despite the fact that we were threatening the Iraqis with "war crimes" if they violated the Geneva Conventions regarding our prisoners of war? There are rules we've agreed to. This conduct breaks them. You seem to not care about that. So I ask you: Should the U.S. rescind its obligations under the Geneva Conventions?that doesn't give any one else license to use them against either you or me.I've always found that when people do so, there's generally one of two things going on: Either it's a legitimate point that deserves consideration, or it's a skewed point that only makes sense if I agree to the presuppositions upon which we already disagree. What to do about the one is obvious; what to do about the other is not so.I don't see "too late" as any cheaper a line than "Coldrake; don't reproduce," but hey, that's just me. Well I'm cheap-shooting on behalf of human prosperity. But hey, that's just me ....
Kettle, meet Pot.Or, as Dr. Jeffries has it, maggot, meet grub.And I know you will say 'Geneva Convention', but I think the Convention was created by men who tried to make war 'civilized' because, despite all the great speeches after both world wars about wanting to end war, the great powers never really considered that a reality. Instead, they decide to make war more 'civile'. And I suppose to a great degree that can be done, but that doesn't mean war can be made completely clean. Are human capabilities static? With a global economy and an increasing sense of global community, is the end of war really so unrealistic? We have tools, we have the minds, and we have enough of the fundamental ideas that we can, in fact, choose to go forward in the name of peace.

In the larger argument, I have serious concerns about the way Americans, for instance, regard history. The regard is fundamentally dishonest, but this seems to be an identifiable (and perhaps thereby possible to solve) conundrum of human behavior. But when we stop and consider the tremendous influence that the US has in the world, and when we place that influence alongside the advertised nobility of the American Way, it just doesn't seem hard to put two and two together in order to figure out how to make the sales pitch a reality. The simple fact is that most Americans don't really care if they're the good guys. They're part of the "Big Kid on the Block", and apathy has risen from comfort. But the fact that we can identify the idea of world peace speaks volumes about its potential. What do we have that didn't exist when the Conventions were passed? In theory, we've only economized and expedited process, so it seems as if the challenges that made world peace problematic in the past--e.g. global address of the root causes of human conflict--are certainly attainable. It's disappointing that the US has made history even more malleable than it usually is, and furthermore that it is history upon which we found our excuse to sit lazily about on our haunches and wait for someone to piss us off. It seems like a big effort to some, but I don't really think it's that hard. Certainly there are fundamental differences between people, but we can't know unless we honestly try.

And in the meantime, accepting conventional acknowledgment of the sad necessity of warfare, we, the alleged good guys, have serious obligations to back that claim. And that means suffering the inconvenience and even the deaths that can result from playing by the rules we've agreed to.The extreme cruelties can, and should, be dealt with, and dealt with severely, but there are some things that I just don't consider criminal in a war, and this incident is one of them, because sometimes expediency achieves the best results as long as we're not talking about physical violence on someone. Ever notice how much of the war on drugs is related to marijuana? Remember those ads about the Joint That Dan Bought, and how the money went to terrorists? See, the thing is that in my area, at least, the only "terrorists" pot money goes to are probably Canadians who (gasp!) don't like American beer. So many people grow up here that we're actually suspicious of Thai bud and everyone's suspicious of where their coke comes from. But that's the point amid it all: We do worry about the little things. In the end, and statistically I can promise this, you would prefer the result if a million people were stoned in your area compared to a million people being drunk or coked up. We do worry about the little things. Seattle's parking enforcement is a racket; they do worry about the little things. Perhaps humiliation without due process seems like a little thing, but it looks really suspicious when the only time we overlook the little things is when it is convenient or profitable to do so.

I think of the moron who admitted to executing an Iraqi in the field. You know, I can probably understand to a degree why he did it, and even sympathize some. But it doesn't make it right, and he ought to be happy that when he is tried for his crime, it will be by a body (international) that won't execute him ... unless of course we throw him to the Iraqis as a sacrifice.

And still we come back to the little thing: the Geneva Conventions, so fatally flawed as to be inconvenient.

If we cannot conduct a war according to the "rules" we've agreed to, if we cannot maintain an occupation to the same standards, we should not go forward.That has nothing to do with nationalism, but to me is just a reality of war, because it happens in all wars by all belligerents. I'm just an old soldier and I won't apologize for that. I can accept that it's not nationalism per se, but I dislike any "Us and Them" division. I can't, however, accept that endorsing the little wrongs merely because they are little is right, proper, or otherwise acceptable.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Coldrake

05-06-03, 01:20 AM

All you have to do is hear a Muslim man insulted as Ali Baba the same way a black man is insulted as Kunta Kinte.

Sorry. I didn't realize I was talking to an expert on Muslim culture. I stand corrected. But out of curiosity, how many times have you actually heard a Muslim called 'Ali Baba'?

Should the United States rescind its agreement to the Geneva Conventions

N...O.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I stand behind everything I say.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you say so.

I do.

Stop advocating violations of the Geneva Conventions.

Stop being redundant.

Generally speaking, yes. What mistake have I made? Oh yes, I'm sorry for not thinking you're a sparkling saint of a soul on the basis that you advocate violations of the Geneva Conventions by American soldiers against Iraqi citizens.

Saint Coldrake? Hmm...nah. Doesn't even sound right.

We've already established that violating the Geneva Conventions isn't a war crime

No, you've tried to say 'we've' established that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That you won't accept it, only makes me assume that you simply are arguing for argument's sake. Isn't that ironic? You're no different from me; your ego demands you get the last word.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, I just have a serious problem with people who pretend they're noble while advocating violations of human dignity and the abandonment of civility for the sake of convenience. That you presume that nobody can change anybody's mind around here and choose to not give honest consideration to the issues is your own choice.

Well, at least you admit it's my choice.

What respect do you think you deserve? You who advocates violations of the Geneva Conventions? What respect do I owe you, Coldrake? Apparently a hell of a lot more than you owe anybody else on the face of the planet.

Tell me, Coldrake, what f--king respect do I owe you?

You owe me no f--king respect, tiassa. But your original desire to be a character assassin instead of simply asking the questions your asking now is why we've ceased talking civily to each other. But what the heck?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you really think I would not respond in kind to those remarks?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course I expected a response. I didn't expect such a cowardly one, though. I had thought better of you.

Oh yes, I failed tiassa's 'nobility' test. How cowardly of me.

You could have stopped pretending nobility long ago. What I have before me is someone advocating the suspension of due process, the abrogation of the Geneva Conventions, and for what? Convenience? I ask you: Did you really think that nobody would call you out? I'll be damned the day I let your brand of disrespect win the day.

Alright! Now tiassa is really getting his game face on. He's determined that his brand of disrespect will trump my brand of disrespect.

You're so right. Violations of the Geneva Conventions are never raised as war crimes.

You're the one who makes the baseless assertion that the failure of the occupying power to honor its obligations to the Geneva Conventions is not a war crime. It's "not a war crime" only because "we won". And we all know that winners don't get tried for war crimes.

I don't consider the incident in question a violation of the Convention or a war crime. But, I believe I said that already.

There aren't enough emoticons allowed to cover your position.

:bugeye:

There's not enough herb in the world to make me so stupid as to appear to have a sense of humor to that part of the tribe. Some people you just can't satisfy, you know.

*Note to self: never get a buzz with tiassa.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parenthood doesn't have to do that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right, but nobody's betting on the idealism, which has had a zero percent success rate in their view.

:bugeye:

Well, what would you have said? That a violation or abrogation of the Geneva Conventions is not a war crime, despite the fact that we were threatening the Iraqis with "war crimes" if they violated the Geneva Conventions regarding our prisoners of war? There are rules we've agreed to. This conduct breaks them. You seem to not care about that. So I ask you: Should the U.S. rescind its obligations under the Geneva Conventions?

At least your consistent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that doesn't give any one else license to use them against either you or me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've always found that when people do so, there's generally one of two things going on: Either it's a legitimate point that deserves consideration, or it's a skewed point that only makes sense if I agree to the presuppositions upon which we already disagree. What to do about the one is obvious; what to do about the other is not so.

:eek:

Well I'm cheap-shooting on behalf of human prosperity. But hey, that's just me ....

How could I have missed the nobility underlying your cheap shots?

Or, as Dr. Jeffries has it, maggot, meet grub.

Even more apropo than mine.

Are human capabilities static? With a global economy and an increasing sense of global community, is the end of war really so unrealistic? We have tools, we have the minds, and we have enough of the fundamental ideas that we can, in fact, choose to go forward in the name of peace.

In the larger argument, I have serious concerns about the way Americans, for instance, regard history. The regard is fundamentally dishonest, but this seems to be an identifiable (and perhaps thereby possible to solve) conundrum of human behavior. But when we stop and consider the tremendous influence that the US has in the world, and when we place that influence alongside the advertised nobility of the American Way, it just doesn't seem hard to put two and two together in order to figure out how to make the sales pitch a reality. The simple fact is that most Americans don't really care if they're the good guys. They're part of the "Big Kid on the Block", and apathy has risen from comfort. But the fact that we can identify the idea of world peace speaks volumes about its potential. What do we have that didn't exist when the Conventions were passed? In theory, we've only economized and expedited process, so it seems as if the challenges that made world peace problematic in the past--e.g. global address of the root causes of human conflict--are certainly attainable. It's disappointing that the US has made history even more malleable than it usually is, and furthermore that it is history upon which we found our excuse to sit lazily about on our haunches and wait for someone to piss us off. It seems like a big effort to some, but I don't really think it's that hard. Certainly there are fundamental differences between people, but we can't know unless we honestly try.

And in the meantime, accepting conventional acknowledgment of the sad necessity of warfare, we, the alleged good guys, have serious obligations to back that claim. And that means suffering the inconvenience and even the deaths that can result from playing by the rules we've agreed to.

Now that was very eloquently put. That's when your at your best.

Ever notice how much of the war on drugs is related to marijuana? Remember those ads about the Joint That Dan Bought, and how the money went to terrorists? See, the thing is that in my area, at least, the only "terrorists" pot money goes to are probably Canadians who (gasp!) don't like American beer. So many people grow up here that we're actually suspicious of Thai bud and everyone's suspicious of where their coke comes from. But that's the point amid it all: We do worry about the little things. In the end, and statistically I can promise this, you would prefer the result if a million people were stoned in your area compared to a million people being drunk or coked up. We do worry about the little things. Seattle's parking enforcement is a racket; they do worry about the little things. Perhaps humiliation without due process seems like a little thing, but it looks really suspicious when the only time we overlook the little things is when it is convenient or profitable to do so.

Now, see? You're finally making a serious case for your argument instead of merely brow-beating me. And I have to admit, you make a good case when you stick to it.

I can accept that it's not nationalism per se, but I dislike any "Us and Them" division. I can't, however, accept that endorsing the little wrongs merely because they are little is right, proper, or otherwise acceptable.

Well, you've made it obvious you can't accept it.

Tiassa

05-06-03, 04:41 AM

But out of curiosity, how many times have you actually heard a Muslim called 'Ali Baba'? A few, actually. It happens.Should the United States rescind its agreement to the Geneva Conventions
------------------------------------------------------------------------

N...O. What I don't get about this is what the alternative is, then. Only apply the Conventions when it's convenient or profitable?Stop being redundant.That's helpful.

Really.No, you've tried to say 'we've' established that. Well, I just don't get where you're coming from, then. I'm just trying to respect Sparks' division because it's a division at all.

See ... the public humiliation of citizens of occupied territories is among the things you're not supposed to do when you're the occupying power. This is where I see a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Would you care to separate that from a war crime? No, don't refer me to your prior failures to explain that part of it. I'd love a straight answer.You owe me no f--king respect, tiassa. But your original desire to be a character assassin instead of simply asking the questions your asking now is why we've ceased talking civily to each other. But what the heck? There is nothing civil in advocating war crimes. Or violations of the Geneva Conventions. Or whatever it is you simply don't want to call such behavior. When in Rome, so to speak. When I'm among the rude, I conduct myself accordingly. Thus, to visit a point I skipped over: Well, at least you admit it's my choice. Which speaks volumes to me about your appeal to civility.Oh yes, I failed tiassa's 'nobility' test. How cowardly of me. Nope. You're consistently failing a common-sense test.Alright! Now tiassa is really getting his game face on. He's determined that his brand of disrespect will trump my brand of disrespect.When in Rome, Coldrake ... when in Rome.I don't consider the incident in question a violation of the Convention or a war crime. But, I believe I said that already. And David Koresh didn't think of sleeping with ten year-old girls as a crime, either.

Actually, more compelling is that some people in the military disagree with you: Another official, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Owens of the Central Command, said he couldn't confirm the report, but if true, the soldiers would be disciplined.

"If they are under our custody, any public display goes against the Geneva Conventions. It's just not something we would do," he said. "That goes against everything we stand for and have been preaching against since Day One." (Arizona Republic (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0427war-naked27.html))Of course, the brass at CentCom always disagree with the officer in the field, right?Group Commander Eric Canaday, of 10th Engineer Corps, is quoted in Dagbladet saying: "I think our job is to keep people out of the park to prevent theft of weapons.

"We have started doing several things and I don't think this is too much.''

Lt Canaday added: "We have talked with the Iraqi inhabitants. Some of them gave us the idea so we took the clothes and burned them before we pushed them out with thief written on their chest. It was quite successful.'' (Mirror UK (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12892683&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=THIEVES%20IN%20NAKED%20SHAME))But Commander Owens does warm my heart; it's good to know there are people in the higher-up who remember what "we stand for".Note to self: never get a buzz with tiassa.You never know ... your brain might explode.At least your consistent. I learned long ago, when dealing with the paradoxes of Christianity, that sometimes consistency is all you have.The concept translates well enough as long as I stick to thought patterns of Western origin and nature.How could I have missed the nobility underlying your cheap shots? Well, the underlying nobility is often hard to detect when the shite is raining on you. Ask an Iraqi survivor of our precision bombing.Even more apropo than mine.Yep, and from a man who set race relations back twenty years. (Dr. Jeffries, that is.)Now that was very eloquently put. That's when your at your best.See, there's something to be learned about consistency. I explain that bit so much in its various applicable contexts that it seems to me rather like common sense. After a while, I really do wonder what's so difficult for people to understand about it. So when I stumble across people lending their advocacy to violations of the Geneva Conventions ... well ... when in Rome.Well, you've made it obvious you can't accept it.Natural shortcomings are one thing. Perpetuating them, once recognized, is entirely another.

I really do think that these are the little things that will lend to further bloodshed. If "they" hated "us" before ... whoa ... I can't say we're doing much to repair relations. Just over 3,000 is enough for me. I really don't wish to invite "them" for an encore.

Wars are among the things that the allegedly-noble (e.g. the US of A) can't really afford to do wrong.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Coldrake

05-06-03, 09:50 AM

A few, actually. It happens.

In the Mideast or in Seattle?

See ... the public humiliation of citizens of occupied territories is among the things you're not supposed to do when you're the occupying power. This is where I see a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Would you care to separate that from a war crime? No, don't refer me to your prior failures to explain that part of it. I'd love a straight answer.

My point was, those were not citizens; when they breached the security of the compound and were caught with a bag of weapons parts they were essentially combatants.

There is nothing civil in advocating war crimes. Or violations of the Geneva Conventions. Or whatever it is you simply don't want to call such behavior. When in Rome, so to speak. When I'm among the rude, I conduct myself accordingly. Thus, to visit a point I skipped over:

So you expect civility in a war zone, but not a message forum?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alright! Now tiassa is really getting his game face on. He's determined that his brand of disrespect will trump my brand of disrespect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When in Rome, Coldrake ... when in Rome.

Interesting that you hold the US military to a higher standard than it's opponents, but you don't hold yourself to a higher standard than your opponents. You did say up above, "when among the rude, I conduct myself accordingly." Shouldn't I then just look at the US military's situation and say "When in Baghdad, tiassa, when in Baghdad."

And David Koresh didn't think of sleeping with ten year-old girls as a crime, either.

Maybe he did. Maybe that's why he surrounded himself with a small army and an arsenal to boot.

Actually, more compelling is that some people in the military disagree with you:

But Commander Owens does warm my heart; it's good to know there are people in the higher-up who remember what "we stand for".

Most military personnel are not mindless killers, contrary to the rumors. Most believe in what they do. And if officers believe the soldiers should be punished by the military, I have no problem with that. I said in an earlier post, that what the military considers crimes should be handled by the military.

Yep, and from a man who set race relations back twenty years. (Dr. Jeffries, that is.)

Thanks for the distinction.;)

I really do think that these are the little things that will lend to further bloodshed. If "they" hated "us" before ... whoa ... I can't say we're doing much to repair relations. Just over 3,000 is enough for me. I really don't wish to invite "them" for an encore.

Your point is taken, although I think hate is hate, and if they hated us before...

Tiassa

05-06-03, 04:41 PM

In the Mideast or in Seattle?In Seattle, and also down in Portland.My point was, those were not citizens; when they breached the security of the compound and were caught with a bag of weapons parts they were essentially combatants .And?So you expect civility in a war zone, but not a message forum? That's thin.Interesting that you hold the US military to a higher standard than it's opponents, but you don't hold yourself to a higher standard than your opponents. When we get around to killing each other for stupid reasons, the difference will become very apparent.You did say up above, "when among the rude, I conduct myself accordingly." Shouldn't I then just look at the US military's situation and say "When in Baghdad, tiassa , when in Baghdad."Nope. My lowering of standards generally don't involve advocating recognized violations of human rights. My lowering of standards generally doesn't kill innocent people.Maybe he did. Maybe that's why he surrounded himself with a small army and an arsenal to boot.Perhaps, but he was a Jerusalem Syndrome case. Megalomania probably had more to do with it.I said in an earlier post, that what the military considers crimes should be handled by the military.And yet there is still a hesitance among Americans to accept the international rules we've exploited to our benefit. Hi, we the US think these rules should be held against anyone but us .... Your point is taken, although I think hate is hate, and if they hated us before... Hatred comes from fear. Fear comes from ignorance. Bombs and bullets do little, if anything, to solve that situation. I think history pretty much proves that.

(Dr. Jeffries, incidentally, is the man who successfully argued that a black man cannot be racist because he is oppressed. After praising the destruction of Challenger, he noted that the disaster slowed the progress of spreading white filth across the Universe. Fired from his job at CUNY for that and other race-related offenses, he sued for something like half a million dollars using the "black man, no racist" argument. He got his job back and a handsome award from a jury of New Yorkers ... go figure.)

A final note: Is it the process or the result that is important to people? The US has failed in history in its prior state-building and state-manipulation efforts. We have agreements to certain rules of conduct while about that lark. And yet we continue to both fail in our state-building and state-manipulation, and we continue to abrogate our international agreements .... Why should our soldiers be exempt from the Geneva Conventions in the sense that we, the USA, who have a vested interest in a specific outcome, would rather provide "justice"? Think of all our corporate thieves and polluters. Perhaps we should let Condoleeza Rice decide what they have and haven't done wrong? An old Doonesbury (6.21.1988) (http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.cfm?uc_full_date=19880621&uc_comic=db&uc_daction=X) expresses the point well. A jury of one's peers, perhaps, but come now ....

Yes ... we are the empire. We shall tell the world what justice is, and they will either like it or not. After all, they're either with us or against us.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Coldrake

05-06-03, 07:11 PM

In Seattle, and also down in Portland.

Interesting. There is a large Arab population on campus, but I've never heard them insult each other, or anyone else insult them using derogatory terms.

And?

Well, I think the distinction between civilian and combatant is obvious.

That's thin.

Was it? It was actually just a question of curiosity, but you didn't answer it.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting that you hold the US military to a higher standard than it's opponents, but you don't hold yourself to a higher standard than your opponents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When we get around to killing each other for stupid reasons, the difference will become very apparent.

I haven't killed anybody on the board to my knowledge, but you keep insisting on a higher standard for me.;)

Nope. My lowering of standards generally don't involve advocating recognized violations of human rights. My lowering of standards generally doesn't kill innocent people.

OK, so you consider your lower standards ok as long as you avoid advocating violations of human rights or killing innocent people. Fair enough.

Perhaps, but he was a Jerusalem Syndrome case. Megalomania probably had more to do with it.

I'll take your word on that. I couldn't say one way or the other.

And yet there is still a hesitance among Americans to accept the international rules we've exploited to our benefit. Hi, we the US think these rules should be held against anyone but us ....

I won't argue that.

Hatred comes from fear. Fear comes from ignorance. Bombs and bullets do little, if anything, to solve that situation. I think history pretty much proves that.

True, but still...if they hated us already...

(Dr. Jeffries, incidentally, is the man who successfully argued that a black man cannot be racist because he is oppressed. After praising the destruction of Challenger, he noted that the disaster slowed the progress of spreading white filth across the Universe. Fired from his job at CUNY for that and other race-related offenses, he sued for something like half a million dollars using the "black man, no racist" argument. He got his job back and a handsome award from a jury of New Yorkers ... go figure.)

And OJ walked and granny won millions from McDonalds for sticking and open cup of coffee between her legs in jr's Corvette. Gotta love the court system.

The US has failed in history in its prior state-building and state-manipulation efforts. We have agreements to certain rules of conduct while about that lark

And you would think at some point the history lessons would sink in.

Tiassa

05-06-03, 08:26 PM

Interesting. There is a large Arab population on campus, but I've never heard them insult each other, or anyone else insult them using derogatory terms. Ummm ... never mind. Well, I think the distinction between civilian and combatant is obvious.Sorry, I'd forgotten the relevance of the United States having rescinded its adherence to the conventions regarding enemy combatants.Was it? It was actually just a question of curiosity, but you didn't answer it.Fair enough.

Pacifists generally take a minor amount of heat for simply having any feelings whatsoever. People who point out an irritated or even hostile pacifist generally fail to make a certain distinction: my lack of civility does not bring harm. I'm not pointing guns at anyone in my lack of civility, I'm not stealing anyone's clothes and chasing them naked down the street, I'm not asking anyone to take off their beret before I shoot them in the back of the head.

A lack of civility on a message board does not kill people, does it? How can I possibly humiliate you on a message board to a similar extent short of presenting pictures of you doing things that I'm going to take a wild guess that you don't. Sorry ... I don't want to invoke any examples that might upset you. But seriously, do you really think the comparative civilities are the same?I haven't killed anybody on the board to my knowledge, but you keep insisting on a higher standard for me.All other of our present disputes aside, your reading comprehension is again in serious doubt.

Like I said ... When we get around to killing each other for stupid reasons ....

Hmm ... my lack of respect for your lack of respect for human dignity versus a general lack of respect for human dignity. My lack of respect for your lack of respect regarding a rhetorical position: do you really think that compares the the reality taking place?OK, so you consider your lower standards ok as long as you avoid advocating violations of human rights or killing innocent people. Fair enough.Words are words. People have to take it out on each other somehow, and if yelling until they're blue in the face, cussing until the words have no meaning, or generally yammering it out like fools, that's a foolish humanity I can appreciate. Words were intended to communicate. Bombs and bullets are intended to kill. There's a huge functional difference that honestly I didn't expect to have to explain to you or anyone else.I won't argue that.Every little bit will help at this point, is the thing.True, but still...if they hated us already... And every little bit will help.And OJ walked and granny won millions from McDonalds for sticking and open cup of coffee between her legs in jr's Corvette. Gotta love the court system. Oh, yes. "The maggot and the grub" was just one of Jeffries' many ways of titting the white man's tat. Ever hear about the feminists that wanted to change the term to "femstruation" in order to get the prefix men- out of the word? Imagine an angry black man on a tear with the same concept. (In Jeffries' case, race almost doesn't matter; if you seek that much of an upheaval of conventional dialogue, you meet resistance.)And you would think at some point the history lessons would sink in. In what context? Because that's sort of my point to.

My take on it: We cannot continue to pretend any sense of nobility, cannot claim to raise lowly peoples, cannot claim to be anything other than just as greedy as the next guy, and that's a tragic reduction of the American potential.

I have a fine line on 9/11. It is because I believe that we are a noble nation that I agree with my neighbors that we didn't deserve to be kicked in the sac like that. If I throw out that sad faith in my country, I have to admit that I don't know what everyone's so damned upset about. I want to be able to be honestly angry about people hurting my neighbors. But that means all of them, and not just my American neighbors.

Think of it this way ... about twenty minutes ago, I had a conversation with one of my next-door neighbors that started off with, "I don't want to be rude, but ...." I did what I could to assuage his concerns, and then advised him that no, I would not consider his interjection rude. That last part, that I dared find him not rude pissed him off in some way that I cannot quite explain. But it kind of reminded me of politics. Maybe the next time he knocks on my door I can pre-emptively defend myself and then leave the body in the gutter for the trash collection. It's getting to be that way, lately. Of course, my neighbor complaining about I-think-I-know-but-am-not-entirely-sure-what is, in my humble opinion, something on a considerably different scale than, say, a war zone and occupied territory.

But that's just me.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Coldrake

05-06-03, 11:09 PM

Ummm ... never mind.

Don't clam up on my account. If you had something to say...

Sorry, I'd forgotten the relevance of the United States having rescinded its adherence to the conventions regarding enemy combatants.

We're back at square one. A neverending tautology.

How can I possibly humiliate you on a message board to a similar extent short of presenting pictures of you doing things that I'm going to take a wild guess that you don't.

Well, I've got my own pictures that could humiliate me.

A lack of civility on a message board does not kill people, does it? But seriously, do you really think the comparative civilities are the same?

No, but this begs an interesting question. Since you're saying that as long as people don't kill or humiliate each other on the board, then a lack of civility is ok. So what are we left with here? That me having an opinion contrary to yours is in no way to be tolerated, but a lack of civility is? I'm just trying to get the social rules of the board down pat.

All other of our present disputes aside, your reading comprehension is again in serious doubt.

Like I said ... When we get around to killing each other for stupid reasons ....

So as long as we don't kill each other for stupid reasons...gotcha.

Words are words. People have to take it out on each other somehow, and if yelling until they're blue in the face, cussing until the words have no meaning, or generally yammering it out like fools, that's a foolish humanity I can appreciate.

Who was it that said to me that if we ignore the little things?

If we were face to face I suppose we could yell at each other until we were blue in the face.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you would think at some point the history lessons would sink in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In what context? Because that's sort of my point to.

I know. I was agreeing.

My take on it: We cannot continue to pretend any sense of nobility, cannot claim to raise lowly peoples, cannot claim to be anything other than just as greedy as the next guy, and that's a tragic reduction of the American potential.

Well, we've managed to fool ourselves for over a century that our foreign policy wasn't self-centered, althoug at one time we did manage to lift up 'lowly peoples' through our greed. Old Rudyard would be quite disappointed.

Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!

Tiassa

05-07-03, 04:48 PM

Don't clam up on my account. If you had something to say... I'm having a Homer Simpson moment. "What, do I have to draw you a picture?" I can't figure if it's a lack of comprehension on your part or deliberate horsepucky. Either way, it's annoying. I thought to spare you the strafing invective.There is a large Arab population on campus, but I've never heard them insult each other, or anyone else insult them using derogatory terms.You'll have to explain the significance of this point in relevance to the argument.

However:

- As I scour the web I find no evidence that Ali Baba translates directly to "thief". Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but there are also a couple of points to consider.
- In the story"Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves" (http://www.bartleby.com/16/905.html), Ali Baba is a woodcutter who steals from an army of robbers. Would we claim that the Iraqi thieves were stealing from other thieves? If yes, what aside from "might is right" licenses the "punishment" of the four Iraqi men?
- Furthermore, I came across a PDF from Penguin Books, a set of Teacher's Notes for Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves. You can view the Google html (link removed due to Sciforums' inability to display it) here; the PDF server was slow (http://www.penguinreaders.com/downloads/0582430976.pdf) for me last night, about 2k a second. As the notes assert: The story was first printed by Antoine Galland in his French translation of The Thousand and One Nights in 1704. It seems likely that it was really a European tale to which he added Eastern colouring. The story first appeared in English in 1722, in the 11th volume of the Arabian Nights Entertainments, or The Thousand and One Nights under the title "The Story of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves Destroyed by a Slave"
- So it seems to me that we have American troops using a phrase made popular in the west by a possibly illegitimate (e.g. not actually Arabic) source ....
- I would love to have been a fly on the wall at some of those meetings between US troops and Iraqi civilians, to know if they prescribed the phrase "Ali Baba", or merely told them in broken english to put "thief" and "unclean" on their chests, or how that actually came about.

Because frankly, it ends up sounding the same to me as a mediocre-at-best rap song from the 1990s. "Man, why I always gotta be Baba? Why can't I be George or Eddie?"

Seriously: In addition to being a violation of the Geneva Conventions, it seems to me that the use of the phrase "Ali Baba" was as racist as if I'd scrawled "Kunta Kinte" on a black man's chest and chased him down the street. And what's even funny is that, if memory serves me correctly, "Kunta Kinte" is still a bad choice of words because the more insulting name is ... "Toby", I think. The number of levels at which the incident breaks down into the morbidly hilarious stupidity of arrogant Americans is appreciable, but the Geneva Conventions just aren't a great source of comic relief for me.

Give me an historical context which will exonerate the apparent racism, read some Hawthorne, and, well, you've asked that I not engage certain points of argument, so there are a couple of considerations I can't ask you to undertake ... convenient for you, indeed. Now then ... I'm going to go back to searching the web, but I'm only giving the "Ali Baba" issue the rest of today to research.

In the end, the use of the phrase "Ali Baba" is tantamount to the citation I made somewhere around this site of Sir Mix-A-Lot's "One Time's Got No Case" (http://worldlyric.com/s/sirmixalot/one_times_got.html):What you pullin' me over fo' mistuh offi-suh?
I'll be askin' the questions Leroy.
My name ain't Leroy, man.
Heh, all right Jerome, outta the car.
Man, why I gotta be Jerome man? Why can't I be Tommy or Philbert or something?
Just put your hands on the hood MuhammedMaybe we should parade Sergeant Covarrubias (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0426-09.htm) down the street with "Adolf" and "monster" scrawled on his chest. Oh, wait ... he's an American and entitled to due process.

And that's essentially the problem. Quite frankly, I'm stunned that I have to spell it out for you.We're back at square one. A neverending tautology. Well, you know, that's your own damn choice. Seriously ... after Guantanamo, it is merely stubborn sentiment that compels me to believe the United States gives a rat's ass about human dignity. Of course the stripping and humiliating of Iraqis was appropriate; we've already rejected the Geneva Conventions ... it was silly of me to forget Guantanamo. I was, in fact, trying to agree with you to a certain degree.

Furthermore, your one-liner habit is getting stale. I'm sick and tired of looking up through three of your posts to see what a one-word reply means.Well, I've got my own pictures that could humiliate me. The point being, and that you're ignoring, is that it would be hard for me to cause you the same distress and humiliation via this message board. And since you seem to want to compare an occupied territory to a message board, I think it fair to point out the limitations of that analogy.No, but this begs an interesting question. Since you're saying that as long as people don't kill or humiliate each other on the board, then a lack of civility is ok To a certain degree. People lose their tempers around here. We have clearance to say certain things to one another; it's just a matter of how you say it. I don't mind the yelling; rather, it's the amount of silly and pointless yelling that goes on around here, and, more specifically ... well, we'll get that point next:So what are we left with here? That me having an opinion contrary to yours is in no way to be tolerated, but a lack of civility is? I'm just trying to get the social rules of the board down pat. Read the stickies.

In the meantime, you're perfectly welcome to have an opinion regardless of what it actually says. But when you voice that opinion in support of troops who violate the Geneva Conventions, well ... did you not expect anyone to respond?So as long as we don't kill each other for stupid reasons...gotcha.Well, if that's the best you can understand, sure.

I'll try less syllables (sil-luh-buhlz) in the future.Who was it that said to me that if we ignore the little things?Well, is expression a crime?

If one of us gets around to threatening the other, well ... that will be a relatively little thing that cannot be overlooked.I know. I was agreeing.Okay ... that ... answers the question ....

Actually, it doesn't.

In what context do you mean the following words, which you have written: And you would think at some point the history lessons would sink in.

As a side note, is your poor communication intentional, accidental, or the result of not expecting to change any minds and therefore a form of apathy?

Given that every side of this argument we could stand on and invent has a road that leads to the statement in question, I don't think a contextual clarification is much to ask. Your economy of words is officially detrimental to the efficacy of your expression.Well, we've managed to fool ourselves for over a century that our foreign policy wasn't self-centered, althoug at one time we did manage to lift up 'lowly peoples' through our greed. Old Rudyard would be quite disappointed. And I just don't see what makes trying even harder to lie to ourselves will do to help anything aside from one or another person's direct satisfaction in response to some ignorance- or hate-based context.

Thieves stealing from thieves ... you gotta love Americans. It's what we choose, and I must admit that I'm puzzled by the neurosis that makes people pretend that crimes by Americans against internationals are somehow benevolent.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Coldrake

05-08-03, 02:12 AM

There is a large Arab population on campus, but I've never heard them insult each other, or anyone else insult them using derogatory terms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You'll have to explain the significance of this point in relevance to the argument.

Actually, I wasn't arguing it. You said you had heard Arabs in this country call each other Ali Baba on more than a few occasions. I merely thought that was interesting, because I hadn't. But I noted that my personal contacts were on a college campus, so maybe you were among them in a different setting where there was more stealing going on among them or something other. But you're right; I should not have asked you to respond. If I'd know I was going to get a 1000 word essay and 4 links for my effort, I would have rethought it.

- As I scour the web I find no evidence that Ali Baba translates directly to "thief".

So? You were the one that first made reference to it, not me. If you don't think Ali Baba represents 'thief' though, then what do you think those Arabs you personally heard call each other that in Seattle and Portland were trying to convey to each other? I'm curious of the setting, and why else they would be calling each other that.

And what's even funny is that, if memory serves me correctly, "Kunta Kinte" is still a bad choice of words because the more insulting name is ... "Toby", I think.

I thought it was 'Sambo', but I suppose it has about as much relevance in this post as kunta kinta or Toby, which is none.

Give me an historical context which will exonerate the apparent racism, read some Hawthorne, and, well, you've asked that I not engage certain points of argument, so there are a couple of considerations I can't ask you to undertake ... convenient for you, indeed.

Lucky me, huh? Last thing I want is another dissertation that goes nowhere.

In the meantime, you're perfectly welcome to have an opinion regardless of what it actually says. But when you voice that opinion in support of troops who violate the Geneva Conventions, well ... did you not expect anyone to respond?

Sure. Same as you probably expected a response to your response. But I do think it humorous you've made that one opinion a personal crusade. I'm actually curious to see how long we can make this thread with just the two of us posting in it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We're back at square one. A neverending tautology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, you know, that's your own damn choice.

Is it? You're the one that is stuck on Ali Baba and are now trying to make it a racist incident.

I'll try less syllables (sil-luh-buhlz) in the future.

Pleez du. I gits so cornfuzed, mista tiassa.

In what context do you mean the following words, which you have written: And you would think at some point the history lessons would sink in.

That should have been obvious in light of what you originally said. But anyway; in the post-WWII era the US' record at nation-building has been atrocious. Sooner...or later...the history... lessons...should sink...in.

As a side note, is your poor communication intentional, accidental, or the result of not expecting to change any minds and therefore a form of apathy?

Given that every side of this argument we could stand on and invent has a road that leads to the statement in question, I don't think a contextual clarification is much to ask. Your economy of words is officially detrimental to the efficacy of your expression.

*yawn* tiassa's obligatory "I'm smarter than you" sequence that must be included in each of his posts.

*Note to Coldrake: learn to read 'tiassa speak' or expect to be harangued repeatedly.

What I find particularly funny about your consistent remarks about lack of communication skills is that in another thread you were quick to point out to someone who, like you, pointed out that someone else's inability to understand was a result of their failure to grasp what he was saying. You interjected that usually it was the result of speakers' inabilities to make themselves understood. So maybe, just maybe, the poor communication skills are yours.

I don't think a contextual clarification is much to ask. Your economy of words is officially detrimental to the efficacy of your expression.

I clarified myself long ago in this thread. I'm just hanging around watching you vent at this point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who was it that said to me that if we ignore the little things?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, is expression a crime?

Yes, apparently it is unless it's your expression. My expression/crime is why you're still going on about Ali Baba, the Geneva Convention, racism, and so on and so on.

Furthermore, your one-liner habit is getting stale. I'm sick and tired of looking up through three of your posts to see what a one-word reply means.

Now that's funny. It's not killing you, or humiliating you...

Tiassa

05-08-03, 04:44 PM

You said you had heard Arabs in this country call each other Ali Baba on more than a few occasions. Really? Where? It must be a lapse of mine. If you would be so kind as to point it out, I will happily retract it.You were the one that first made reference to it, not me. All similar questions are on hold until I've figured out to what you're referring.I thought it was 'Sambo', but I suppose it has about as much relevance in this post as kunta kinta or Toby, which is none. Sambo, Rufus ... I think Mix got "Jerome" from a personal experience. Muhammed, Uncle Tom ....Lucky me, huh? Last thing I want is another dissertation that goes nowhere. Or a question that you can't respond to honestly for a lack of integrity. Either way, you've asked for constraints on what we can talk about. It's convenient for you, then, if I choose to honor them and not ask you any questions that are too tough for you.But I do think it humorous you've made that one opinion a personal crusade. I'm actually curious to see how long we can make this thread with just the two of us posting in it.A great tactic of the bloodthirsty: make a mockery out of any situation. You can't help but show that inner darkness, can you?You're the one that is stuck on Ali Baba and are now trying to make it a racist incident.I'm waiting for your citation so that I can figure out what I need to amend, or whether it truly is your reading comprehension.Pleez du. I gits so cornfuzed, mista tiassa. It's bad to hurt a man. It's bad to make a man naked. It's bad to chase a naked man. It's bad to chase a naked man just 'cuz he's not you.

See Sam.
Hear Sam say, "Good".
Hear Sam say, "Nice".
See Sam.
See Sam grab man.
See Sam call man "Ali Baba".
See Sam steal man's clothes.
See Sam write on man's chest.
See Sam chase man down street.
Sam is bad.
See bad Sam.
Bad Sam, bad! That should have been obvious in light of what you originally said. But anyway; in the post-WWII era the US' record at nation-building has been atrocious. Sooner...or later...the history... lessons...should sink...in. Well, see, what confuses me is that I then look at you, who advocates violations of the Geneva Conventions, and wonder when that lesson will sink into your skull. Yet you seem to understand it. Which brings me back to nationalism, since we've already discussed the "little things". Yet you say it's not nationalism.

How about you give me, or anyone left reading this topic, a decent explanation of what it is, then, that compels you to advocate violations of the Geneva Convention. Poorly trained soldiers? Fundamentally corrupt people in our armed services? *yawn* tiassa 's obligatory "I'm smarter than you" sequence that must be included in each of his posts.

*Note to Coldrake: learn to read ' tiassa speak' or expect to be harangued repeatedly.Your reading comprehension is already in doubt. Has it occurred to you that there is also a problem in the way you write? When the best you can manage on an issue is a one-liner each post for three or four posts, it seems that you're merely posting in order to be disrespectful.

I'm still trying to consider issues of international agreements, ethics, and justice. You're still trying to argue against Tiassa.

What is your problem?You interjected that usually it was the result of speakers' inabilities to make themselves understood. So maybe, just maybe, the poor communication skills are yours.I'm well aware of that point. I'm having a hard time filling myself with enough shite between posts to keep writing in a language you understand. Eventually I'll figure out how to speak honestly to the fundamentally dishonest.

But it's also why I consider those who advocate impropriety and violations of human dignity among that portion of humanity that shouldn't reproduce. They run a high risk of adding to the flock of idiots in society. But, like sex without a condom, you're not going to knock someone up or get HIV every time. It's just a consideration of risk versus responsibility. But given how far I have to stoop in order to come anywhere close to communicating with people such as yourself, for whom standards are utterly arbitrary ("That's not a war crime; that's not a violation of the Geneva Conventions; that's not so bad that we should worry about it"), well, what the hell do you expect? When in Rome also can be said to include failures to communicate. I'll lose even more credibility among the "Romans" if I fail to be incoherent at least some of the time. Remember, Sciforums is the website where people taught me that it's an insult to presume them intelligent.I clarified myself long ago in this thread. I'm just hanging around watching you vent at this point.You remind me so much of other brilliant posters like Kalvin B; although you write better sentences in general than your predecessors. Yes, apparently it is unless it's your expression. My expression/crime is why you're still going on about Ali Baba, the Geneva Convention, racism, and so on and so on.What's funny is that while we agree that I owe you no respect, it seems to me that you wish me to owe you great disrespect.

At any rate, please demonstrate that the words I've cited in the above quotation are true. Do so, or else I'll be forced to be so uncivil as to demand an apology from you.Now that's funny. It's not killing you, or humiliating you...Well, I'm not one of those that only worries about myself. I'm worried about the fact that people like you would continue to advocate the hurting of other people. And since the best you can do is mock ideas of human dignity, notions of international obligations, and stand on what still reeks of nationalism despite your apparent best efforts to explain, well?

What did you expect? A blowjob?

Look at you ... you'll hang around to mock anything as long as you don't have to tolerate the idea of Americans giving anybody else worldwide an ounce of proper dignity.

What is your malfunction?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Coldrake

05-12-03, 04:33 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said you had heard Arabs in this country call each other Ali Baba on more than a few occasions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? Where? It must be a lapse of mine. If you would be so kind as to point it out, I will happily retract it.

OK.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But out of curiosity, how many times have you actually heard a Muslim called 'Ali Baba'?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A few, actually. It happens.

In the Mideast or in Seattle?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Seattle, and also down in Portland.

Does that help clarify?

You were the one that first made reference to it, not me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All similar questions are on hold until I've figured out to what you're referring.

o-tay

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucky me, huh? Last thing I want is another dissertation that goes nowhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or a question that you can't respond to honestly for a lack of integrity. Either way, you've asked for constraints on what we can talk about. It's convenient for you, then, if I choose to honor them and not ask you any questions that are too tough for you.

Only constraint (singular) that I've asked for is to leave my daughter out of your posts. Nothing else. Don't flatter yourself that you can make it too tough for me.

But I do think it humorous you've made that one opinion a personal crusade. I'm actually curious to see how long we can make this thread with just the two of us posting in it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A great tactic of the bloodthirsty: make a mockery out of any situation. You can't help but show that inner darkness, can you?

You've made a mockery out of the situation from your first post.

You're the one that is stuck on Ali Baba and are now trying to make it a racist incident.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm waiting for your citation so that I can figure out what I need to amend, or whether it truly is your reading comprehension.

Which citation? You've brought up Ali Baba too many times for me to make the effort to cite them all.

Pleez du. I gits so cornfuzed, mista tiassa.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's bad to hurt a man. It's bad to make a man naked. It's bad to chase a naked man. It's bad to chase a naked man just 'cuz he's not you.

Do you really think it is as simple as that last sentence or is that just your own personal spin on the situation? It may be bad to chase a naked man, but it is not always wrong if it gets a point across short of killing him. During the Filipino guerilla war Black Jack Pershing captured a number of Moro rebels. He had his troopers rub their bullets in freshly killed pig's blood and guts before executing the prisoners. He then had them buried wrapped in pig's intestines, and allowed a couple of rebels to witness the exectutions and burials. They were allowed to return to the Muslim rebels. Obviously this is a horrifying story and should never be condoned under any circumstances, and it is incidents like that the Geneva Conventions have sought to outlaw. However, it virtually stopped rebel activity among the Moros and saved future loss of life on both sides. In the case in Iraq there was an attempt to send a similar message, this time without the executions or the religious violations committed by Pershing. Of course there is always the chance it might backfire, but there is the possiblilty that because of the 'naked' incident no one will attempt to infiltrate that compound again. And if that was accomplished without loss of life, then great.

That should have been obvious in light of what you originally said. But anyway; in the post-WWII era the US' record at nation-building has been atrocious. Sooner...or later...the history... lessons...should sink...in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, see, what confuses me is that I then look at you, who advocates violations of the Geneva Conventions, and wonder when that lesson will sink into your skull. Yet you seem to understand it. Which brings me back to nationalism, since we've already discussed the "little things". Yet you say it's not nationalism.

Here we are again. I don't see it as a violation. But gain, if the US army sees it as a violation, then they will properly investigate it and prosecute.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*yawn* tiassa 's obligatory "I'm smarter than you" sequence that must be included in each of his posts.

*Note to Coldrake: learn to read ' tiassa speak' or expect to be harangued repeatedly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your reading comprehension is already in doubt. Has it occurred to you that there is also a problem in the way you write?

No, that had not occurred to me.

When the best you can manage on an issue is a one-liner each post for three or four posts, it seems that you're merely posting in order to be disrespectful.

I'll be the first to admit I don't like to write the lengthy responses you prefer, particularly when there appears to be nothing of value in them.

I'm still trying to consider issues of international agreements, ethics, and justice. You're still trying to argue against Tiassa.

You may be considering them, but you're not arguing them; at least not after your original point. All you've really done is attack my integrity, my reading comprehension, my writing skills, and my honesty, occassionally still mentioning my advocacy of violating the Conventions. I've told you my position on that, numerous times actually. So now it seems you are merely arguing against me, and I'm responding in kind. So yes, I guess I am simply arguing against you at this point. I mean really, you've brought nothing new to the argument in a while.

What is your problem?

Gee, I don't know, maybe my lack of integrity, my poor reading comprehension, my woeful writing skills, or my lack of honesty? I'm sure you'll tell me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I clarified myself long ago in this thread. I'm just hanging around watching you vent at this point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You remind me so much of other brilliant posters like Kalvin B; although you write better sentences in general than your predecessors.

He must be before my time.

Yes, apparently it is unless it's your expression. My expression/crime is why you're still going on about Ali Baba, the Geneva Convention, racism, and so on and so on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's funny is that while we agree that I owe you no respect, it seems to me that you wish me to owe you great disrespect.

At any rate, please demonstrate that the words I've cited in the above quotation are true. Do so, or else I'll be forced to be so uncivil as to demand an apology from you.

I don't see an "above citation" to know what you're talking about, but my reference to only an expression of mine apparently being a crime is quite simple: this entire thread has been because you considered my expression that I didn't see the 'naked ' incident as a violation of the Geneva Conventions a crime in your eyes. So the less than sublime message from Tiassa is "be careful what you say on here unless it is agreeable to me."

Of course, if you were referring to something else when you mentionted the "above citation" you will have to clarify; I wouldn't want to leave that demand for an apology dangling like a chad.

Now that's funny. It's not killing you, or humiliating you...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I'm not one of those that only worries about myself. I'm worried about the fact that people like you would continue to advocate the hurting of other people. And since the best you can do is mock ideas of human dignity, notions of international obligations, and stand on what still reeks of nationalism despite your apparent best efforts to explain, well?

You'll have to reference me to the point where I advocated "the hurting of other people."

What did you expect? A blowjob?

Was somebody offering?

Look at you ... you'll hang around to mock anything as long as you don't have to tolerate the idea of Americans giving anybody else worldwide an ounce of proper dignity.

And look at you. You make up character defamations as you go to suit your agenda.

What is your malfunction?

I'd rather hear it from you. You spin it so well.

Tiassa

05-13-03, 11:24 PM

Does that help clarify?Perfectly. Please note:

- You said you had heard Arabs in this country call each other Ali Baba on more than a few occasions.

Now, even as I look back a page in our discussion, I do not see that particular association noted in the boldface above. You've invited your own Arab-on-Arab aspect.o-tayIndeed. Do you really want me to go back and answer the question now? Or have we cleared up my reasons for putting it on hold?Only constraint (singular) that I've asked for is to leave my daughter out of your posts. Nothing else. Don't flatter yourself that you can make it too tough for me.And I can respect your insecurity.You've made a mockery out of the situation from your first post.That's easily debatable. People making excuses for violations of the Geneva Conventions? Seemed pretty sloppy to me when I arrived. But you don't seem to get it, do you? When in Rome, Coldrake. I don't pretend that rationality works in an arena where it has visibly failed to achieve proper consideration. And that invites its own issue, whence we have arrived.Which citation? You've brought up Ali Baba too many times for me to make the effort to cite them all. (Free pass.)Do you really think it is as simple as that last sentence or is that just your own personal spin on the situation? On at least one level it is that simple: This treatment is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions because it is humiliating. However, humiliation was the exact point of it. It's all well and fine to treat someone that way, or so it seems for a lot of people, unless of course that person is your own self. Somewhere in this topic is a dualism: it's a better shot than being shot. Are our troops really that stupid that short of this the best they can think of is murder? I mean, the whole thing is a little mind-boggling to me because it is simple: What is so hard to figure out? It may be bad to chase a naked man, but it is not always wrong if it gets a point across short of killing him. Well, why don't we bring that process of justice back home to the U.S. of A.? If it's good enough for human beings, it's good enough for human beings regardless of nationality, right?However, it virtually stopped rebel activity among the Moros and saved future loss of life on both sides.Yep. That licenses it. It certainly is easier than seeking peaceful resolutions. In the abstract, the US has that in common with other criminals.And if that was accomplished without loss of life, then great Well, I think of the IRA and the various Ulster paramilitaries. Ever heard of a six-pack? It didn't kill anyone. And yes, having your major joints shattered with cinderblocks tends to impress the message greatly, from what I hear.

It's a simple choice: We can figure out how to do this according to the rules we've prescribed for ourselves (e.g. Geneva Conventions) or we can choose what seems easiest at the time.Here we are again. I don't see it as a violation. But gain, if the US army sees it as a violation, then they will properly investigate it and prosecute.The simplest thing to do is wade through the Conventions themselves for you. I really thought you could figure it out, but I've farmed through a lot of your words to no avail; at some point I must acknowledge the economy of simply raiding the damn Conventions, no matter how droll the adventure promises to be. Thus:

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War - Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August, 1949 (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm)

From the aforementioned Conventions:Article 64: he penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force, with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention. Subject to the latter consideration and to the necessity for ensuring the effective administration of justice, the tribunals of the occupied territory shall continue to function in respect of all offences covered by the said laws.

The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them.

Article 65: The penal provisions enacted by the Occupying Power shall not come into force before they have been published and brought to the knowledge of the inhabitants in their own language. The effect of these penal provisions shall not be retroactive.And it goes on ... Article 68 even sets the conditions for execution, but that's beside our present purpose. In fact, by the time I get to Article 71 ("No sentence shall be pronounced by the competent courts of the Occupying Power except after a regular trial. ") I get the distinct feeling that Due Process is a presumption of the Conventions. Ah ... here it is: Article 76: Protected persons accused of offences shall be detained in the occupied country, and if convicted they shall serve their sentences therein. They shall, if possible, be separated from other detainees and shall enjoy conditions of food and hygiene which will be sufficient to keep them in good health, and which will be at least equal to those obtaining in prisons in the occupied country.These Articles are extracted from Section III: Occupied Territories. Now, I would hope you could point out any errors I make in concluding that the treatment of the accused thieves in Iraq, paraded down the street naked, violates the Geneva Conventions. Please. Sincerely. I would like to know where you and I differ because I really do think it's quite simple and fundamental. The only thing complicated about it to me is fishing the words out of the Conventions. It took all of twenty minutes, including the time spent listening to someone bitch at me about ... um ... well, I've managed to forget, but ... it's beside the point. It took all of twenty minutes, including fifteen minutes of unnecessary distractions on the home front. I'm reading through some of the rest to make sure there isn't something glaring I missed, but I'm not seeing anything so far.No, that had not occurred to me.Yes, you'll win a Pulitzer. More relevant to the point than sarcasm, though, is the sidebar that comes in wondering whether you expect to communicate anything with one-liners? You seem to resent implications of poor character, yet you don't appear to wish to do much more than complain about them.I'll be the first to admit I don't like to write the lengthy responses you prefer, particularly when there appears to be nothing of value in them.Should I expect someone who sees so little communicative value in a board like Sciforums to see any value in any posts? Aside, that is, from your sheer entertainment and the opportunity to play the mocking innocent?You may be considering them, but you're not arguing them; at least not after your original point. All you've really done is attack my integrity, my reading comprehension, my writing skills, and my honesty, occassionally still mentioning my advocacy of violating the Conventions.Well that's all you've given me to work with. Give me something more substantial.I've told you my position on that, numerous times actually. Yes, and it appears to be based in mistaken assertions of fact.So now it seems you are merely arguing against me , and I'm responding in kind.Give me something more. Oh, wait ... that's right. As we see from the Conventions, there's not much more you can do than sit there and repeat, "It's not a violation, it's not a violation." Right. Just because you say so.I mean really, you've brought nothing new to the argument in a while.How often do I get to say this?

When I am so definitively right, as the Conventions cited above show. what else can I bring to the table but the bare facts? Yes, I'm outraged at your advocacy of criminals. While other Americans seem to be afraid of the terrorists, I'm more afraid of my fellow Americans who are more than willing to keep on cheering for more reasons for strife. Look, the one way I can think of to severely reduce the number of mad imbeciles trying to kill Americans in droves is for American institutions to start treating human beings with some dignity abroad. Analogously, I point to Nepal. Yes, American companies were paying children to work long hours in bad conditions. Yes, there is a Maoist insurgency in Nepal now. No, it's not the fault of American corporations, per se. But if you pay people so little that children have to work in order for families to survive, a Maoist insurgency is about the best you can hope for. There's something about the way people treat each other, you know.

The fewer Arabs we piss off with the Bush League reconstruction and occupation of Iraq, the better it will be for all Americans--and that includes me, so there's my vested interest--in the future.Gee, I don't know, maybe my lack of integrity, my poor reading comprehension, my woeful writing skills, or my lack of honesty? I'm sure you'll tell me. Well, only you can tell me the root cause. However, I am not in any way, shape, or form, a licensed therapist, counselor, or otherwise.He must be before my time.He used to refer to vague prior points as if they were definitive, as well. We never could figure out if he was lazy, arrogant, or simply angry.
I don't see an "above citation" to know what you're talking about, but my reference to only an expression of mine apparently being a crime is quite simple: this entire thread has been because you considered my expression that I didn't see the 'naked ' incident as a violation of the Geneva Conventions a crime in your eyes. So the less than sublime message from Tiassa is "be careful what you say on here unless it is agreeable to me."Wow. I didn't realize I carried that much authority here.

It's something to think about.

However, there is something that goes here about your writing skills, as well as about your reading comprehension. Nonetheless, I'm not mapping three generations of posts just to fill you in on your own words. Like I've said before, your economy of words is detrimental to the efficacy of your expression.

Now then: You're as entitled to your opinion that violations of the Geneva Conventions are acceptable as much as I am to mine that it is better for humanity if people who advocate such violations not reproduce. The fewer people we have making excuses for such behavior, the fewer people will get away with it.

Is expression a crime? Try a straight answer.

At any rate, I refer you to your 5.6.2003 post, where you wroteWho was it that said to me that if we ignore the little things?

If we were face to face I suppose we could yell at each other until we were blue in the face. Now, it even carries back a couple of posts before that, but that's when I asked if expression was a crime. I could refer you to your earlier post on that same day, where you wrote, OK, so you consider your lower standards ok as long as you avoid advocating violations of human rights or killing innocent people. Fair enough.

You've been running a side diversion attempting to equate the lower standards of anger expressed at support for criminal behavior with the lowered standards of supporting criminal behavior. I hope I don't ever catch someone raping my daughter°; I might have to lower myself to be equal with him by being angry. Of course, I could always take the "high road"° and say, "Eh ... it doesn't look like a crime to me."You'll have to reference me to the point where I advocated "the hurting of other people." Humiliation is harmful. From there, 2 + 2 = 4, but I can see how you might argue with that. After all, you could always say that burning their clothes, scrawling on their chests, and then parading them down the street was an act of compassion the same way my uncle nearly drowning his own son wasn't bad; throwing a terrified six-year old into 50-degree water "builds character". Maybe that will excuse our soldiers' conduct.Was somebody offering?Stop reinforcing anti-American stereotypes.And look at you . You make up character defamations as you go to suit your agenda.Yes, yes, you're rubber, I'm glue ... whatever. I'm brought to mind of some advice publicly given Gunny Covarrubius after he expressed his desire to be a police officer. A Las Vegas cop noted that he needed to learn discretion and not talk about those things.

The moral of that reflection is that you might choose to be mocking and have no faith in your own communicative skills, nor the skills of others, but you ought to think twice before admitting it, and thrice before advertising it. Quit playing the role so well, please.I'd rather hear it from you. You spin it so well. Well, like I said ... only you can tell me the root cause. I can only observe the symptoms and speculate. And what the symptoms tell me is that I'm witnessing an all-too-familiar triune conflict that involves a general standard of propriety, a sentimental advocacy against it, and an awareness of the disparity. Those are the basic factors, at least. The question is whether or not you choose to address those factors honestly. I hope to have demonstrated to you that you are, indeed, incorrect in excusing the parading of Iraqis naked through the street as not being a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

And while you probably don't give two shakes about my opinion of you, my whole reason for carrying on this argument goes away when you legitimately recognize or legitimately defeat the assertion that the treatment of those Iraqis violated the Conventions. I'm aware that you'll support the prosecution of violators, so it seems all that's left is to wonder if you intend to hold out on the assertion that American soldiers did not violate the Conventions when they paraded people naked down the street.

If fundamental honesty is the issue, much can be learned from your considerations on the "Ali Baba" incident in terms of the violations committed by US troops.

Notes:

° my daughter - You see? I didn't have to mention your daughter.

° high road - This phrase is put in "quotation marks" because it's a dubious assertion. However, comparatively, your standard would seem to imply there is some moral question at becoming angry about criminal behavior. If denouncing criminal behavior is somehow immoral, then it stands to reason that advocating criminal behavior is of better moral propriety. And while people might make excuses for American offenders (I admit that I avoid combat zones), I don't think any excuses can be made for the armchair advocates. Rational thought demands better conduct, and demands advocacy of more humane efficiency.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa

05-13-03, 11:53 PM

Why Rumsfeld should be careful about lecturing Saddam about the Geneva Conventions (MSN/Slate) (http://slate.msn.com/id/2080616/)

I came across this article while following up more on the humiliation aspect of it. So the trail starts with actual Prisoners of War, so I'm left guessing how it is that the people who aren't Prisoners of War can be treated worse than the PoW's. But perhaps we have here a technicality that lets our troops off on grounds of "humiliation". I doubt it, though. It would appear that, circumstances being what they are, there are problems regardless of whether you consider the accused in either a military or civil sense.

Dunno. It's an interesting set of considerations. Either way, the conduct of American soldiers seems to be questionable on a few little things at least, if not some big things, as well. But I cannot quite see how the burning of the clothes and parading down the street naked fails to violate the Conventions.

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949 (ICRC) (http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/1595a804df7efd6bc125641400640d89/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68?OpenDocument)

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Coldrake

05-14-03, 03:03 PM

- You said you had heard Arabs in this country call each other Ali Baba on more than a few occasions.

Now, even as I look back a page in our discussion, I do not see that particular association noted in the boldface above. You've invited your own Arab-on-Arab aspect.

So, you're saying that the 'Muslims' you claimed you heard (and you did claim that, as per the cut and pastes) use 'Ali Baba' as a derogatory term in this country weren't Arabs? I'm really curious now. So were they black Americans converted to Islam? White Americans? Africans? Asians? And if so, are you saying these non-Arabs insulted each other using 'Ali Baba'?

On at least one level it is that simple: This treatment is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions because it is humiliating.

I don't care that they were humiliated under the circumstances. Had they just been grabbed off the street and used as an example for the native population I would agree, but in the situation as it was, I don't have a problem. Again though, if their superiors feeel it was a violation of standing orders, that will be up to them to discipline appropriately.

Are our troops really that stupid that short of this the best they can think of is murder? I mean, the whole thing is a little mind-boggling to me because it is simple: What is so hard to figure out?

Those soldiers did not murder those Iraqis. Why is it so hard to figure that out?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be bad to chase a naked man, but it is not always wrong if it gets a point across short of killing him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, why don't we bring that process of justice back home to the U.S. of A.? If it's good enough for human beings, it's good enough for human beings regardless of nationality, right?

That's not a bad idea. Certainly 'rehabilitation' in prison isn't a deterrent, as 67% of first time offenders end up back in prison within 5 years. Maybe we should try a little humiliation. We see more and more sex offenders having to post signs in their yards stating their crimes.

The simplest thing to do is wade through the Conventions themselves for you. I really thought you could figure it out, but I've farmed through a lot of your words to no avail; at some point I must acknowledge the economy of simply raiding the damn Conventions, no matter how droll the adventure promises to be. Thus:

Article 64: he penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force, with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention. Subject to the latter consideration and to the necessity for ensuring the effective administration of justice, the tribunals of the occupied territory shall continue to function in respect of all offences covered by the said laws.

Breaking into a military compound to steal weapons is a real threat to the Occupying Power's security.

Article 76: Protected persons accused of offences shall be detained in the occupied country, and if convicted they shall serve their sentences therein. They shall, if possible, be separated from other detainees and shall enjoy conditions of food and hygiene which will be sufficient to keep them in good health, and which will be at least equal to those obtaining in prisons in the occupied country.

They were never formally accused of offenses. They were caught in the immediate act of breaching security and dealt with on the spot. But again, I will say if the military considers their actions a violation of US military code, and apparently they do, then the soldiers will be appropriately punished.

The fewer Arabs we piss off with the Bush League reconstruction and occupation of Iraq, the better it will be for all Americans--and that includes me, so there's my vested interest--in the future.

I won't argue that at all. However, the more Iraqis we can convince that it is a bad idea to try and raid military compounds the better it will be for both the soldiers and Iraqis.

Yes, I'm outraged at your advocacy of criminals.

I'm curious. What would your punishment be for those 'criminals' who paraded the naked Iraqis?

Analogously, I point to Nepal. Yes, American companies were paying children to work long hours in bad conditions.

I agree. We went through the same thing in our own industrial revolution. Those workers will likely have to go through their own revolution (unions, strikes, etc) until they achieve better conditions. Much of the problem is that as bad as those conditions are, they are probably better than what those people may have had previously. Another analogy would be the Irish immigrants who came over beginning in the 1840s and created the first permanent working class in America. The conditions they left behind in Ireland were so bad that they were willing to work for much less wages than the young women of America had been getting, and endure the extremely poor conditions of the factories. They long resisted attempts to pass laws against child exploitation because they needed the extra family income. I suspect they will go through a period of strife in the industrializing 3rd world countries before they gain more humane conditions.

Humiliation is harmful. From there, 2 + 2 = 4, but I can see how you might argue with that.

Yes, in a schoolyard or a work environment it can be extremely harmful. It can lead to Colombines or postal workers running amok with Uzis. In a war zone, it ranks low on the list to me.

After all, you could always say that burning their clothes, scrawling on their chests, and then parading them down the street was an act of compassion the same way my uncle nearly drowning his own son wasn't bad; throwing a terrified six-year old into 50-degree water "builds character".

That's interesting. When I was six my dad through me out of the boat into the river and simply said "swim back." I dog-pedalled and made my way back to the boat. Been swimming ever since. I admit when I taught my daughter to swim it wasn't so drastic; it was in a pool and more controlled (she was swimming by the time she was four). But my dad was a no-nonsense country boy and he taught me the way he had been taught. I hated the man for many things, but not for that. I always told myself he would have jumped in for me if I had actually started to drown.

Was somebody offering?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stop reinforcing anti-American stereotypes.

Or?

I hope to have demonstrated to you that you are, indeed, incorrect in excusing the parading of Iraqis naked through the street as not being a violation of the Geneva Conventions

I actually do applaud your efforts. Seriously. And we actually seem to agree on many areas of American shortcomings in its foreign policies. Sorry though, I don't see the 'naked' incident as a violation of the Conventions. If it's a flaw in my character, so be it. However, as I said, if the US military sees it as a violation of the Conventions, or as a violation of their own code of conduct, then I agree that the soldiers should be prosecuted to some degree. But again, I ask you; what punishment would you dole out? What is the appropriate level of punishment for 'humilitation'?

EI_Sparks

05-14-03, 04:00 PM

Well Coldrake, looks like you got your wish.
New policy in Iraq to authorise GI's to shoot looters (http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1051390006565&p=1012571727172)
Mind you, it wouldn't play well for these guys...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/stealgold.gif

Tiassa

05-14-03, 04:57 PM

Coldrake

You're kidding me, right?So, you're saying that the 'Muslims' you claimed you heard (and you did claim that, as per the cut and pastes) use 'Ali Baba' as a derogatory term in this country weren't Arabs?Where, even, does Muslim/Muslim insults come into it? Usually it's white people doing the insulting. I just don't see where you get off spiraling into this particularly thoughtless void.I don't care that they were humiliated under the circumstances. Had they just been grabbed off the street and used as an example for the native population I would agree, but in the situation as it was, I don't have a problem. Again though, if their superiors feeel it was a violation of standing orders, that will be up to them to discipline appropriately. And, nonetheless, their treatment still violates the Geneva Conventions according to the articles I cited last night.Those soldiers did not murder those Iraqis. Why is it so hard to figure that out?Well, I'm looking at a couple of things you wrote:

- My point was, those were not citizens; when they breached the security of the compound and were caught with a bag of weapons parts they were essentially combatants.

This only reinforces the standard against humiliation, as you might notice that it is in the Conventions related to PoW's (e.g. combatants) that specifically prohibits acts of intimidation; as the Slate article noted of Rumsfeld and Human Rights Watch, the 13th Article of the Third Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War is what's at question in the dispute over the treatment of PoW's in the case of shoing them on television:The Iraqi TV "interview" of the American prisoners appears to have been designed specifically to humiliate and demean—which makes it seem a clear violation of Article 13. So if you choose to count the Iraqis as combatants, you're legitimizing the point that the humiliation intended by the punishment is in itself a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Something else I'm looking at that you wrote is:

- Sooner or later you'll figure out that this argument is not over what you consider my lack of morals but rather the fact that I don't consider that incident a war crime. Had they put them up against a wall and shot them, it would have been different.

As you note, you are the one who invoked the notion of shooting the Iraqis as a counterpoint. I'm wondering why you introduce it if you're not willing to maintain it as a comparative example. Is this one of the things I'm not allowed to discuss?

So what I'm wondering is why, in your mind, the alternatives are humiliation or execution. Do you really think our troops are that stupid? Are they too ill-educated and too indoctrinated in the art of killing that one or the other is the best they can do.That's not a bad idea. Certainly 'rehabilitation' in prison isn't a deterrent, as 67% of first time offenders end up back in prison within 5 years. Maybe we should try a little humiliation. We see more and more sex offenders having to post signs in their yards stating their crimes. Have fun amending the U.S. Constitution.

Parading people naked through the streets as punishment is an old Puritan (http://www.mayflowerfamilies.com/enquirer/quakers.htm) bit that we in the United States considered uncivilized enough to bar with the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution. Shall we add whippings to the list of punishments in Iraq? It's good enough for Singapore, it's good enough for Puritans ....Breaking into a military compound to steal weapons is a real threat to the Occupying Power's security. Well, we can apply the military side and deal with acts intended to intimidate detainees.They were never formally accused of offenses.And that's part of the problem.They were caught in the immediate act of breaching security and dealt with on the spot.Without due process, we won't know that; we can, however, merely believe the agents responsible for the violation of the Conventions. However, we're still looking at violations of the Geneva Conventions; which set of Conventions applies is a matter of formality.However, the more Iraqis we can convince that it is a bad idea to try and raid military compounds the better it will be for both the soldiers and Iraqis.Treating Iraqis with basic human dignity is a good start. Too bad our troops blew that one.I'm curious. What would your punishment be for those 'criminals' who paraded the naked Iraqis? They're soldiers. A court-martial would satisfy me; the facts are apparently there for the world to see; rather than trying to suppress the event, some American troops and commanders seem to want to justify it. However, there may be a convention in place to cover due process in this case. I'm a-lookin'. By the way, is there anything else that you don't know that you'd like me to find out for you? Maybe the ancient mystery of alchemy?I agree. We went through the same thing in our own industrial revolution. Those workers will likely have to go through their own revolution (unions, strikes, etc) until they achieve better conditions. Much of the problem is that as bad as those conditions are, they are probably better than what those people may have had previously. First off, I'm just wondering if history will ever prove useful for Americans. In that context, the suggestion is that we can make some effort to give less reasons to those that "hate us" for their hatred. Secondly, I just don't see how "not as bad" suffices. Americans love that idea as long as they're not getting hurt by it. We have a whole cottage industry of Dr. Phils and Rhondas on the Air dealing with the effects of this idea; it has treated Americans so well in history that I can't imagine why the Iraqis don't openly embrace it. To the other, some Iraqis have noted that things were "better" under Saddam. I, too, hope for the eventual result, but I'm not at all encouraged by the general American attitude concerning Iraq.In a war zone, it ranks low on the list to me. So if you dislike application of the Conventions so much, why do you not advocate formal American abrogation?When I was six my dad through me out of the boat into the river and simply said "swim back." I dog-pedalled and made my way back to the boat. Been swimming ever since. Were you afraid of your daughter? I admit when I taught my daughter to swim it wasn't so drastic; it was in a pool and more controlled (she was swimming by the time she was four).(I am not allowed to respond to this point per your requests.)Or?Well, I'll hold you among the responsible the next time someone gets pissed enough at Americans to blow something up. Stop being part of the problem.But again, I ask you; what punishment would you dole out? What is the appropriate level of punishment for 'humilitation'?Upon conviction under due process, I think a short prison term for starters; it's not the worst offense in the world. However, accounting for the situation and the additional responsibilities of our soldiers, I would say that the offense becomes much more grave. Five to twenty, minimum security, in the American justice system, probably life by the courts-martial, and I would imagine an international tribunal would see either no cause for prison or else a short term of three to five years. It would be interesting to hand these men over to the Iraqi justice system and see what it metes out, but I have human rights concerns about many punishments I hear coming out of the Arab world. In the end, for these men to have to walk through life with a war-crimes conviction on their record is enough. Just as long as whoever hires them knows that they are criminals ... that's fair to me.

In the meantime, keep standing by your convictions. I kept hoping that you would get it, but in the face of the Conventions themselves, you still hold out. In the meantime, my original point stands: people like you should, for the benefit of your fellow human beings, not risk reproduction. There are other considerations that go here, but I'm not allowed to discuss them, in merciful recognition of your whining.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Coldrake

05-16-03, 12:35 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Iraqi TV "interview" of the American prisoners appears to have been designed specifically to humiliate and demean—which makes it seem a clear violation of Article 13.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So if you choose to count the Iraqis as combatants, you're legitimizing the point that the humiliation intended by the punishment is in itself a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

You're making the presumption that I said the Iraqis were violating the Geneva Convention by displaying the POWs on television. It was a calculated move by the Iraqis, knowing how Americans are horrified by the thought of Americans being held by Muslims (just as they were horrified at American POWs being held by Asians). I would say that the Iraqis were trying to play the American viewing audience to put pressure on the administration to end the war.

As you note, you are the one who invoked the notion of shooting the Iraqis as a counterpoint. I'm wondering why you introduce it if you're not willing to maintain it as a comparative example. Is this one of the things I'm not allowed to discuss?

You keep saying you're not allowed to discuss certain things. That's up to you.

So what I'm wondering is why, in your mind, the alternatives are humiliation or execution. Do you really think our troops are that stupid? Are they too ill-educated and too indoctrinated in the art of killing that one or the other is the best they can do.

No, they can put them in prison if they choose.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not a bad idea. Certainly 'rehabilitation' in prison isn't a deterrent, as 67% of first time offenders end up back in prison within 5 years. Maybe we should try a little humiliation. We see more and more sex offenders having to post signs in their yards stating their crimes.

Have fun amending the U.S. Constitution.

Parading people naked through the streets as punishment is an old Puritan bit that we in the United States considered uncivilized enough to bar with the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution. Shall we add whippings to the list of punishments in Iraq? It's good enough for Singapore, it's good enough for Puritans ....

You really don't have any sense of humor, do you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the more Iraqis we can convince that it is a bad idea to try and raid military compounds the better it will be for both the soldiers and Iraqis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Treating Iraqis with basic human dignity is a good start. Too bad our troops blew that one.

That might be true. But then again, it might not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm curious. What would your punishment be for those 'criminals' who paraded the naked Iraqis?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They're soldiers. A court-martial would satisfy me; the facts are apparently there for the world to see; rather than trying to suppress the event, some American troops and commanders seem to want to justify it.

A court martial is merely a trial. I asked for what punishment you would dole out.

However, there may be a convention in place to cover due process in this case. I'm a-lookin'. By the way, is there anything else that you don't know that you'd like me to find out for you? Maybe the ancient mystery of alchemy?

Yeah. Could you explain metaphysics to me and maybe find out where that damned Waldo is hiding?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I was six my dad through me out of the boat into the river and simply said "swim back." I dog-pedalled and made my way back to the boat. Been swimming ever since.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Were you afraid of your daughter?

I'm not sure how my daughter would apply to this situation since I was a six year old boy at the time, but I assume that was some sort of weak attempt at an insult. Either that, or your reading skills suck.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I admit when I taught my daughter to swim it wasn't so drastic; it was in a pool and more controlled (she was swimming by the time she was four).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(I am not allowed to respond to this point per your requests.)

Why? That didn't stop you from a feeble insult above.

Well, I'll hold you among the responsible the next time someone gets pissed enough at Americans to blow something up.

I'm honored that you hold my opinion as so influential on world affairs.

Stop being part of the problem.

*yaaaawn*

Upon conviction under due process, I think a short prison term for starters; it's not the worst offense in the world. However, accounting for the situation and the additional responsibilities of our soldiers, I would say that the offense becomes much more grave. Five to twenty, minimum security, in the American justice system, probably life by the courts-martial, and I would imagine an international tribunal would see either no cause for prison or else a short term of three to five years. It would be interesting to hand these men over to the Iraqi justice system and see what it metes out, but I have human rights concerns about many punishments I hear coming out of the Arab world. In the end, for these men to have to walk through life with a war-crimes conviction on their record is enough. Just as long as whoever hires them knows that they are criminals ... that's fair to me.

I could see a dishonorable discharge if they are convicted of a crime.

In the meantime, keep standing by your convictions. I kept hoping that you would get it, but in the face of the Conventions themselves, you still hold out. In the meantime, my original point stands: people like you should, for the benefit of your fellow human beings, not risk reproduction. There are other considerations that go here, but I'm not allowed to discuss them, in merciful recognition of your whining.

Sport, you're the beggest whiner on the forum. All I've seen is 3 pages of whining from you in this thread alone. Not allowed to discuss 'other considerations'? That's your own BS. You keep harping on that for some strange reason. All I ever said was I prefer you keep my daughter out of your arguments, but that didn't stop you above obviously, so feel free. It will give you one less thing to whine about.

EI Sparks quoted:
Well Coldrake, looks like you got your wish.
New policy in Iraq to authorise GI's to shoot looters
Mind you, it wouldn't play well for these guys...

Gee, Sparks, I had at least held you in a little higher regard than Tiassa. I didn't really expect you to put words in my mouth. More fool me. I've never stated, or even advocated, a desire to see Iraqis shot for crimes. But that photo has been posted on this forum before, and it's obviously doctored. And it wouldn't be the first doctored photo used to make the troops look bad. Look at the soldier riding piggyback. He has no face! Nor does he have the front of his helmet. They were obviously cut out in a hatchet job of an editing attempt. That's so amateurish as to be painful, and I'm sure was done by some amateur simply for internet posting. I can't believe anybody would even fall for that photo. Well, not true. Of course I can.

Tiassa

05-16-03, 02:48 PM

You're making the presumption that I said the Iraqis were violating the Geneva Convention by displaying the POWs on television. Quite frankly, now you're just being stupid and writing up random presumptions to object to. Perhaps I should just step out and let you argue with this imaginary foe?

We're examining the Geneva Conventions; you've asserted that the Iraqi "Ali Babas" were combatants, which hands me the specific point about humiliation and intimidation; the Slate article was merely a part of that. See what I mean? You're arguing against me, and not paying attention to the issues. Stop it, please. It's foolish and distracting.You keep saying you're not allowed to discuss certain things. That's up to you Is it? Then stop whining about not wanting to discuss those things that you bring to the discussion.No, they can put them in prison if they choose. Ah, but that would require due process, which requires a substantiation of the allegations of criminal misconduct, a condition what--altogether too inconvenient for Americans?

Yet you acknowledge that there are other alternatives. Why, then, did you rest on such stupid rhetoric as: Sooner or later you'll figure out that this argument is not over what you consider my lack of morals but rather the fact that I don't consider that incident a war crime. Had they put them up against a wall and shot them, it would have been different. It seems as though you're introducing a completely unnecessary dualism, since there are tertiary considerations at least.You really don't have any sense of humor, do you? You really don't respect other people do you?That might be true. But then again, it might not.Something goes here about a river in Egypt.A court martial is merely a trial. I asked for what punishment you would dole out. And I thought you knew how to read.Could you explain metaphysics to me and maybe find out where that damned Waldo is hiding?You're not smart enough to understand metaphysics, and Waldo is hiding in your ass.
I'm not sure how my daughter would apply to this situation since I was a six year old boy at the time, but I assume that was some sort of weak attempt at an insult. Either that, or your reading skills suck. Nope, it's my typing. The actual question is Were you afraid of the water? (You see? It rhymes. That should make it easier for you to understand.)Why? That didn't stop you from a feeble insult above.You have whined and begged me to leave your daughter out of it, despite your introduction of her as an example. Maybe you should have cut your losses then, Coldrake, and just stuck with my advice and the quiet comfort that it was already too late, and that you had, indeed, escaped the risk.I'm honored that you hold my opinion as so influential on world affairs.I don't, actually. I look out at my bloodthirsty, apathetic, spiteful neighbors and you, in combination with them, become an incredibly powerful voice for stupidity. I should fear you on the grounds that you vote, but Whitney Brown has given me over ten years to dwell on that point, and while solutions don't seem to present themselves (because I won't have the lot of you shot), I am, at least, somewhat more comfortable than I should be when surrounded by that many dangerous people.I could see a dishonorable discharge if they are convicted of a crime.Boy, I bet you feel silly for bitching about my answers:

- A court martial is merely a trial. I asked for what punishment you would dole out.

If you'd just kept reading, you wouldn't have shoved your foot in your mouth. Please pay better attention. Your lack of respect is disturbing in the fact that it seems to border intentionally on disrespect.Not allowed to discuss 'other considerations'? That's your own BS. You keep harping on that for some strange reason. All I ever said was I prefer you keep my daughter out of your arguments, but that didn't stop you above obviously, so feel free. It will give you one less thing to whine about.Well then take a fucking note, Coldrake: If you don't want to discuss your daughter, don't bring her into the conversation! Are you stupid? Can you not figure this out?

What, Coldrake, you can raise a point but nobody's allowed to counterpoint it because your poor daughter whom you've bothered to exploit for shallow purposes by introducing her to the topic as a poitn of discussion shouldn't be discussed? What is your problem?

Quit your bitching. Quit your disrespectful bullshit. Quit hiding from your own cowardice. Quit abusing the notion of your daughter. And quit being part of the ignorant, selfish idiocy that is the problem with America. I know that's a big list, but the first four should be more immediately manageable for you.

In the meantime, why are you still carrying on? After all, the only actual point of argument you have left is to continue asserting with religious fervor that the Conventions have not been violated.
Gee, Sparks, I had at least held you in a little higher regard than Tiassa. I didn't really expect you to put words in my mouth. You're on, you pathetic, harassing, lying worm. Demonstrate the words put in your mouth, and then consider the number of occasions that you've demonstrated throughout this topic that your reading comprehension is somewhere between your ass and the gutter. And given that you repeatedly tried to put words in my mouth (your distraction related to Arab/Arab insults), I find your prior paragraph, in which you called me the biggest whiner on the forum, amazingly projected. Don't call me what you see in the mirror, Coldrake. Just because you're a defender of indecency does not mean that we have to respect your indecency; your determination to be a cruel human being--that gets my respect, but the cruelty, man ... that's only your own problem as long as you keep it to yourself. When you publicly advocate criminal behavior, that's everybody's problem.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Coldrake

05-16-03, 05:37 PM

Well, that last post is enough to finally convince me that Tiassa is just another run of the mill messageboard fake..

Rather than replying point by point, tit for tat with your phoney ass again, I will simply note that in the last week, since this thread began, I've seen some truly pro-war statements made by other posters on this board and yet surprisingly, not a peep out of Tiassa. No indignation. No outrage. Nothing. What's up with that, you phoney? No words of condemnation for them? Of course not, because your pretense at indignation has become too obvious. Your moral outrage is one big sham. You may have tried to amke a point once upon a time, but your now doing nothing more than attempting one upmanship. OK, ok. I concede. Your overblown ego is bigger than mine.

I've wasted the last week with you in this thread and quite frankly, I'm embarrassed by it. For a while I actually bought in to your worthless crap, believing that you were honestly upset by this event. You suckered me in, but now it's rather obvious what a fraud you are. You're now attempting to somehow prove you are not only morally superior, but it seems to be important to you to somehow think you are intellectually superior as well. Oooo-tay. If your ego needs soothing I'll just go ahead and say "Tiassa, it's so obvious you are superior to me in every way. I was terrribly wrong for thinking I could outlast you in a thread. You obviously can sling bullshit better than me." There. I'm done with this thread. If you want to argue with me in another thread, then fine, jump on in there, but I'm no longer going to be suckered in by you on this particular subject. I've stated my opinion (numerous times) on the subject, but you'd rather use your non-acceptance of it to keep a long worn-out argument going. Not me. The semester's over, I'm starting summer vacation, and I won't be around the computer enough on a regular basis to keep up with the verbal barbs, so you win.

Clockwood

05-16-03, 11:20 PM

Is it me or have things gotten a lot cruder in the last couple of weeks? What changed specifically?

Ah, its spring (at least in the northern hemisphere) and the horomones are raging. Is this an example of lecking behavior?

Tiassa

05-18-03, 04:12 AM

I will simply note that in the last week, since this thread began, I've seen some truly pro-war statements made by other posters on this board and yet surprisingly, not a peep out of Tiassa . No indignation. No outrage. Nothing. What's up with that, you phoney? No words of condemnation for them? I've been busy with you. Most of the war dogs around here wear their bloodstains proudly. Your brand of faux-nobility is dangerous like a wolf in dove's feathers. They'll be dealt with in due time. As the Iraqi Bush War is over, there's not much point in complaining about whether or not it should happen. In the meantime, what we have before us is a series of minor violations of the Geneva Conventions (and some major) by the United States, seemingly in the name of convenience, and people such as yourself who wish to endorse those crimes.Your overblown ego is bigger than mine. That's all it's ever been about in this discussion for you. From the moment you chose to hold up your untouchable banner, ego is all you've shown, and all you've been concerned with.I've wasted the last week with you in this thread and quite frankly, I'm embarrassed by it. See what happens when you don't take yourself seriously? You should be embarrassed.For a while I actually bought in to your worthless crap, believing that you were honestly upset by this event. You suckered me in, but now it's rather obvious what a fraud you are. You're now attempting to somehow prove you are not only morally superior, but it seems to be important to you to somehow think you are intellectually superior as well. And for a while I thought you were smart enough to recognize a violation of the Geneva Convention. More fool me ... If your ego needs soothing I'll just go ahead and say "Tiassa, it's so obvious you are superior to me in every way. I was terrribly wrong for thinking I could outlast you in a thread. You obviously can sling bullshit better than me." Focus, Coldrake, focus. If you'd bothered to actually think about the issues you were alleging to discuss, you would have seen that it wasn't so much about endurance but about trying to figure out why the hell you're endorsing war crimes. You're welcome to endorse whatever you want, but what do you really expect, Coldrake?

It has to stop now. We can't be violating our sacred trust and honor (e.g. adherence to Geneva Conventions) merely because it's convenient and we think we can get away with it. I'm not looking forward to the next Al Qaeda hit in the US, and I highly doubt you are, either. Yet in giving your endorsement to war crimes, you add to the list of reasons why the terrorists would want to strike.There. I'm done with this thread. If you want to argue with me in another thread, then fine, jump on in there, but I'm no longer going to be suckered in by you on this particular subject. Is it really so ugly to look in the mirror?I've stated my opinion (numerous times) on the subject, Which one? What is or isn't a war crime? (Not clear.) That I shouldn't consider the points you raise? (Your problem, not mine.) Why war crimes are good? (Hell, you've got me there.) Why a violation of the Geneva Convention is A-OK? (I suppose you've tried to make that clear, but failed miserably, unfortunately.)

But I lost count of the number of times you said you already stated your opinion. If you had done so clearly, there wouldn't be a question.but you'd rather use your non-acceptance of it to keep a long worn-out argument going Nope. Simply, war crimes are more important to me than they are to you.Not me. The semester's over, I'm starting summer vacation, and I won't be around the computer enough on a regular basis to keep up with the verbal barbs, so you win. Next time, aim higher. Take yourself a little more seriously, and you'll realize that this whole tantrum of yours was unnecessary. Enjoy the summer. I'm sure you'll learn, eventually.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

goofyfish

06-10-03, 03:58 PM

Tricky Business, This Imperialism

Take a look, for instance, at this Reuters dispatch from the far frontiers of empire.They have torn down his statues and peppered his portraits with bullet holes, but Iraq's interim U.S. rulers have been forced to print millions of new banknotes bearing the face of Saddam Hussein. (Full text here (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-iraq-currency.html) - free registration required)Sometimes you don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

:m: Peace.

Tiassa

06-10-03, 04:40 PM

At least it's merely macabre and not outright morbid.

In the meantime: Chalabi: Saddam is in Iraq (CNews) (http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2003/06/10/108164-ap.html) NEW YORK (AP) -- Saddam Hussein has been seen north of Baghdad and is paying a bounty for every American soldier killed, the leader of an Iraqi exile group said Tuesday.

Saddam has $1.3 billion US ($1.8 billion Cdn) in cash taken from the Central Bank on March 18, is bent on revenge and believes he can "sit it out and get the Americans going," said Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress.

In Washington, Pentagon officials said Tuesday they had no information that Saddam was alive and offering bounties for killing U.S. troops ....Also:

- AP, in first nationwide tally of civilian deaths in Iraq war, counts 3,240, but toll is certainly higher (Boston.com) (http://www.boston.com/dailynews/161/world/AP_in_first_nationwide_tally_o:.shtml) . . . . The AP's finding: At least 3,240 civilians died throughout the country, including 1,896 in Baghdad. The count is still fragmentary, and the complete number if it is ever tallied is sure to be significantly higher.

Several surveys have looked at civilian casualties within Baghdad, but the AP's is the first attempt to gauge the scale of such deaths from one end of the country to the other, from Mosul in the north to Basra in the south.

The AP count is based on records from 60 of Iraq's 124 hospitals including almost all of the large ones and covers the period between March 20, when the war began, and April 20, when fighting was dying down. AP journalists visited all those hospitals, studying their logs, examining death certificates where available and interviewing officials.

Many of the 64 other hospitals are in small towns and were not visited because they are in dangerous or inaccessible areas. Some hospitals that were visited had incomplete or war-damaged casualty records.

Even if hospital records were complete, they would not tell the full story for this nation of 24 million people. Many dead were never taken to hospitals. They were either buried quickly by their families in accordance with Islamic custom, or lost under rubble.

The AP excluded all counts done by hospitals whose written records did not distinguish between civilian and military dead, which means hundreds, possibly thousands, of victims in Iraq's largest cities and most intense battles aren't reflected in the total . . . . Well, is this enough blood, Mr. Bush, to "avenge" 9/11?

Are we there yet?

I take it back. There is no thin comfort. There is no comfort in any of it.

Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Can we please stop killing people for stupid reasons?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

guthrie

06-10-03, 08:23 PM

tiassa, I htink it can safely be said htat most of the reasons for killing people are stupid anyhow. period.

PLus now I notice the son of King Feisal of Iraq is back in Iraq, has addressed a crowd of tribal leaders. So whats he going to do? Which way will he go?

Its such a hideous mix, kurds, shi'ites, sunnis, tribes, monarchists, arch-islamists, pro westerners, and the oil. I just hope enough modern influence is upon them that they dont all decide to fight each other to death. Certainly the complexity of their politics over hte next few years will confuse and bedazzle the USA.

Tiassa

06-11-03, 04:38 AM

Blix stung by "Pentagon smear" (BBC) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2980332.stm) The UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has lashed out at the US Defence Department, saying some "bastards" in Washington tried to undermine him in the run-up to the Iraq war . . . .

. . . . "It was like a mosquito bite in the evening that is there in the morning, an irritant," he said . . . .

. . . . However, he said Washington now viewed the United Nations as an "alien power".

"There are people in this [US] administration who say they don't care if the UN sinks under the East river, and other crude things" . . . .So Blix goes South Park. Geez ... you don't think the Bush administratin ... oh ... pissed him off ... do you?

Then again, somebody had to say it.

Go Hans. Might as well run with it.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Pollux V

06-11-03, 07:33 AM

The AP's finding: At least 3,240 civilians died throughout the country, including 1,896 in Baghdad. The count is still fragmentary, and the complete number if it is ever tallied is sure to be significantly higher

Oh no, Saddam killed that much people in a day! It was justified, silly!

goofyfish

06-25-03, 11:43 AM

“When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It’s going to be decisive…” – President George W. Bush, September, 2001.QAIM, Iraq, June 23 -- Ahmed Hamad, a burly shepherd and smuggler, awoke to his mother's shouts. He looked at his watch. It was 1:10 a.m., he recalled. He gazed across a horizon illuminated by destruction, where U.S. aircraft were raining fire on four trucks. About a half-hour later, he said, a missile slammed into his house, killing his sister-in-law and her 1-year-old daughter…

At about 1:30 a.m., as the four trucks burned, the first of about five missiles struck Hamad's brick house, he said. Although everyone was sleeping outside, debris killed his sister-in-law, 20-year-old Hakima Khalil, and her daughter, Maha. Khalil's husband, Mohammed, was wounded in the foot. Hamad, his 24-year-old brother Mahmoud and his mother, Rasmiya Mishaal, 62, were also hurt. Mahmoud suffered the severest injuries, with deep cuts to his back and face. (Full text here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24409-2003Jun23.html)) I wonder when we’ll stop staggering about and throwing windmill punches like a drunk in a saloon. Using five missiles might sound like overkill until you check the score: three pickups, three tractors, one truck, thirteen sheep, two sheep smugglers, a 20 year-old woman and her 1 year-old daughter.

Shit yeah, jackpot! That'll teach them terrorists! Booyah!

:m: Peace.

Tiassa

06-25-03, 06:36 PM

Veil of Secrecy Around Village Hit in U.S. Raid (NY Times - registration required) (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/25/international/worldspecial/25CONV.html?ex=1057118400&en=b29036e6b1efb911&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE) On a desolate panorama of hardtack desert along the Syrian border here, the United States military has cordoned off part of this village, evicted five families whose houses were bombed six days ago and refused to say what is going on.

Two villagers were killed, a young woman, Hakima Khalil, and her infant daughter, Maha, in an aerial assault that began just after 1 a.m. Thursday.

At dusk today, a convoy of more than 20 military transports arrived with earth-moving equipment and pulled into the circle of Bradley fighting vehicles that guard every approach to this sandy knoll littered with broken masonry and bomb-damaged homes.

"Stop right there," said Specialist Arthur Myers of New Jersey. "If you take a picture, I will break your camera."

The attack on the village followed a strike by American Special Forces troops on several vehicles near a Syrian border post five miles east of here. American officials in Washington described what happened as an operation focusing on a convoy of vehicles believed to be carrying senior officials of the former government of Saddam Hussein. It was not clear what they were seeking in this village, however. This stretch of border about 50 miles southwest of the main border crossing point at Qaim is known as a smuggler's haven, and Muger Addib in Arabic means "Wolf's Den." The villagers grow wheat and raise sheep by day, but they are also believed at night to run a brisk smuggling trade in native sheep, which fetch a better price in Syria and Lebanon than they do in Iraq.

Since the end of the military campaign that toppled Mr. Hussein's government, smugglers have also specialized in assisting Iraqi families seeking to leave the country and join relatives abroad across the border. American officials also suspect that former members of Mr. Hussein's government have used remote border crossings like this one to escape occupation forces. The dirty sheep smugglers ....

Daddy Doggy, what did you do during the war?

I killed a sheep smuggler's daughter when you was still at yer mama's teat!

Is this because Texans are cattle people?

Does it ever seem that the Bush administration's occasions to upset people seem planned and known in advance? I can't shake the feeling that the American reconstruction effort, at least, is intentionally being carried out in such a manner as to force a necessary augmentation of the long-term military commitment to Iraq.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa

06-26-03, 06:16 AM

Reuters Photo: (http://reuters.com/newsPhotoPresentation.jhtml?type=topNews&imageID=1000577415) An Afghan boy pushes a cart loaded with monthly rations received by his widowed mother (in the blue veil) from CARE International in Kabul June 25, 2003. According to CARE, there are at least 10,000 war widows in Kabul, and CARE is providing them with 46 kilograms (101 pounds) of flour, 4 liters of oil, 800 grams of salt and 9 kilograms (20 pounds) of red beans monthly. REUTERS/Arko Datta

Um ... is there a nutritionist in the house?

Help me out here ... what is that for the two of them as opposed to what is that for a mother and how many children?

Edit, or Back to Iraq: Reuters Photo (http://reuters.com/newsPhotoPresentation.jhtml?type=topNews&imageID=1000577053) - just one of those to see .... And, to be fair, there is also this photo from Reuters (http://reuters.com/newsPhotoPresentation.jhtml?type=topNews&imageID=1000577055).

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Psycho-Cannon

06-26-03, 06:37 AM

. . . However, he said Washington now viewed the United Nations as an "alien power".

"There are people in this [US] administration who say they don't care if the UN sinks under the East river, and other crude things" ..

See my post on "Bringing the war home - NGO's"
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24493

They are indeed seeing NGO's and bodies like the UN as not only alien but a "Threat" to "Free market Capatilism" and "American Soverignty" and "Homeland Security".

They are looking for ways to sink them even as we speak.

As for the tragedy of Afghanistan its already forgotten by the people that need to be reminded the most.
No one remeber the Masacers of POW's by US troops and the complacency, even co-operation of US troops in allowing the war lords...sorry Northern Alliance to Kidnap torture and execute both POW's and normal civillians alike.
Has everyone forgotten the British troops testimony already about how 3 times they had Osma Bin Laden cornered and surrounded and 3 times American orders let him go.

You are right Tissa and that these things are too bad to be too many horrible coincidences and accidents i think the USA wants these things to go wrong so that they are attacked and have an excuse to say they need more troops and to stay.
Its like punching someone in the face and then justifying it by saying well he hit me back after i punched him first!!!!!

Also i suppose letting the Heads go, OBL and SH, they can keep on blaming them for everything that goes wrong and keep the fear cycling so even if they are captured or killed they won't ever admit it.

In fact the Conservative party in the UK said exactly that on the BBC i belive it was last night when they said they fully supported the war on Iraq regardless of this Dodgy dossier fiasco as they belived it was just and the attacks on British/American troops just justify us being there...
now if thats not twisted logic i don't know what is we were justified in invading them as they attacked us after we occupied them?????

Of course now that they have their eyes in Iran soon they will be waging war on Iran and no-one will remeber Iraq.
When you try to point out the repetition on the lies and the Murder you will be told to stop looking at the past, thats yesterdays war you can't compare the two there totally different.

At this point if i was on the Axis of evil list i would get along with every other country on that list and make sure it's understood that the only defence against the USA at the moment is to arm yourself, as Iraq showed trying to comply and co-operate makes no difference you are out the door one way or the other if America wants to try.
What can they do if all their targets decide to give the USA the finger at the same time and start arming themselves?
Can they boycot half the world and wage war on all of them??
I wouldn't be suprised actually if Dubbya did take it as an excuse to launch a small batch of nukes at each of them to test their new "mini-nukes" and even more so i wouldn't be suprised if the majority of the USA went hell yeah nuke the rag heads.
Europe would probably be in an upraor though but not that our governments seem to let that bother them anymore.

goofyfish

07-01-03, 09:31 AM

The words of Paul Bremer, Washington's overlord in Iraq, need no "sexing up". "We are going to fight them and impose our will on them and we will capture or... kill them until we have imposed law and order on this country," he declared at the weekend. "We dominate the scene and we will continue to impose our will on this country." (Full text here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,988418,00.html ))Meanwhile Americans in Baghdad are becoming increasingly concerned at Bremer's tendency to ride his tricycle while wearing dark sunglasses and screaming "Respect my authoritaaaay!" at bemused Iraqis, before hitting them with his nightstick.

I'm sure that Bremer will keep right on imposing his will on the Iraqis until he's airlifted off of the roof of the palace he's staying in.

Mission Accomplished, dipshit.

:m: Peace.

goofyfish

07-01-03, 10:39 AM

At this point, the Administration is spinning so hard its a wonder their heads stay on. But this more than spin - its denial of the obvious.Rumsfeld said "no one raid or five raids is going to deal with the entire problem. The problem is going to be dealt with over time, as the Iraqis assume more and more responsibility for their own country." He said that "I really don't have a time line" for ending the U.S. presence in Iraq.

He said the problems in Iraq are being caused by five categories of people: remnants of Saddam's government; tens of thousands of Iraqi criminals released before the war from prisons; ordinary looters; foreigners who have entered Iraq; and "people that are being influenced by Iran." (Full text here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&ncid=584&e=1&u=/nm/20030630/pl_nm/iraq_usa_rumsfeld_dc))Hey, Donny, you left out a couple others: fathers whose kids have had their legs blown off and "suspects" who sat around for over 24 hours with sacks covering their heads and were ultimately released without being charged with anything.

:m: Peace.

Tiassa

07-06-03, 06:52 AM

Huge challenges ahead in Iraq (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/129573_escalated.html) . . . . Minimal numbers of soldiers would be needed, or so we heard from Rumsfeld and others. Happy crowds would welcome the foreign liberators, a la Paris 1944. The post-World War II occupation of Japan would provide the model for smoothly fostering democracy.

Whether or not a guerrilla war is developing in Iraq, those fantasies are laid bare. Confusion reigns over when and how to put any Iraqi government in place . . . .

. . . . If force levels set low to prove Rumsfeld's military theories are straining every undertaking in Iraq, the administration received clear notice. In Februrary, Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the Army's chief of staff, said several hundred thousand U.S. troops would be needed to secure postwar Iraq.

Although Rumsfeld and his alter bully, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, criticized the estimate as wrong, the general's judgment appeared sound at the time. Shinseki's assessment looks better day by day . . . . You know, it occurs to me that some armchair second-guessing is fair at this point. (As if we haven't been doing that all along ....) But it couldn't possibly come to any worse result than the present reality, could it?

Another war that isn't. We're in it for five years or something? Until we're done? Whatever?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa

07-06-03, 06:59 AM

US soldier shot at Baghdad University (BBC) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3048818.stm). . . . According to eyewitnesses two soldiers were chatting to students at a university faculty when a man walked up behind them, drew a pistol and shot one of the Americans in the head at close range.

The students scattered and, in the confusion, the gunman fled on foot.

The BBC's Peter Greste, who heard a single shot, arrived at the scene to see US troops clearing the area and loading their wounded comrade into a vehicle to take to a field hospital . . . .I posted the Beeb version of it not only because it was the first one I saw a little while ago, but the Reuters (http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3042638) report skips the interesting details of the incident, which I guess we can call unconfirmed.

But I'm going to presume that there were too many people around for his fellow soldier to take down the gunman fleeing on foot? Help me out here .... (We can shoot angry people throwing rocks, but not the guy who just shot Bob?)

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

EI_Sparks

07-08-03, 01:32 PM

Anyone recall the last Gulf War's story about the babies thrown from incubators and left to die on the floor?
And how it turned out to be complete rot?

Anyone recall this story (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/specialreports/iraq/s_128142.html) from the latest invasion about how children were released from a jail where Saddam had imprisoned them for political reasons?
Well, guess what...
:rolleyes:
Turns out that not only was it not a jail, the children who left there (or, depending on your viewpoint, were driven out) have been much worse off than had they stayed.

Every morning Bakr Al-Saied wakes with only one thought: to find the 130 children who fled the Al-Rahma orphanage and took to Baghdad’s mean streets while their home was being looted and burned. We’ve been looking for them all day and all night. We take a car with UNICEF (UN Children’s Fund) and drive around the city,said Saied, a volunteer at the orphanage in the poor Al-Rashid eastern suburbs. We don’t have any idea where they are,he said. (http://acr.hrschool.org/Newsletter/weeklynewsletterv2n22.htm)

Fleeing from an orphanage that had been looted after the U.S.-led invasion of the country, she wandered in Baghdad streets until she was raped by some armed men.
The 15-year-old Zeinab now wonders about the fate of an embryo in her womb; yet, no one, including the U.S. occupation forces in charge of the occupied Iraq, has the answer. (http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2003-06/12/article03.shtml)

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/weekinreview/06HICK.html

Tiassa

07-09-03, 09:05 PM

Iraq weapons "unlikely to be found" (BBC) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3054549.stm) Senior figures inside Whitehall no longer believe weapons of mass destruction are likely to turn up in Iraq, the BBC has learned.

BBC political editor Andrew Marr says "very senior sources" have virtually ruled out the possibility of finding weapons in Iraq . . . .

. . . . Andrew Marr told the BBC's Ten o'Clock News on Wednesday: "Right at the top of Whitehall, they no longer believe that weapons of mass destruction are likely to turn up in Iraq.

"They do think there were weapons programmes there, they believe that other stuff - interviews with Iraqi scientists, paperwork, dossiers - that will turn up.

"But the actual weapons, the tubs of the evil stuff, the rusting missiles, no, belief that that will actually be available, can be shown to cameras, that is trickling away very fast at the top of government" . . . .This is a dubious moment for me.

As the case for WMD trickles away, I cannot celebrate the unraveling of the façade. Hopefully, the primary damage will be the against the people's willingness to wage war for uncertain causes.

We are left, it seems, with the Iraqi humanitarian mission. Two points remain prominent:

- Reconstruction is not going as well as hoped
- Humanitarian reasons have never justified full-scale intervention before

Perhaps this latter point has occurred to the UN, which seems in its own way ready to at least give the appearance of giving attention to the crisis in Africa.

But who can call the latest developments in the WMD case "good news"? History will record the fallacy of this war, but that doesn't change the fact that it has happened, and that its results are only marginally less-doubtful, though still bear greater potential, than the justifications at the outset.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Pollux V

07-09-03, 11:00 PM

-Didn't we sell/give weapons to Iraq during their war with Iran in the eighties? If so, then where are they?

-If there weren't any weapons in Iraq, how come the Iraqis kept dicking around with the UN inspectors?

My position on the war is in the middle, and I feel, somewhat unique. I believe that Saddam is/was a threat, and that like many countries on Earth, Iraq had a corrupt government that was unfair to its own citizens. As such, I also support the idea of his being replaced by someone better--however, I doubt this will occur. While I support the idea of a war, at the same time, I also feel that bringing to justice those that sold him the weapons would be equally as prudent. Or, at least bringing to justice the people we could get our hands on. While I don't feel like looking for it (getting late...) I'm fairly certain there's a list floating around with a few dozen American businesses that sold weapons/information to Iraq at some time or another before the first Gulf War.

Tiassa

07-10-03, 12:02 AM

Didn't we sell/give weapons to Iraq during their war with Iran in the eighties? If so, then where are they? Yes we did. I figure those that weren't used are decayed by now if they still exist. Reports that Hussein destroyed the WMD without recording the event for proof don't necessarily point to his stupidity, but rather to poor judgment in a bad situation he'd gotten himself into. Let's say he destroyed those weapons late in the game, as one theory suggested--shortly before the invasion. After all the lies, would a paranoid Stalinist trust the US and other nations to not use those lies as a pretext for war despite the weapons having been destroyed? Having spun the lies, if Saddam did destroy the weapons without documenting that destruction, it would make sense to stand on the original lies until the end. Hussein may be a bastard, but if investigators don't find evidence of a viable WMD program, the Bush administration is in trouble.

In the meantime ... what ever happened to the theory about the big cargo ship floating randomly around the ocean allegedly containing Iraqi weapons hidden from inspectors? That story disappeared quickly, and usually the bad theories have stuck around long enough to be refuted or generally pulverized by doubt. I've gone Googling for it before, but somehow I keep missing it.If there weren't any weapons in Iraq, how come the Iraqis kept dicking around with the UN inspectors? Issues of sovereignty. Michael Moore, for instance, published a letter to UN Secretary-General Annan requesting UN intervention in the American "Bush Junta" (cf "Stupid White Men"). How would Americans treat UN inspectors monitoring our elections (http://www.americanfreedomnews.com/commentary/elections_un.htm) (Florida), or looking through our defense network for weapons known to be produced and held in violation of international agreements? Regardless of whether or not Americans would feel justified holding the weapons, Americans would definitely give the inspectors a massive ration of shite. It's kind of like a girl I know who used to fight furiously with her mother: "She's such a bitch," my friend would say. But if anyone else had anything bad to say about her mother ... look out. People are protective of what they consider their own. You'll notice that while the people are happy enough to be rid of Hussein, Iraqis tired quickly of the foreign presence.

I tend to think, though, that Hussein most likely tried to scale back the program by necessity. I've read one article, somewhere, in which a scientist has asserted that the programs were taken apart after the political risk got too high, though I don't know when that threshold was crossed.

And that makes sense to me. UNMOVIC got ahead of the Iraqis a couple of times (e.g. the "chase scene") as Hussein tried to remove only the portions of his program that were directly threatened by inspections, and as the situation moved closer to war destroyed much of what was left of the program that probably never got back off the ground after GW-1.

As to the war in general, I think we're just setting a bad precedent for ourselves; as we commit to various conflicts, are we really prepared to back up our words? The human cause is enough for me, technically, but years ago I decided that wars earned us nothing and that there were better avenues to pursue. The human cause was good enough for me when I was 12 or 15 or 20 and still believed that war could bring real solutions to real problems. But if it's all we're left with in Iraq, we're setting a broad precedent that obliges us to participate in various conflicts over time. If that's what it comes down to, fine, but that's never what it comes down to.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa

07-10-03, 12:07 AM

Danes prepare for snow in Iraq (BBC) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3054625.stm) Denmark's troops in Iraq may dream of the frost of a Scandinavian winter on days when the temperature rises to a blistering 46 degrees.

But many may have been wondering if the military back home really had to rub it in when a recent supply shipment turned up a snowplough and a stock of salt for icy roads.

Baking in the heat and dust outside Basra, the 380-odd Danes could have been forgiven for thinking the lawnmowers also included in the cargo were a mirage . . . .The article does note problems with morphine shipments, so it's not all funny. I hope the morphine problem didn't cost anyone a limb or a life or some sanity. But ... a snowplow?

What is Danish for, "You're kidding me, right?"

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

goofyfish

07-15-03, 07:33 AM

The great rock and roll swindle meets the great weapons of mass destruction swindle.

Johnny Rotten and the gang are going to play a benefit in Baghdad and give them a taste of freedom, UK punk style. This sounds like the perfect soundstage for the Sex Pistols. Poverty, despair, drugs, anarchy -- that was their genesis. They thrive in chaos, and they speak to rage. I think it's a perfect fit, myself.

Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/newsarticle.asp?nid=18359).

I wonder if Mr. Lydon will end the show with the question he asked at the end of their first U.S. tour: "Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?" :D

:m: Peace.

Tiassa

07-16-03, 01:24 AM

Sorry to sap the recent levity of the topic.

Baghdad sexual violence "rising" (BBC) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3070063.stm) The US-based Human Rights Watch says the rise in sexual violence is driving women indoors, and preventing them from taking part in Iraq's public life at a crucial time.

The failure of the US led coalition forces and civilian administration in Baghdad to provide public security has made females more vulnerable to sexual violence and abduction, the report says . . . .

. . . . Human Rights Watch says that Iraqi police officers tend to give a low priority to allegations of sexual violence.

"What was particularly worrying was that the Iraqi police were completely uninterested in the 15-year-old's case," says Ms Bjorken.

"When I spoke to them about it, they referred to her as 'the girl who ran away from home'" . . . .

. . . . One nine-year-old rape victim had been turned away from several medical facilities . . . .The Human Rights Watch (http://hrw.org/press/2003/07/iraq071603.htm) website carries the latest on this ugly situation. A 17-page report is available in HTML (http://hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq0703/) or PDF format.Under international humanitarian law, the CPA, as the occupying power, has a duty to restore and maintain public order and safety and to respect the fundamental rights of the territory’s inhabitants. The Fourth Geneva Convention places special emphasis on the requirement that "women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault." (Human Rights Watch)That's the news, and I am outta here.

... er ...

Yeah.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa

07-16-03, 06:24 AM

I am coming to question the morale of the troops currently stationed in Iraq. One gets the sense that this is clearly not the mission they had in mind.

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0si=-) reports on today's blast outside Baghdad:_Sgt. Diego Baez, who was in the U.S. truck that took the brunt of the blast, wept as he described the dead soldier.

"We slept next to each other just last night. He was my best friend," said Baez, who was uninjured . . . .

. . . . "We need more protection. We’ve seen enough. We've stayed in Iraq long enough," said Spc. Carlos McKenzie, a member of the convoy.The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3070223.stm) also covers the event:"We were just driving along when the explosion hit," he told The Associated Press. "It was very big."

Following the blast and the loss of another colleague, one soldier raked the area with machine gun fire.

Another wept at the side of the road comforted by a colleague . . . .

. . . . Spc Carlos McKenzie said the convoy, which was on its way to a US base in the desert near Iraq's border with Jordan, did not have enough protection from more heavily armed units.

"We need more protection. We've seen enough. We've stayed in Iraq long enough," he said. Is there any way to reasonably cycle out the troops in favor of fresh replacements? On the one hand, the US allegedly does not fear two war fronts; to the other, with the NK situation growing daily more worrisome, Bush has promised to not overextend our troops in reference to Liberia, despite that requiring 2,000 American troops or less should the President decide to send troops.

What is our viable invasion and occupation force? I thought our military numbers were in the millions.

Darth? Excuse me, I mean, Don?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

goofyfish

07-25-03, 08:49 AM

In a visible bid to demonstrate its support for the Bush administration, the Dominican Republic will send a contingent of 300 soldiers to Iraq beginning on Saturday.
The Dominicans, who will serve only as peacekeepers in "low-risk areas", will join the US-led coalition under the command of Polish and Spanish officers.

Observers note that the move may be meant to encourage a bilateral free-trade agreement with the US, although government officials deny that a trade pact is a motivation. I wonder how many Dominicans will get popped by the Iraqis before they all just decide to stay in their barracks watching I Love Lucy reruns on the TV? The Dominican economy has been hit by a 30 per cent depreciation of the peso since January, and by the $2.2bn collapse in May of Banco Intercontinental (Baninter), the nation's second-biggest bank. (Full text here (http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1058868143213&p=1012571727162 )) So, this works out great for everyone! The government of Dominica can cut their "unemployment levels" (read: cut down on guys with guns standing around grumbling about the economy) by sending a bunch of them to Iraq and leaving them there with no return date in sight… just like the USA does.

:m: Peace.

Tiassa

07-27-03, 08:41 PM

US Intensifies Hunt for Hussein (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/27/international/worldspecial/27CND-IRAQ.html?hp) (NY Times)°

The latest out of Iraq includes an apparent failed attempt to capture Saddam Hussein. American Special Ops raided a house "in an upscale Baghdad neighborhood", apparently owned by Rabia Muhammad al-Habib, a tribal leader in Hussein's favor who claims to have not seen the dictator for over a year.

But the move enraged local residents, apparently, as American troops fired shots at two vehicles in the area, killing "at least three Iraqis" and wounding another three; local residents complained that the Americans had not offered adequate warnings before shooting. According to the New York Times, "Other reports from a Baghdad hospital said a total of five Iraqis had died during the operation".

Meanwhile, south of Baghdad, what can best be described as a bad situation that resulted in the death of an Iraqi civilian has raised tensions in Karbala, as funeral mourners chanted, according to the New York Times, "There is no God but God, and America is the enemy of God!"

I suppose the thing that strikes me as ironic is that just the other day someone at Sciforums was going on about how some dude emailed him about how rosy the situation in Iraq is.

The postwar American death toll is 104, including 49 combat deaths. I cannot get the "postwar" Iraqi civilian count at this time ... I'm hoping someone on the web has the approximate number, else I have to farm some data and do simple addition.

By the time I finish that, someone else will be added to the list ....

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

- Oppel Jr., Richard A, and Robert F. Worth. "US Intensifies Hunt for Hussein". New York Times, July 27, 2003. From http://nytimes.com/2003/07/27/international/worldspecial/27CND-IRAQ.html

Clockwood

07-27-03, 11:19 PM

"There is no god but god?" Yeah.... that narrows it down a bit. And how would they know that we are its enemy? I suppose it came down and told them? I don't even know if a diety CAN have worldly enemies. Damn nuts.

At least they are alowed to protest now. Saddam would have just mortared the whole lot of them if he still in charge. We are being nice. Historically occupying nations would just decimate the population again and again until they would behave.

Or we could be really mean and just leave. I'm sure it would rapidly degrade into either an oppressive theocracy or a mass of feuding warlords.

Tiassa

07-28-03, 01:24 AM

Yeah.... that narrows it down a bit Who knows, maybe they heard about Equatorial Guinea and just had a point to make.

A link I posted somewhere around here ... actually in a Liberia thread of all places ... is to a text citation that, quite frankly, I'm excited to find online, as I've only recently gotten a reasonably useful blog and haven't transcribed this portion of the text for myself yet. It comes from Ryszard Kapuscinski's Shah of Shahs: Excerpt from "Shah of Shahs" (http://www.usna.edu/Users/history/tucker/hh362/Shah%20of%20Shahs.htm).

Rather than quote the lengthy text, I would simply point you to the website and advise that you use your browser search function to locate the words "Act One".

The point of this is that Iraq's Shia majority will march, as well, whether or not they have the right to, if things get bad enough. It is fortunate that, if anyone has to usurp Iraq, it is a nation whose public stature will not allow the authority to become repressive past a certain degree; e.g. the United States. The problem comes when that brand of fanaticism wins the day, as the revolution in Iran demonstrated when Ayatollah Khomeni came to power.

Now that the United States has waded hip deep into the Iraqi mess and acknowledges that it is fighting a war against guerillas, we see the precariousness of the American position. The longer we stay, the greater grows the resentment among Iraqis. If we leave too quickly, we inherit a new Iraqi problem that will call our attention back to the nation within twenty years.

Which is somewhat the conundrum facing the Bush administration. Ideally, I would have found a way to "legalize" the invasion before going. Actually, ideally, I would have sought another solution at least for appearance's sake. But that's beside the point: We rode into Iraq alleging good intentions. It's not as easy to wade back out.

In the abstract I agree with you about deities, but in the specifics, it seems that the Abramic monotheisms include many enemies of God. Of course, I don't actually need to remind you of this, but still ... even I, who have no religion, find something vaguely unholy about my President. I don't know if I'm slandering the Iraqi people to say that I understand how a nation mired in superstition and so familiar with fear could come to see a devil in savior's rags.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa

10-26-03, 09:18 PM

Washington Post: Search finds no Iraqi nuclear threat; Bush administration "not acting as if they take their own analysis seriously"

Barton Gellman writes in the October 26, 2003 Washington Post that the evidence in Iraq suggests that the Hussein regime, while it may have intended to someday resurrect its smashed nuclear weapons programs, never did so.

The Post article centers largely on the discussion surrounding 81-millimeter aluminum tubes which the Bush administration made such a prominent part of its accusations that Baghdad was actively seeking nuclear capability.

Gellman notes that some 20,000 similar aluminum tubes, described as dangerous technology, were not quickly collected by the Iraq Survey Group; Georgetown University's Robert Gallucci--also a consultant to the government regarding Iraq--said, "If you told me they had access to these tubes and have chosen not to seize and destroy them, it undermines the judgment that these tubes are usable for, if not intended for, centrifuge development." Joseph Cirincione, director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said that the US is not acting as if it takes its own analysis seriously: "If they were so worried about these tubes, that would be the kind of sensitive equipment you'd think the administration would want to seize, to prevent it from going somewhere else -- Iran, Syria, Egypt."

The real reason, of course, might be that the Bush administration most assuredly, the Blair administration most assuredly, and the Aznar administration most likely knew for a fact that the aluminum tube claim was bogus. While Secretary of State Colin L. Powell decried Baghdad's explanation that the 81-mm tubes were meant for artillery rocket casings, Australian Brigadier General Stephen Meekin stated that the tubes were used for building rockets. According to Meekin, the "Nasr-81" rocket hit the scene at a public arms show at 1999 in which Iraqi munitions were "displayed for sale", although any sales would be illegal. Tim McCarthy, a UN inspector with David Kay's Iraq Survey Group, said before departing to Iraq that the Nasr-81 rocket program, based on 81-mm tubes, were known in Western intelligence circles prior to 1996. According to McCarthy, weapons inspectors gave the aluminum tubes "maybe three minutes out of one-hundred hours" of attention.

It's a far different picture than President Bush spelled out in an October, 2002 speech in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Gellman also discusses in the article the tale of Mahdi Obeidi. Some may remember the tale of the Iraqi scientist who led investigators to components from Baghdad's nuclear program which he had buried in his backyard. While the IAEA stated early on that this evidence was not the smoking gun proving a current nuclear program, CNN's coverage of the story noted that Sean McCormack of the National Security Council speculated that the parts were "what might be needed to ... reconstitute a nuclear weapons program", and the discovery was touted to "bolster" the President's case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or that they had revived their nuclear program. While some protested such a leap, others leapt to the bandwagon. (1 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=24566), 2 (http://www.asmallvictory.net/archives/003772.html), 3 (http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/007575.html))

Furthermore, Obeidi has become a peculiar non-story. Apparently living somewhere in the United States, has declined further press interviews, and his American contact, David Albright a former IAEA consultant currently with the Institute for Science and International Security, will no longer discuss the case publicly.

There are a number of reasons why the Bush administration might hope the Obeidi story goes away. Apparently Obeidi's story reconciles with certain parts of the publicly-denounced Iraqi official declarations of its arms capacities. The designs he had conceived called for 145-mm, not 81-mm tubing, and aluminum would not have sufficed. The parts and plans he turned over were from 1991, and the order to resume the program had never come.

And there are indications that the Bush administration was aware of the damaging potential of Obeidi's story. In April, 2003, Obeidi turned to David Albright, who began looking for someone in the Defense Department for Obeidi to speak with. Albright says he was rebuffed, and turned to the CIA. According to Albright's notes, the CIA was neither prepared to discuss the idea of asylum for Obeidi nor the details of the centrifuge program he had overseen. The day after leading inspectors to the cache of documents and components he had buried, US Special Forces arrested him. Shortly after his release two weeks later, the CIA released his identity and described the components as proof of Bush's allegations of a current Iraqi nuclear threat.

The question of the validity of the Bush administration's "mushroom cloud" fearmongering thrives in this postwar period of daily violence, small progress, and the occasional jaw-dropping revelation. Whether or not this appearance of deception will hurt Bush in November, 2004, has yet to be determined. If the nation rallies behind the faux-Pax Americana, Bush need not worry about this or any of his lies. If the nation remembers that we are, indeed, Americans, the Bush Junta will end in January, 2005.

Reference links:

- Gellman, Barton. "Search in Iraq Fails to Find Nuclear Threat". Washington Post. October 26, 2003, page A01. see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17707-2003Oct25.html
- Bush, George W. "President Outlines Iraqi Threat". Whitehouse.gov. October 7, 2002. see http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
- Malveaux, Suzanne. "White House: Centrifuge parts back case on Iraq". CNN.com. June 27, 2003. see http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/26/sprj.irq.white.house/index.html

See also:

(1) Topic Discussion: "Well look what we have here." Sciforums.com see http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=24566
(2) Topic Discussion: "But they were just going to use it to heat the baby's bottles". ASmallVictory.com. see http://www.asmallvictory.net/archives/003772.html
(3) Topic Discussion: "Nuke component unearthed in Baghdad back yard." Command-Post.org. see http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/007575.html

hypewaders

10-27-03, 08:50 AM

Making cynical posts does not remove the fact that those of us who care enough to anal-yze not only post, but also speak out elsewhere; refuse to contribute to obviously irresponsible collective actions; and vote.

Many things we all do are certainly changing the world- some are actively gaining awareness, and holding convictions. Watch and see, or better yet, participate- Or choose nihilism, resignation, and an even less effectual impression than those you ridicule for criticizing the more self-destructive gyrations of the herd.

Tiassa

10-29-03, 06:14 PM

Wire: "Two GI's Killed When Tank Attacked In Iraq"

The AP's Robert Reid reports that insurgents destroyed a tank, killed two American soldiers, and wounded seven Ukranians. Notably, this is apparently the first ambush against the multinational force in central Iraq.

The minor story is that active combat deaths have now surpassed the major combat operations total.

But this isn't exactly what has my attention. Reid notes some numbers that I don't think the public has been exposed to before, and it's these that I wonder about insofar as people's opinions of them:

- 117 is the number of "postwar" active-combat casualties. 114 is the number of combat deaths prior to May 1.
- 1 is the grand total number of M1 Abrams tanks destroyed by combat since May 1.
- 233 is the number of attacks which have occurred over the last seven days.
- 33 is the number of attacks against American forces per day, over an unspecified period (most likely the last week) according to Col. William Darley.
- 12 is the average daily number of attacks against American forces in mid-July.
- Low teens to mid-20s is the range of daily attacks over the previous two months.
- 26 is the average number of daily attacks between Oct. 8 and Oct. 22

Rough week, to say the least. And I have to admit that it's like a bad movie in one respect: they're attacking this much and firing this many rounds and missing that many people? Of course, I am accounting for the civilian toll, but 117 dead since May and 233 attacks over approximately a week ... who taught them to shoot?

Sure, it seems chaotic to me. And the massive toll taken on Monday turns the stomach. But whaddaya think? Is anyone in control?

- see - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33413-2003Oct29_2.html

hypewaders

10-29-03, 11:03 PM

Firing to repel a wild dog from your gate is punishable by a sudden friendly Apache gunship visit that guts your house and kills half your family. Not slowing down to pass an American column moving at 10 clicks merits a burst of .50 through your back window. These would constitute terrorist attacks on coalition forces, and similar events are ocurring every day, while Americans puzzle over why everyday Iraqis and their cousins from related tribes beyond Iraq want very much to kill GIs in long attrition. Americans also puzzle at why the most concerted attacks are directed at discouraging the internationalization of stabilization efforts. The Bush Administration's greatest supporters when it comes to unilateralism are the very people who are most dedicated to undermining American hegemony in the Mideast.

Mr. G

10-30-03, 12:12 AM

Making cynical posts does not remove the fact that those of us who care enough to anal-yze not only post, but also speak out elsewhere; refuse to contribute to obviously irresponsible collective actions; and vote.

I love playing the role of Cynical Rebel -- asking to be killed by self-proclaimed, fellow, cynical rebels who so easily eat *cough* their own kind from the comfort of their own narrow defintions of reality.

Get your hoisting petards here.

If sanctimony could kill, y'all'd have been suicided long ago. http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

guthrie

10-30-03, 03:04 AM

Well Mr G, it takes one to know one.

Canute

10-30-03, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by tiassa
Ideally, I would have found a way to "legalize" the invasion before going. Actually, ideally, I would have sought another solution at least for appearance's sake.
A solution to what exactly?

We rode into Iraq alleging good intentions.
I don't remember any alleged good intentions, just alleged good-for-us intentions.

Tiassa

10-30-03, 04:45 PM

A solution to what exactly?An interesting question that has much merit. But there is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was failing to comply with the terms that ended the first Gulf War. Now, whether or not that war was right is its own question, and despite the back-and-forth tale of an apparent "green-light" (expressed intent toward tacit approval) by the first Bush White House, there is no question that invading Kuwait was a very bad idea on Hussein's part. Slant-drilling is not a good excuse for military action, and any observant person knows that the industrialized world--whose reprisal Hussein was concerned about--treats traditional land claims as tenuous except for political convenience, and Hussein was not being very convenient about it.

So what, then, is the problem that requires a solution? In my humble opinion it's a longstanding trend of exploitative behavior that bit Americans where it hurts in Tehran in 1979, and found a new toll exacted in New York in 2001. (The link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, prior to the US invasion, was the United States themselves.)

But if we look at Saddam Hussein and stamp him, "Problem," the issue seems to be that a tyrant was empowered with a certain undetermined but well-suspected number of nasty weapons, employing devices contrary to human dignity in order to maintain law, order, and power, and threw a deliberate thorn into the world energy scheme.

And of that last, well, I can hardly blame him or anyone. The world energy scheme needs some shaking up or down, as events in Nigeria and Venezuela, among others, suggest. But Saddam "Hitler the Stalinist" Hussein° demonstrated, not all thorns are useful in that sense.

The thing is that I didn't like Saddam Hussein back when he was an American buddy. A lot of people didn't. Some might speak of liberal conspiracies, but I cannot help if my first exposure to the tale of the Shah of Iran--events which played out during my life--is a wisecrack in a science-fiction novel about not thinking the US could get any lower than giving refuge to the Shah. I can't say whether or not those who thought our policies were just in Iran over that period aren't around anymore, or just don't think that nobility important enough to mention in novels, but it does come to mind that my first exposure to Saddam Hussein, whose name seemed just another term in a jumble of international news I didn't understand, was a syndicated article, a "top ten" list of petty dictators around the world. Interestingly, that was occurring in strange coincidence with the Watchtower publication The Plain Truth's announcement that the Soviet bear would collapse in a decade's time. The Reagan administration had already taken Hussein off the terrorist-sponsor list.

He was evil then. When stories of Hussein's atrocities spread--and some were played unfairly, as Americans will discover soon enough when it's time to brawl with Iran and Tehran's role in at least one biochem massacre popularly attributed solely to Hussein--I knew approximately what people were talking about because I had seen horrifying footage of Afghan rebels dying from nerve gas when I was about 7.

But the whole time, Hussein seemed to be just another problematic American buddy.

So to me, yes, Hussein was a problem in and of himself. But I would have sought another solution. If it absolutely came down to the necessity of war, I've described in the past how one might construct UN/SC resolutions to hamstring Hussein and force him to stake his empire at risk of becoming otherwise irrelevant. It would be invasive in the end, yes, but it would be multilateral, defensive at the outset, and aimed truly at the best interests of the Iraqi people.

And if the plight of an oppressed people such as the Iraqis is to be regarded as problematic at all--for this was the effect of the Hussein problem, and in terms of a goal, perhaps more important--then the solution cannot rely on the necessity of aggravating the situation so dramatically as we have. The American people, through the Bush administration, have placed members of our military at the service of the Iraqi people. The least we could do is act like it, and that's why I would have sought a different solution to begin with.I don't remember any alleged good intentions, just alleged good-for-us intentions. I'll hand you that any day of the week on principle. But I'm referring to the idea that the selling points of this war were:

- Elimination of "imminent threat" to USA (false pretext)
- Elimination of "regional threat" of Iraq (shaky pretext)
- Elimination of tyrant Hussein (rational but unreasonable pretext)
- Reduction of suffering of Iraqi people (noble and deserved pretext)
- Establishment of "democracy" in Iraq (noble but dubiously-founded pretext)

As to the two noble pretexts ... there were still other ways. If this many billions are worth it, how come the $97 million passed by Congress under the Clinton administration to sponsor an Iraq coup wasn't worth pursuing? As we see now, the same people we couldn't rely on to stage a proper and satisfactory coup were among the people the Bush administration took advice from on starting this war.

There were a couple of noble intentions in there; if I had any faith in this administration or the American people to make those noble intentions real, I might support this rogue action against Iraq. But how can we bring what we don't have to anyone? Here I refer to democracy. So in accepting that true democracy ain't coming to the neighborhood, I guard against the idea that a wealth-driven, Westernized republic will bring real freedom to Iraq or anywhere else.

Listen to the war-dogs, especially during and immediately after the invasive war action; the nobility of the mission was all they had to stand on.

Now, I can accept that Americans never really believed it and will say whatever they have to if it means they get to sit at home with some popcorn and watch the pretty lights over Somewhere on CNN. But that's ... that's a pretty fierce assertion that I'm not sure plays in Peoria. While I'm well aware that my social circle tends a little more toward my side of the aisle on many ideas, even the fiercest war-dogs in my direct association are just a little flabbergasted. (I know one who's essentially waiting, hoping, nearly praying for Bush to reveal his true genius and let the idiots in on the ruse; in his faith he expects that Bush really is a genius and the misdirection is all part of a larger, brilliant campaign to establish working room and separation from the nitwits who didn't actually quite elect him properly. It's a little like waiting for Jesus to return.)

People wanted to believe we were doing the right thing. That means putting some lofty and noble goals on the table; the only war-dog I've yet found who stands purely on might-is-right seems a caricature of a violent and educated idiot. Even Americans, from time to time, need lofty ambitions to hold up before the world. Whether or not they believe in them is irrelevant; if they sell on that point, they need to deliver that point.

Mr. G

10-30-03, 11:22 PM

Guthrie,

Well Mr G, it takes one to know one.
Up to the point that self-recognition is considered the only possible outcome of disciplined observation.

I read herein much about opinions deemed more qualitatively relevent to the Global Community than are others.

I read herein nothing of such Globally relevent concepts as: "I just got home after a 16-hour shift at the soup kitchen...", or "I was thinking about the predictions of Superstring Theory while I was doing my regular rounds making sure that none of our residents have bed sores."

There's just talking going on around here, and little evidence of demonstrable, personal investment in actual, applied humanitarianism.

Social theory and opinion are not "doing" -- it's all just uninvested motion being presented as respectable action for the common good.

spookz

10-30-03, 11:43 PM

heh
if g had his way, we would all be drafted to the frontlines

Mr. G

10-30-03, 11:55 PM

I'm not into imposing my will on others.

I'm into exposing the will of others as being unnecessarily imposing.

Tiassa

10-31-03, 12:19 AM

Social theory and opinion are not "doing" -- it's all just uninvested motion being presented as respectable action for the common good.... And?

guthrie

10-31-03, 03:21 AM

"There's just talking going on around here, and little evidence of demonstrable, personal investment in actual, applied humanitarianism.

Social theory and opinion are not "doing" -- it's all just uninvested motion being presented as respectable action for the common good."

You see, that is a fairly good point. Speaking as someone whose doing is at the moment more along the lines of being a member of an organisation or two, donating money sometimes, and voting as I feel I aught to when the occaision arises, I'm not quite there. On the other hand, I think people here would take it better coming from you if you exhibited the same behaviour you are suggesting we do. Besides, dont you like sharpening your arguments and keeping your moral up by arguing with opponents? Why not support those who are better equipped to do such humanitarianism, eg the UN, various charities etc (who often seem to get a bad press.....), along the lines of the division of labour idea, rather than getting our size 11's in the wrong place at the wrong time. As for paying for things, I am willing enough to do so, and so are a lot of people judging by the charity events I keep hearing about across the country, and have been known to contribute to.

Canute

10-31-03, 06:36 AM

Tiassa

Agree with what you said all except the idea that democracy is necessarily a good thing.

Tiassa

10-31-03, 08:04 AM

Agree with what you said all except the idea that democracy is necessarily a good thing. I say democracy is a dubiously-founded pretext on a number of levels that I don't think disagree with you:

- Americans haven't figured out democracy yet; we cannot give what we do not have to give.
- This understood, it can still be fairly asserted that Western "democracy" is the social organization which provides the greatest individual freedom.
- And that being understood, I defer to Kapuscinski's Shah of Shahs, page citation unavailable at the particular moment, when he discusses the fact that Iran's Shiite population wouldn't know what to do with freedom. The entire recorded history of the Shia and the people who would become the Shia speaks of tyranny.
- The same can be said of Iraq insofar as it can be said of the Shia.

Delivering democracy is a dubiously-founded pretext because it may be impossible. If we consider the Marxist assertion that a society goes through various phases, e.g. a capitalistic one, before attaining the communist ideal--and we can set Communism aside for the purposes of my point--it may be that the Iraqi people, largely accustomed to a more repressive government, haven't among themselves collectively the faculties necessary to survive an American-style, profit-driven republic. It could be that the current phase of Iraqi society is incompatible with a transition to such a freewheeling way of life. After all, while much of the world might envy our technological and economic achievements, and while they might fear our military might, they do not envy the "moral" issues that come with American freedom. Is it worth plastic, throwaway cars, monthly offers from Visa, and an AOL front-end in your mail every week just to have a drug problem that can outstrip the economy and the moral crisis of having the highest unwed-teen birth rate in the industrial world? Is it worth the trade-off? Generally, as an American, I say yes. Yes, it's worth the high income, yes it's worth a basic financial commitment just to participate functionally in America that is large than most nations' average per capita incomes. Yes, it's worth the overdose of bad art, and the lying politicians get two points for the simple fact that they're not killing us. It's worth the effort of, as Dennis Miller has it, cultivating such a remarkable homeless situation in Seattle. It's worth watching your daughter get knocked up while stringing out on Ecstasy. It's worth growing up in a country where cowardice (specifically, lack of blind and stupid courage) is the biggest sin; where you're not supposed to be able to trust your best friend; when you can't love your lover because love is oppressively possessive ....

Yes, it's a bitter picture of America, but these sorts of things look a little different in the Muslim world right now. For one, there's fewer AOL discs going around. But even without playing "whose miseries are worse" we have to realize that in selling the idea of American "democracy" abroad, we are also selling the things that go with it. Americans work too hard. It's how we keep our economy afloat. It explains a good deal about why we're so damned incomprehensible to the rest of the world.

And because of what American-styled freedom entails, it's going to be a tough sell.

I consider democracy a dubiously-founded pretext for war because many people thought it would be easy of a sort. Thankfully, such a bad idea didn't permeate the bandwagoners, but I think at moments like this of the absolute freaking moron--and in this case, well, he is--who once upon a time a while ago smirked at how free the Afghani people were now that the Americans had arrived.

What we offer ... it's a tough sell.

Welcome to the world marketplace, so to speak ... it's so inviting that the Russians were screaming for the hardline reds for a few years.

Will they thank us when they're daughters are getting felt up by the boss at The Gap in Tikrit Mall? After all, it's a common refrain among American households of my generation that kids had to "earn their keep". And hey, if they want that car, there's nothing better than a job after school to teach some responsibility and ... why, oh why did Volkswagen end production of the old Beetles? Baghdad is a city screaming for an ocean of L54 Marinablau.

I think democracy's a great idea. Short of empowered anarchy, it's the best idea we humans have come up with yet. (Well, there is lesbian porno, and mixing the psilocybin into little chocolate candies . . . .) But whenever I hear George Bush talk about bringing freedom to Iraq or spreading democracy, I laugh. To hear Bush talk about spreading democracy--he makes it sound like a social disease.

Canute

10-31-03, 08:54 AM

Very good. I just wonder if democracy does bring the greatest freedom.

hypewaders

10-31-03, 06:03 PM

I have the freedom to choose my poison. If the poison is too bitter for enough of us, we can occupy the Capitol. Nothing can stop, but the power of the people, and the power of the people (I first heard this in High school) Don't .. Stop. Don't stop
Believing

Imagine.

guthrie

11-01-03, 02:12 AM

"I just wonder if democracy does bring the greatest freedom."

YOu mean maximum individual freedom? It likely does, even now. You are still restricted in so many ways, but less than under almost any other form of gvt.

Tiassa

11-10-03, 04:36 PM

"Getting supplies to Iraqi students a major challenge (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001787199_iraqschool10.html) (Seattle Times) The smiling children swarmed the theater at Al Farouq Secondary School and grabbed at the stacks of navy shoulder bags. A gift from the U.S. government, the bags were stocked with goodies such as notebooks, rulers, geometry sets and a real treat — premium-quality No. 2 pencils, something that had been hard to come by under the previous regime.

It was a small but important victory for the U.S.-led occupation.

Delivery of the student kits is one of the more visible projects in the Bush administration's grand plan for rebuilding Iraq. Unlike more long-term efforts such as creating democratic councils, training nurses and rebuilding water systems, the bags being handed out to 1.5 million schoolchildren nationwide are a tangible sign of how the new government is making people's lives better. The article isn't all good news, but I figured to present this part in order to accommodate those who feel news of people dying is unfairly given priority over "good news".

I've found USAID's April, 2003 press release (http://www.usaid.gov/press/releases/2003/pr030411_2.html) on the initial contract award to CAII ($1m, 12 months), but I couldn't come up with the $63m contract award.

Not a problem. We'll find it if anyone needs it.

But the concern of the CAII situation is that, once again, the process is more complicated than expected because of the security situation.

Apparently, nobody figured the Iraqi reaction to Turkish license plates moving through Iraq.

However, school supplies are arriving. 58,000 chalkboards being distributed; USAID is trying to supply 1.5 million Iraqi students with basic school supplies, including the all-important pencil that works.

But Turkish troops ... Turkish truck convoys ... in Iraq ... did nobody realize this might not be a good idea until the Iraqis let them know?

All in all, it's still relatively good news amid the rest of it.

Canute

11-10-03, 04:57 PM

That's what we've got for good news? Good grief.

Tiassa

11-10-03, 07:19 PM

What? It's Number Two pencils!

Seriously, Canute, it's better than nothing. The schools are the front line against enemy recruitment. If children are at school, they're tougher to prey on. Only marginally, but we need to educate this generation as soon as possible or else they might just pick up a rifle and make our soldiers' lives (or even ours at home) that much worse. I mean, look at Africa--some of the wars are being fought mainly by children.

And besides, faulty estimations of Iraq, security, and so forth, are so common that they're not news anymore. Despite the glaring incompetence of the Bush administration's status quo, small progress is being made.

And that's enough to hope on, for now.

Canute

11-11-03, 03:59 AM

Originally posted by tiassa
What? It's Number Two pencils!

Seriously, Canute, it's better than nothing. The schools are the front line against enemy recruitment. If children are at school, they're tougher to prey on.
Not if you've got 3 million pencils to give away. ;)

Tiassa

11-11-03, 04:02 AM

That's the spirit ... :m:

spookz

11-12-03, 01:10 AM

http://truthout.org/docs_03/111203H.shtml

goofyfish

11-14-03, 10:53 AM

You know, they hate us for our freedoms. American soldiers handcuffed and firmly wrapped masking tape around an Iraqi man's mouth as they arrested him today for speaking out against occupation troops.

Asked why the man had been arrested and put into the back of a Humvee vehicle on Tahrir Square, the commanding officer told Reuters at the scene: "This man has been detained for making anti-coalition statements." (Full text here (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3533819&thesection=news&thesubsection=world)) Free speech? That duct tape sure comes in mighty handy...

:m: Peace.

Tiassa

11-15-03, 03:23 AM

US general estimate 5000 Iraqi guerillas (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/14/1068674382287.html) (The Age)

If anyone is left doubting that it's still a war, would an estimate of 5,000 insurgents be enough to convince you?

Not that many remain who are fooled. After all, as Bush himself once said, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me ... you can't get fooled again."

(That still cracks me up. Seriously, it's right there with Quayle's "happy camper" line, or the one about "bondage between a mother and child.")

But as the Vietnam rhetoric stirs its ugly head again ... I don't know. On the one hand, the thought of Bush's "fool" line has me laughing too hard to deal entirely seriously at the time, but a sobering reflection, unfortunately comes with the seemingly conflicting messages coming from the military:But in an indication of the confusion in US military intelligence, he rejected a claim by one of his senior officers on the ground, Major-General Charles Swannack, that Saddam Hussein had planned the guerilla insurgency before the war.

On Thursday, General Swannack told The Washington Post: "I believe Saddam Hussein always intended to fight an insurgency should Iraq fall."

General Swannack, responsible for operations in the so-called Sunni triangle between Baghdad, Tikrit and Ramadi, said: "That's why you see so many of these arms caches out there in significant numbers all over the country. They were planning... an insurgency."

General Abizaid dismissed this analysis, saying: "I think Saddam Hussein is one of the most incompetent military leaders in the history of the world. To give him any credit, to think that somehow or other he planned this, is absolutely beyond my comprehension."You know, I'm starting to like Abizaid. Richard Perle leaves me laughing with his mouth, but when Abizaid shoots off, it's not nearly as funny. Remember that General Abizaid was one of the first to officially call the Iraqi resistance "guerillas", in contravention of administration rhetoric.

And, hell ... somebody had to say it. Nonetheless, we should not underestimate a man who held a nation so tightly for so long. To the other:General Abizaid took issue with reports that the CIA had found growing numbers of Iraqis believed the US could be driven out of the country.

"It is clear that they all understand that they cannot militarily defeat the United States of America," he said. "Any CIA person I have spoken to, and I've spoken to all of them, they also know that we can't be defeated militarily."Obviously. But they can screw Bush politically. Make it ugly enough, and they can win without a decisive, or even remotely implied military victory.

- Wilkinson, Marian. "US generals estimate 5000 Iraqi guerillas." The Age, November 15, 2003. see http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/14/1068674382287.html

hypewaders

11-15-03, 06:38 PM

Anti-occupation combattants in Iraq are certainly far more numerous than 5,000. What is little understood in situations like this is that resisting an occupation is typically not an overtly full-time occupation: Even some of those who take money from the occupiers by day will kill them by night.

It is easy to imagine 1 in 20 individuals resisting now and henceforth in such a longsuffering, armed, militant, deteriorating and insulted country. The neocons are easily up against 1 in 20 (more than 1 million individuals) willing to fight and die against American occupation forces in Iraq. These will not fight simultaneously in a coordinated offensive, will not congregate in suspicious rally points, will not fit any particular profile, will not share the same post-occupation objectives, and will not stop resisting until the last American occupiers go home.

Meanwhile Bushevik propagandists will continue to label resistance as dead-enders, Baathist remnants, insurgents, terrorists, etc to perpetuate the lie that this is not colonialism, and this colonialist advenure has not already been rejected by Iraq and the world.

Tiassa

11-15-03, 07:39 PM

Anti-occupation combattants in Iraq are certainly far more numerous than 5,000.I missed this on publication day:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20031024/cartoon20031024.gif
Horsey on Iraq: "Translating Donald Rumsfeld's Prounouncements." October 24, 2003 (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/)

And, of course, the subject I'd rather leave to the commentators until it becomes more obvious than a suggestion: Horsey on Iraq: "It's the 1960s All Over Again." (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbytopic.asp?topic=National%20news&id=918)

Steve Benson, of the Arizona Republic (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/benson/), checks in as well: Benson on Iraq: "Iraqnam" (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/benson/gifs/110403benson328.gif)

How long 'til the flowers and LSD? "What we really need right now ...." (http://www.allspirit.co.uk/allyouneed.html)

spookz

11-16-03, 09:52 PM

heh
and in iraq, hendrix on the boombox
god! dont you just miss the smell of napalm in the morning?

hypewaders

11-16-03, 10:23 PM

Smells like disembodied teen spirit.

spookz

11-16-03, 10:32 PM

heh
excellent pun

spookz

11-19-03, 09:01 PM

Keys said he sought out the prime minister at a reception afterwards.
"I said that the blood of my son is on your hands. 'You are responsible. How do you react to that?'" Keys said.
"He looked white. I have to be fair to the man. He didn't dodge the question. He did say that he was responsible for the deaths, that he was trying to make Iraq a better place."
"I said: 'All you've done is kick the lid off a hornets' nest.'"

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=405012

real people, real lives. something these armchair warriors fail to understand.
hmm. of course! collateral damage! they do understand

Canute

11-20-03, 03:25 PM

Are there any Americans here who can report what they are hearing and seeing on their media about Bush's visit to London? I'm wondering how much you hear about over there.

spookz

11-20-03, 03:57 PM

deecee might give updates in link

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30492

15ofthe19

11-20-03, 04:35 PM

I think it's way too early to be talking about Vietnam comparisons in Iraq, but something must be mentioned about the similarities between the insurgents and Viet Cong. Soldiers who served in the early years of the Vietnam war would tell stories about how all of the villagers came out to work in their black pajamas and if we got lucky there would be one who might speak a little broken English. They never knew who was sympathetic to the VC and who wasn't . The army was paying these peasants to help clear the land and quite often after the locals were trucked away at the end of the day the soldiers supervising the work would walk the fields and find large arrows carved into the soil that pointed in the direction of the LZ's. Right under their noses they couldn't distinguish VC from innocent villager. Sounds similar to some of the stories we hear from Iraq.

hypewaders

11-20-03, 05:51 PM

"Right under their noses they couldn't distinguish VC from innocent villager. Sounds similar..." -to old food in the fridge: Eventually everyone wants it gone.

These similarities are very simple to understand: Unwarranted foreign military presence only becomes increasingly unpopular with time- always, and without exception.

It is also very simple to understand that leadership that acts in ignorance of history and human nature also becomes progressively putrid until removal, however unpleasant the necessary extraction may be.

Tiassa

11-22-03, 06:15 AM

Crystal balls: Iraqi colonial future takes the spotlight

Only recently did the major news networks and pundits trump the story that the US would "end" its occupation of Iraq in June, 2004, when the provisional Iraqi government comes to power. Certainly many of us recognized that the "end of the occupation" meant only the end of the legal status of an occupying force. Some, however, did not (http://pub208.ezboard.com/fsonsofsamhornfrm12.showMessage?topicID=705.topic) .

But even Al-Jazeerah (http://aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2003%20News%20archives/November/16%20n/US%20to%20End%20Iraq%20Occupation%20by%20June%2020 04.htm) recognizes this end of the occupation, so there's obviously no qualm with the term. It was openly acknowledged that, as Jalal Talibani expressed, "The new government will be in charge of negotiating with the occupying forces over how to regulate their presence in the country."

The New York Times website reports on November 22, 2003, that the U.S. Army is currently planning for the presence of at least 100,000 G.I.'s in Iraq until at least early 2006. While the article spoke nothing of a draft, an unnamed "senior Army officer" noted that maintaining such a force would cause the Army to "really start to feel the pain" of its overstressed roster.

The analysis is a senior-level Army perspective; any decisions about the actual size and duration of the American mission remain with the President. The Pentagon has marked the reductions to 105,000 troops, although there is confusion among the anonymous sources about whether that number would come down further. DoD sees the possibility, the Army is not accounting for that circumstance, as it is beyond the scope of the analysis. "What we're looking at doing is making some assumptions with the Marines about sustaining the type of force we're going to need," said a second unnamed officer. "As you look at this, it wouldn't seem prudent right now to plan on using a force of less than what is there now, for March '05." And, as always, ground conditions will be a primary factor.

Part of the Times article seems to be a curious discussion of which branch of what service speculates better. White House and Defense, USSC, the Joint Staff, and ultimately General Abizaid.

Sing it with me!

"I'll be home for Christmas.
But I don't know which one ...."

A long, hard slog, indeed.

And there's some discussion of the division of labor. Stephen A. Cambone, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, admitted, "We're a little short on the human side, there's no denying that, so we're in the process of adding to the number of people who may be involved."

Dr. Cambone also pointed indirectly toward the Clinton administration in admitting the lack of sufficient human intelligence capabilities in the military services.

And, to cap off what seems like an odd Times article, author Schmitt notes,One official involved that said that the internal discussions were at a preliminary stage, and that General Abizaid would make recommendations in coming weeks. "We're looking at lots of different possible arrangements," the official said.So in other words, we're all wasting column space?

Notes:

• Schmitt, Eric. "Army Is Planning for 100,000 GI's in Iraq Till 2006." New York Times, November 22, 2003. see http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/22/politics/22MILI.html?hp (Note: NY Times links disappear after a couple of weeks.)
• Al-Nahr, Naseer and Asharq Al-Awsat. "US to End Ira Occupation by June 2004." Al-Jazeerah, November 16, 2003. see http://aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2003%20News%20archives/November/16%20n/%20US%20to%20End%20Iraq%20Occupation%20by%20June%2 02004.htm (Note: I cannot make this URL launch properly. For some reason my browser is reading--inserting?--a line break where there is none.)

See Also:

• Head, Buffalo. "We're Out Of Iraq By June, 2004." Sons of Sam Horn, November 15, 2003. see http://pub208.ezboard.com/fsonsofsamhornfrm12.showMessage?topicID=705.topic

spookz

11-22-03, 11:46 PM

"We will fuck him. Do you hear me? We will fuck him. We will ruin him. Like no one has ever fucked him!"

15ofthe19

11-23-03, 12:03 AM

What is the context of that quote?

spookz

11-23-03, 12:52 AM

an associate displeased him

spookz

11-27-03, 03:54 PM

Air Force One flew into Baghdad under the cover of night with its lights darkened and windows closed.

Secrecy Made Bush Surprise Visit to Iraq Successful, Analyst Says (http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=D6F38F32-0001-481D-967380035C50DE27)

bring em on!
what mr president?
bring em on?

bush with troops in iraq
http://truthout.org/imgs.art_01/3.bush.turkey_sm.jpg

Tiassa

11-27-03, 04:41 PM

Not bad. It's something I would do if I was president. So I have to give Dubya a point for that one.

spookz

11-27-03, 04:49 PM

you assume the motivations (yours and his) to be similar? my cynicism prevents me from ascribing any altruistic reasons for the trip.

With tears clearly visible in his eyes, he said, "I was just looking for a warm meal somewhere. Thanks for inviting me to dinner."(we will win (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031127-012519-2600r))

*pukes

Tiassa

11-27-03, 05:04 PM

I'm not sure his motivations matter much to the troops. It seems a good thing to get out and see the boys and girls who are doing all the hard work for you.

I had, of course, been refraining from raising two points, generally on dignity:

• Were I president and at war, conditions would be much different. Were I president, I wouldn't have to go to Iraq to have dinner with that many of my troops. So if I found myself entangled in a legitimate war, I'm not sure the battlefield would look the same way. To that end, I admit that I would be seeking any way to be able to make it a propaganda op aimed at showing my enemy that I can walk in and stand with my troops any time I want.

• Also, the first thing that struck me, and something I've not bothered to follow up on, but wouldn't it be just classic according to our expectations of this administration if he never really went, and it was just all wagging for hometown points?

Besides, me giving Bush a point is about as significant to the overall scheme as me taking a piss in a desert: it ain't changin' nothin'.

spookz

11-27-03, 05:32 PM

I'm not sure his motivations matter much to the troops. It seems a good thing to get out and see the boys and girls who are doing all the hard work for you.

could "hard work" translate to.... "slaughter of innocents"?

*just playing fella;)

hey mr president!
what about the liberated iraqis swimming in freedom? do they not deserve an audience with their new leader? perhaps an explanation of sorts? (by gad! i sense a rant developing!)

Canute

11-28-03, 08:13 AM

Go for it.

Tiassa

11-30-03, 05:28 AM

Female Stryker brigade soldier alleges rape (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA%20Stryker%20Rape) (Seattle P-I)

What? So it happens. That's not what this is about. But there's this sound bite: "It's sad," said Staff Sgt. Theresa Spicer, a supply sergeant with the brigade headquarters. "You can't trust your own people."Now that just ain't good for morale.

I'm gonna nose around, see if anything unusually stinky turns up.°

° unusually stinky - After all the stuff we fed my daughter over Thanksgiving, expect a high standard for "unusually" stinky. Oh, hey--she's a year old today, speaking of the little stinker ... er ...

:cool:

Tiassa

11-30-03, 08:35 PM

So two-hundred Iraqis protested a Coalition-run Iraqi television network.

What was their complaint?

Unfair coverage? Too much propaganda?

Oh, no. No, no, no-no-no-no-no ....

From BBC Monitoring (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3285199.stm): The protesters - from the Shia holy cities of Najaf and Karbala - congregated outside coalition headquarters in Baghdad, accusing the Al-Iraqiyah network of offending local religious sensitivities.

They said some of the programming on Iraq's only national TV channel had "failed to take into account the sanctity of the holy month of Ramadan and was incompatible with Iraqi culture", Iranian news agency Irna said.

Apart from news and lengthy appearances by coalition officials, Al-Iraqiyah TV carries Egyptian soap operas, Arabic music videos, football matches and late night films, topped up with old programming from the pan-Arab TV channel MBC.Apparently there's a ratings war going on there. Garnering 59% of the terrestrial television market, the network places third overall with a 12% share when satellite viewership is accounted for.

Now, I've said it before and I'll say it here and now:

• It isn't "liberty" that they don't want. It isn't lifesaving technology or life-assisting innovation. It isn't our magnificent capacity for teaching and learning that Muslims don't want from the Western world. It is the crass, shallow commercialism and the reduction of human value that comes with Western society that seems to upset and alarm people of many cultures around the world when they deal with Americans.

Now, I'm not going to say that any society doesn't need a good shaking up from time to time, but this is Iraq we're discussing here.

And that reminds me: frequently I make the point that the level of debates about right and wrong taking place in America and throughout the industrialized first world, arguments typically reserved for "enlightened" societies, is actually a luxury of our social accomplishment.

So we might point to two pieces of bright news for Iraqis:

• Apparently, you can protest the authority-run television network and not get shot.
• If you've got time to worry about what your kids are seeing on television, things are doing alright.

hypewaders

11-30-03, 10:07 PM

That's the first time Tiassa ever pissed me right off. I do not dispute that coalition TV is insulting people. I disagree strongly with the apparent assertion that this insult is representative or central to the real problem that is smoldering with a potential to explode, between "the Coalition" and the various interests opposing it in so many various ways.

"It is the crass, shallow commercialism and the reduction of human value that comes with Western society that seems to upset and alarm people of many cultures around the world when they deal with Americans."

...If you've got time to worry about what your kids are seeing on television, things are doing alright.

It's not about a culture clash, and it's not alright.

If what is being done to Iraqis were done to secular Americans, the result would be the same. Although it is continually portrayed as such by ideologues, this is not a clash of religions, cultures, or societies. There is a very grave danger to us all when, during times of political stress we begin to divide ourselves ethnicly, muddy the water, and lose track of the answers.

Muslims are commonly, easily as "commercial" as are we in the US- or capitalistic, or capable of discounting human value, whatever you care to compare, as are we in Western society. The overwhelming majority of practicing Muslims are rarely offended by Western lifestyle or media. In perhaps a similar proportion as in America you find devout ______s (fill in the blank), there are those who are aghast and offended by the actions of people of other creeds, but this is a minority. The Mideast has been functionally multiethnic much much longer than Europe and the "New" World.

It is not "Western materialism" that is inflaming the Mideast. The Mideast is quite similarly materialistic. This is not struggle between socialism and capitalism. It is far more simple, and often far more deliberately obscured than that.

It's oppression, exploitation, injustice; a reimplementation of colonialism that is angering people, and specifically not Western culture: Let's not be confused. I'm not trying to defend Western culture, but rather find a little more clarity. Perhaps I've only taken the above post wrongly- Regardless, it is a very common and dangerous misconception that people are increasingly protesting, killing, suffering, murdering, disrupting, dying because their religious or cultural differences.

Greed and hubris are the real fire starters in the growing crises we are all being pulled into. Religiousity and ideologies explosively fuel the fire, but they are not the source.

I can't just take what isn't mine with impunity. Nor can the US, the Coalition, Israel, or Little Green Men. All this turmoil is not about what's on TV, not about culture, nor ethnicity, nor any other human attribute more superficial than the most basic and universal sense of justice, respect, and reciprocity. Forgetting this, or confusing our conflicts with our superficial differences, is perilous to say the least. [/rant]

nico

11-30-03, 10:38 PM

Which along with it brings western culture, I agree that Arab ppl's in the ME are super-capitalistic, look at Dubai for Christ's sake! But Hype the implementation of US will on the Iraqi ppl is representative of the west. The Western culture we like, are imposed on these ppl. Things like imposed democracy, free market economics, and arrogant American soldiers are a result of our western culture. Western culture goes FAR beyond the TV, or even what is superficial. Rather it's a frame of mind, yes Iraq was secular, yes the Arabs are consumers, yes they are capitalist's as well but they aren't us. They are a different form of those things. We are imposing our form of those things on them. Yes we are both alike, but categorically different.

hypewaders

12-01-03, 01:19 AM

It's the imposition, and not the culture that is the problem.

Canute

12-01-03, 04:18 AM

I can't just take what isn't mine with impunity. Nor can the US, the Coalition, Israel, or Little Green Men. All this turmoil is not about what's on TV, not about culture, nor ethnicity, nor any other human attribute more superficial than the most basic and universal sense of justice, respect, and reciprocity. Forgetting this, or confusing our conflicts with our superficial differences, is perilous to say the least. [/rant]
It's not all about culture, but a lot of it is. Can you imagine what Iraqi's think of Americans when they watch US TV programmes? I'm surprised it's allowed out of the country, given what it shows us of the American way of life. I wonder if ordinary Americans realise just what a profoundly dreadful picture of their country their films and TV give to the rest of the world.

Tiassa

12-01-03, 07:12 AM

"It is the crass, shallow commercialism and the reduction of human value that comes with Western society that seems to upset and alarm people of many cultures around the world when they deal with Americans."It was a risky thing for me to include the above in my post, but I never imagined the risk coming from that direction.

We might turn the clock back to September, 2001: Americans are asking "Why do they hate us?"

They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. (President George W. Bush (http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/))I always felt that speech relied too heavily on generalizations. It is not the idea of freedom that "they" hate. That we are Americans makes us the target of lethal hatred is not a natural condition; while most of the discussions around Sciforums have moved past this phase, my belief that international "fear" or "hatred" of America comes in part from our behavior and comes in part from the prices we are willing to pay in terms of our vaunted principles that makes people shudder.

And think about it: For how much of American business would crass disregard for your target market be a successful business strategy? And yet it is pretty much the rule of thumb in American television.

In February, 2002, for instance, I wrote the following response to a point about the cultural aspect:• So take it all away and let them do as they will, maybe return to their old ways, or push ahead and speed up the dollar-driven society they are heading toward?

My question to you, sir: Is there any way to modernize without becoming dollar-driven and, as we see in the US, psychotic? People who think of Islam as being anti-technological, for instance, are wrong. Muslims have, in better days, been pioneers in science and philosophy. When they look at the US and see our technological glory, they also see the highest unwed teen birth rate in the first world; an abortion rate that tops any nation's infant-mortality rate; a belligerent culture that sends troops at the drop of a dime; a nation whose people choose liars and thieves as leaders ... there are certain things about our culture Muslims don't want. (click here for the long form (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=5665&perpage=20&pagenumber=2))So what I see here, and perhaps you really do find it irritating, Hype, or perhaps I just fired on the wrong rhythm for you tonight, but ...:

(1) I find it generally insensitive to the market to be broadcasting such material at such a time.
(2) I recognize that television broadcast is one place in which American businesses do not serve their most apparent customers, e.g. the viewers. This comes from a devotion to the advertisers, who simply want ratings.
(2a) This does not mean to accuse that broadcasters have specifically chosen to broadcast materials which might irritate the audience during Ramadan specifically to accommodate advertisers, but--
(2b) --it is not out of character for American-associated broadcasting to be completely out of touch with its market when developing its agenda.
(3) Given that the United States has just staged an invasion and the people seem to be rather quite edgy, I do not perceive this basic insensitivity to the market as merely bad business or a run of the mill annoyance, but rather a serious and unnecessary aggravation of Iraqis. Considering what's at stake and what's going on, perhaps the MTV "Revolution Baghdad" can wait just a little while?

Now, as to things doing alright, that's actually a multifaceted issue. On the one hand, I defer to my sense of humor: Were either of those two pieces of bright news all that bright or happy?

Now you can be upset at my flippancy, if you like. I don't pretend it's not an insensitive way of summarizing the situation, but I was shooting for a degree of cheap sarcasm.

To give consideration to the larger issues:

• At heart, I agree it's not a culture clash. However, I do not deny that there is an underlying xenophobia that exists between American western post-Christianity and Middle-Eastern Islam and post-Islamic extremism. Just as every father wishes to provide for his daughter certain virtuous luxuries, so does every father fear certain vicious excesses. The overt cruelties of the third world are easy enough to rebuke, but what of the subtle poisons whence Americans find themselves increasingly in the care of psychologists, psychiatrists, and cartoonish adverts for mindbending drugs to cure that nagging feeling that you're not in Hollywood, which condition is also known in certain forms as "Nausea" and "The Absurd," and is often referred to by the embittered as "reality?"Although it is continually portrayed as such by ideologues, this is not a clash of religions, cultures, or societies. There is a very grave danger to us all when, during times of political stress we begin to divide ourselves ethnicly, muddy the water, and lose track of the answers.I suppose the question, then, is whether or not you rule those factors out completely?

While you'll find no direct disagreement from me, I cannot set aside religious, cultural, ideological ... I cannot set aside the identity politic, for it is so instrumental in fueling the fires. It may not be the explosive device, so to speak, but it needs to be accounted for in disarming the device.

• Certainly, Muslims are easily commercialized. However, I'm not quite sure how well the Muslim world is going to react to the "Whore Wars (http://www.fradical.com/Parents_fight_clothing_whore_wars.htm)." I'm just not sure what the Muslim-world equivalent is. Liberating women's sexuality and self-governance for reasons of decency and humanity is one thing, but marketing to prepubescent girls clothing intended to make them look more sexually attractive to sexually virile males in order to support "the economy" is just a little perverse in and of itself. Now, here we look back to the idea of cultural friction. Muslims tend to embrace the benefits of the modern world--network communications, medical advances and so forth, but who can blame them for not looking forward to a more Westernized version of social decay?

And in that context, it's scarier if it's a kind of decay that you don't understand. At least with classic Islamic-world social decay, there's a working knowledge of how to cope with it. So, looking back to the television station, it seems rather quite silly, and in light of the ratings, I think crass, to disregard the attitudes of the market, no matter how odd it might seem to its Coalition administrators.

• Yes, greed and hubris seem to be the real issues. But the identity politic is a reality that bears certain functional influence. In the case of the television station, that influence is an obvious suggestion: Don't agitate the identity politic.

In terms of protesting the television station, let me simply say that "doing alright" can be read as meaning, Hey, it wasn't a food riot! I mean, yes, I understand that television stations are a concern to some degree, but I defer to the derision with which religious groups in the United States are subject whenever they get high and mighty about somebody's television show or movie.

Picture in your mind ... or maybe not. Okay, let me seek a less nauseating example. Okay, I'll leave it. But ... in the end I've stated myself poorly. Because I don't disagree with a thing you've said. I just don't think agitating that nerve in people is a good idea right now in Iraq.

(How's this, for instance? I can't get you the transcript yet, because the current show isn't posted, but I caught some of "The Chris Matthews Show" on CNBC--I didn't even know it was on CNBC, as I generally ignore it on our local NBC affiliate's second-tier affiliate. I should watch it if I'm going to bother with Hardball at all, but that's another story. Anyway, at the end of the show, two things came up, one of which I raise here. He said, casually, "Tell me something I don't know." And the panel chimed in with hot leads they were following that may or may not become major stories. One of them said there is "talk" around the Pentagon of allowing ... now, are you ready for this? There is talk around the Pentagon of allowing the various tribes and sects to sponsor their own militias in order to fill more quickly the rosters of the Iraqi army. Now, I ... I can't imagine they're going to do that. There's just ... no dignified way. But let's pretend for a moment that they do. Now folks with tribal and sectarian identity politics are "officially" armed. Suddenly it becomes a little more important, for instance, to accommodate the needs of the market. Regardless of how we fill the Iraqi military rosters, I think it a very bad idea to agitate the sensitivities that activate identity politics.)

It's a hard split: on the one hand, it's just another example of how cultural insensitivity can increase the burdens of being human. To the other, at the end of the day, there comes a point when I put my foot down and say we can only be so sensitive to monotheism. So to me, when amid food and labor and human rights issues, if 200 Iraqis have the time and priority allowance to undertake a protest that I would call silly in the United States ... perhaps I'm just missing it in the other direction, but it seems to me that all things considered, I would be more worried about the control of war information than the morality of images shown during the holiday season.

No, it's not a sign that the occupation is going well by any means, although we can mostly agree that it could be going worse. But these protesters--this is their issue for the day? Well, at least their children are fed; and as I could be wrong in that conclusion, I admit that it is rooted in a certain human faith. However--if their children are starving and they're protesting this issue, I might be just a bit frightened of their priority scheme. Such a measure of the hole Americans have dug for themselves, Iraqis, and the rest of the world is ... chilling in its implications.

Notes:

• Bush, George W. "Address to Congress, September 20, 2001." see http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/
• Tiassa. "It's a sticky situation." Sciforums: John Walker, what do you think? February 13, 2002. see http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=5665&perpage=20&pagenumber=2
• Trebay, Guy. "Girls, Parents Fight Clothing 'Whore Wars'." New York Times, September 6, 2003. see http://www.fradical.com/Parents_fight_clothing_whore_wars.htm

hypewaders

12-01-03, 10:36 AM

I understand a little better now, but still cling to the position that we are witnessing not an incompatibility of cultures, but a struggle that began and will end irrespective of the cultural attributes of the participants and victims.

Living in Lebanon, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia, I never experienced an authentic culture war, even in wartime. It's always along lines of ethnicity and culture that things get shredded in conflict, which compounds the disaster because it is cultural variations that give the tapestry value and function. I have mourned along with Muslims, Christians, and others not only needless loss of life, of home, of beauty, of familiarity, but also and somtimes with great pain, the loss of diversity.

I know that Iraqis are far more familiar with Western culture than the converse, and that there is more affinity than revulsion in what they know about the West. I agree that it is crass and unwise to offend the modesty of people who live by a particular code, and that this is counterproductive even to the Neocons' present "cultural exchange program".

I have witnessed in everyday Mideastern life a tremendous, even unusual tolerance, and appreciation, for cultural differences, where most cultural faux-pas are reacted to like immature behaviour among reasonable adults. There is a natural inquisitiveness and wonder between people of contrasting culture in everyday peaceful encounters, where even an unexpected or even offensive aspect increases the fascination.

I have also seen people killed on sight because of their cultural appearance, and I've had moments when my appearance alone nearly got me killed. But this occurs when a non-cultural conflict erupts out of political aggression and injustice: It's the insane exception to the norm.

We don't kill each other because we're different. We kill to steal or defend. Manipulators continually reinvent ways to drag us down into race and culture war, and we keep getting fooled.

Imposers demanding without right or mandate are the dangerous offense bringing conflict. What we Westerners wear, eat, say, or put on the airwaves or internet is already so familiar, and so less relevant than what we do politically and militarily.

Cowboys can dress in big hats and high heels, and squeeze their women into corsets: That's strange, curious, funny, but not sufficiently offensive to bring conflict and devastation. The trouble is when cowboys take what isn't theirs.

Tiassa

12-04-03, 12:18 AM

How's this, for instance? I can't get you the transcript yet, because the current show isn't posted, but I caught some of "The Chris Matthews Show" on CNBC--I didn't even know it was on CNBC, as I generally ignore it on our local NBC affiliate's second-tier affiliate. I should watch it if I'm going to bother with Hardball at all, but that's another story. Anyway, at the end of the show, two things came up, one of which I raise here. He said, casually, "Tell me something I don't know." And the panel chimed in with hot leads they were following that may or may not become major stories . . . . There is talk around the Pentagon of allowing the various tribes and sects to sponsor their own militias in order to fill more quickly the rosters of the Iraqi army . . . . (Tiassa)At any rate, I wanted to update this point with the comment that this, it would appear, is what that tip has become:The U.S. civilian and military leadership in Iraq has decided to form a paramilitary unit composed of militiamen from the country's five largest political parties to identify and pursue insurgents who have eluded American troops and Iraqi police officers, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Tuesday.

The five parties will contribute a total of 750 to 850 militiamen to create a new counterterrorism battalion within the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps that would initially operate in and around Baghdad, the officials said. They said U.S. Special Forces soldiers would work with the battalion, whose operations would be overseen by the American-led military command here. (Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29753-2003Dec2.html))So this is what the tip has become, and, incidentally, that transcript has been posted:MATTHEWS: Maybe we'll have a dismissal here.

Anyway, tell me something I don't know, Campbell.

Ms. BROWN: There is a--a dangerous situation going on Iraq where Bremer is talking about allowing tribal groups, different religious factions to start their own militias as a way to get the military out faster, which many people internally believe is going to be civil war the moment we leave.

MATTHEWS: Wow. (MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/modules/chrismatthews/113003.asp?0cb=-11W109515))Campbell Brown, of NBC News, isn't the only person who finds the situation potentially dangerous. Even in the form of the current news story, which is of a smaller scale than Ms. Brown's description suggested, not everybody thinks this a good idea: "This is a very big blunder," said Ghazi Yawar, an independent council member. "We should be dissolving militias, not finding ways to legitimize them. This sends the wrong message to the Iraqi people."

U.S. officials said the battalion would be subject to rigorous conditions aimed at ensuring that the new unit does not become a collection of autonomous militias loyal to their party leaders instead of a unified commander.

"They will have to leave their political identity at the door," a senior U.S. military official said. (Washington Post)That senior official's point was reinforced by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith. USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-12-03-iraq-council_x.htm) reports:"We are willing to take people into these forces as long as when they come in they are not operating as members of these other (militia) forces," Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith said in Washington.

The militia members would be recruited as individuals, not as intact units, Feith said.

"We are not looking to preserve militias as such," Feith said.Current IGC President Abdel-Aziz al Hakim raised a point that bears consideration:The current president of the Iraqi Governing Council, Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, a Shiite Muslim, said the idea of a joint militia was a good one. He said the country's five or so individual militias have won credibility for fighting Saddam's regime for more than 20 years, and could root out that regime's remnants now.

"At this stage, we should try to make use of any force, any tribal clan and any individual that can help," he said, adding that the militias should be centrally controlled, as the Americans have stipulated. "They will have a role to play in the fight against terrorism." (USA Today)At this stage?

The words strike a note in my mind. These militias, with twenty years' credibility, could not be trusted with the $97,000,000 set aside in the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, could not be called upon to directly assist the Coalition invasion, or perhaps even help circumvent the war entirely by staging an immediate coup are now, suddenly, at this stage a good idea?

That's fine. I understand. There are ... worse ideas in the world, although I do have some reservations.

But I'm curious: At this stage? What is this stage, and what about this militia is any better an idea than entrusting any of these five or a combination thereof to liberate Iraq without a foreign invasion? On the one hand, it seems a change of direction. To the other, I'm prepared to accept any sensible demonstration that then and now are so irrelevant as to render the question dysfunctional. But I figure there's something I'm not seeing.

Nonetheless, this could turn out to be a spectacularly interesting story, for good or bad. We'll see how it develops.

Notes:

• Chandrasekaran, Rajiv. "U.S. to Form Iraqi Paramilitary Force." Washington Post, December 3, 2003; page A01. see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29753-2003Dec2.html
• Transcript. The Chris Matthews Show, MSNBC, November 29, 2003. see http://www.msnbc.com/modules/chrismatthews/113003.asp?0cb=-11W109515
• Report, Wire. "U.S., Iraq consider new militia." USA Today, December 3, 2003. see http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-12-03-iraq-council_x.htm

hypewaders

12-04-03, 08:18 AM

Everything the Bush Administration has done regarding Iraq is setting the country up for civil war. A devastating Iraqi civil war is becoming inevitable, unless internationally mandated peacekeepers are introduced very soon, and in larger numbers than the present "Coalition".

Canute

12-04-03, 08:39 AM

'At this stage' means 'now that the pit we have dug for the Iraqi people and ourselves is this deep'.

crazeeeeeem

12-04-03, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by heflores
Hypewaders, I don't understand why you are so upset about? US position is clear. US will give Iraq democracy if Iraq does not select any religious leader or instill any islamic laws and agree to whatever leader and rules the US and Israel will recommend....Untill all those detailed are worked out, all dead are to be considered collateral damage.....It's clear as mud, comeon now...

hey you conservatives out there, preferabally Jerrek, what the latest detail on enduring freedom operation in Afghanistan....Has the Afghani people started experiencing some enduring freedom yet....?

Yep. The Nazis wanted to give the Czech german's 'democracy'. The US gov wanted to give Vietname democracy. The US wanted to give Indonesia democracy.....excuse me while I barf

Tiassa

12-09-03, 08:16 AM

E-mail Threat Closes Bangladesh Iraq Mission

Bangladeshi Ambassador Sarwar Hossain Mollah and staff have closed their diplomatic mission in Iraq and relocated to Jordan after receiving an e-mail that threatened to blow up the mission, according to Reaz Rahman, the Bangladeshi Minister of Foreign Affairs.

• Gulf Daily News: "Bangladesh closes mission after threat (http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Articles.asp?Article=68723&Sn=WORL)"

And just because the damn song won't get out of my head:Everybody now bring your family down to the riverside
Look to the east to see where the fat stock hide
Behind four walls of stone the rich man sleeps
It's time we put the flame torch to their keep

Burn down the mission
If we're gonna stay alive
Watch the black smoke fly to heaven
See the red flame light the sky

Burn down the mission
Burn it down to stay alive
It's our only chance of living
Take all you need to live inside

(Bernie Taupin, "Burn Down the Mission (http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Burn-Down-The-Mission-lyrics-Elton-John/B7BCBC3F068FE1E84825687600245CCB)")The AP wire story just hit minutes ago; there's less there than the GDN version.

Tiassa

12-09-03, 03:59 PM

Three soldiers from Fort Lewis--near Tacoma, Washington--have died in an accident. Their Stryker vehicles plunged into an irrigation canal after an embankment collapsed. The Army, of course, is investigating the cause of the collapse. The accident is especially unfortunate; in addition to three dead and one injured, the "Stryker brigade"--3rd Brigade, 2nd Division--is the first unit certified to operate with the new Stryker combat vehicle, Each Stryker vehicle can carry up to 11 soldiers and is designed to operate at top speeds of more than 60 miles per hour. The Fort Lewis brigade is built around 309 Strykers, which are outfitted with high-tech computers to help scout the enemy and communicate among units.

They are intended to offer more protection than Humvees and trucks, yet be quicker — and easier to ship to battle — than tanks. Army officials are planning to spend at least $9 billion to outfit six brigades with the Strykers and see them as a possible stepping stone for the force of the future.

The Fort Lewis 3rd Brigade 2nd Division is the first to be certified for combat. The brigade and associated unit totaling some 5,000 soldiers arrived in Kuwait last month, along with the Strykers and a complement of Humvees, trucks and other vehicles. (Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001810789_webstryker08.html))Obviously, as the cause is under investigation, speculation on the specific cause would be inappropriate. However, an issue does come to mind.

Have we some engineers out there who might be able to at least say, "Don't put a 38,000 pound (18,000 kg) vehicle (http://www.global-defence.com/2003/stryker_03.htm) on this road right here"?

Because while speculation on the cause is inappropriate at this time, I must admit the combat weight of the vehicle suggests that an Iraqi infrastructure suffering the setbacks and other issues facing the nation might not be able to handle 309 vehicles of that weight tromping around an area. Whether this accident resulted from sabotage or was a freak of nature or was, in fact, the weight of the vehicles, I think the issue of whether bridges and roads can hold these vehicles is an issue that warrants consideration.

And I'm quite sure someone somewhere in the system has made those considerations. Whether or not those results received any attention in planning is its own issue.

It is, most likely, my lack of confidence in our Commander in Chief. Given the way the Bush administration treats statistics, given its dedication to its goals, and given its apparent measure of the value of human life, I can certainly imagine a small detail such as bridge capacity per one vehicle versus heavy use by 309 of the things might get overlooked, but to the other, it doesn't seem to be such aspects of the planning that haven't gone well.

In the end, I'd say that when your only casualties are accidental so far, that's a good sign if good signs must be found amid the wreckage.

I'm trying to find a way to include one of the brigade's other incidents.Friday, two soldiers still in Kuwait were wounded before dawn when a 40 mm grenade from a MK19 automatic grenade launcher apparently misfired in the weapon.

The soldiers, who have not been identified, were replacing a .50-caliber machine gun atop a Stryker vehicle with the MK19 when the accident occurred . . . .

. . . . The soldiers were part of the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry regiment. The commander of the unit, Lt. Col. Karl Reed, yesterday ordered all soldiers to undergo a refresher on safety-certification training on the .50-caliber machine gun and the MK19.

"We got lucky," he said. "We are lucky we are not burying two soldiers." Um ... yeah, people. Take care of yourselves over there.

Tiassa

12-12-03, 04:28 AM

• McCarthy, Rory. "Iraqi army walkout over pay." Guardian Unlimited, December 12, 2003. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1105382,00.html At least 300 troops from the 700-strong 1st Battalion of the New Iraqi Army walked out less than two months after completing training.

The resignations are a blow to US attempts to build up the Iraqi security forces, who will have a far greater role in running the country once America and Britain hand over power on July 1 to an Iraqi government. The troops, most of whom were recruited from the ranks of Saddam Hussein's army, complained that they were paid less than police officers: $50 (about £30) a month, against $120 a month paid to police. Officers were paid $180, which puts them on the same wage as senior police.

"They said they were not happy with their terms and conditions and they didn't obey the instructions of their commanding officers and therefore they are no longer soldiers in the 1st Battalion of the New Iraqi Army," said an official from the coalition provisional authority, the US-led administration in Baghdad.

"They felt that they should be paid more money than the police, because they felt the police could go home at night and they didn't go home at night," the official said. "That's their point of view."

The pay scales of all the security forces are under review as a result of the mass resignations. The official added that the salaries were now "hugely higher" than the typical $2 monthly wage paid to Saddam's conscript army. "We will review the salaries, but I think their remuneration package at the moment is at least very fair," he said.Well ... what to say?

Obviously, this isn't good news.

I'm inclined to post, in lieu of deeper commentary, a link to JPS' topic, "Union busting in Iraq (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=31062)," which includes an article discussing the fact that similar wages, paid to refinery workers, do not provide a living.

Tiassa

01-03-04, 06:31 AM

"Long as my arm, and five times as thick. You'll die at the end of my ...."

Whoops. Wrong bit.

Anyway, who's naming the operations these days?

"Operation Iron Grip"?

"US bombs S. Baghdad after copter crash (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040103/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716)." (Yahoo)

hypewaders

01-04-04, 11:22 AM

Someone with obvious reality issues. Maybe someday leadership will cease insulting American service people with continualshallow-minded hype (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21590) such as this.

Tiassa

01-08-04, 03:08 AM

Baghdad: 35 wounded in mortar attack

Early wire reports (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63168-2004Jan7.html) bring news that mortars fired against a U.S. logistical base in Baghdad have wounded thirty-five soldiers.An estimated six mortar rounds struck in or near Logistical Base Seitz, according to a U.S. military statement that said the wounded troops had been given first aid or been evacuated for medical treatment.

No further details were available regarding the attack or the conditions of those receiving medical treatment. "Some have already returned to duty," a U.S. military spokesman said, but he was unable to provide any figures.

The soldiers belonged to the 541st Maintenance Battalion of the 3rd Corps Support Command. If you're the bad guys, and you're in the middle of Iraq, and you're facing off against the United States of America, you just had a reasonably good day. Pentagon numbers stand at 2,431 U.S. military personnel wounded in action in Iraq as of January 7, 2004 (CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/07/sprj.irq.dav.complaint/)).

I wonder what it would be like if, on these occasions, Rumsfeld or McClellan or somebody like that ought to stand up in front of the press and read the injuries to the nation.

On a morbid note, what's the best sanitized term you can think of for missing limbs? Digital excision? Vacation of the tarsal region and surriounding environs? "Rewarded with a King Missile"?

Okay, I know that last one seems wholly inappropriate, but it actually makes sense after a fashion. But how different would this be if it wasn't "35 wounded," but rather, "Joe Smith, missing a leg; Bill Jones, deafened, fractured skull ...."?

And would Geraldo draw a diagram explaining the king missile bit?

I like sanitized language sometimes. After all, I'm not being crass. I'm simply desensitized.

dsdsds

01-08-04, 09:06 AM

U.S. Copter Goes Down in Iraq, Killing 8 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040108/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716)

also..
"At Abu Ghraib, hundreds of people waited in frustration for hours, hoping relatives would be among the first detainees that coalition officials said would be freed under a much-publicized amnesty.
However, U.S. guards said they had no orders to release anyone, and an Iraqi lawyer, Mohammed al-Tamimi, expressed doubt anyone would be freed Thursday.
"Liars! Liars! They won't let them out!" a woman screamed as she emerged from the prison. Others railed against "unjust arrests" among the thousands of people rounded up by U.S. and coalition troops and held without detention or charge. "

Things are really starting to get out of control.

hypewaders

01-08-04, 03:27 PM

Buzzflash (http://www.buzzflash.com/) has a new and provocative review (http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html) of American affairs with Iraq (about 2min Flash).

Undecided

01-08-04, 05:13 PM

A American C-5 was attacked by a portable SAM at 6,000 ft over Iraq. There seemed to be vibrations and it took out the number 4 engine.

A US Air Force C-5 Galaxy transport plane made a safe landing in Baghdad on Thursday after it apparently was hit by a surface-to-air missile, a military official said. An official told CNN it is believed the plane was struck at an altitude of about 6,000 feet. There were 63 passengers and crew members on board. No injuries were reported.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/08/sprj.irq.main/index.html

These insurgents know what they are doing, I wonder if they are Iraqi or from outside?

Also here are some pics of the DHL A-300 damage done by a SAM-7:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=466753&WxsIERv=QWlyYnVzIEEzMDBCNC0yMDMoRik%3D&WdsYXMg=REhMIENhcmdv&QtODMg=QmFnaGRhZCAtIEludGVybmF0aW9uYWwgKFNhZGRhbSB JbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsKSAoU0RBIC8gT1JCUyk%3D&ERDLTkt=SXJhcQ%3D%3D&ktODMp=Tm92ZW1iZXIgMjIsIDIwMDM%3D&BP=0&WNEb25u=U3BlZWRiaXJkOTk5&xsIERvdWdsY=T08tRExM&MgTUQtODMgKE=&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=OTc4Nw%3D%3D&NEb25uZWxs=MjAwMy0xMi0wMg%3D%3D&static=yes

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=466006&WxsIERv=QWlyYnVzIEEzMDBCNC0yMDMoRik%3D&WdsYXMg=REhMIENhcmdv&QtODMg=QmFnaGRhZCAtIEludGVybmF0aW9uYWwgKFNhZGRhbSB JbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsKSAoU0RBIC8gT1JCUyk%3D&ERDLTkt=SXJhcQ%3D%3D&ktODMp=Tm92ZW1iZXIgMjIsIDIwMDM%3D&BP=0&WNEb25u=U3BlZWRiaXJkOTk5&xsIERvdWdsY=T08tRExM&MgTUQtODMgKE=&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=NTAxMjA%3D&NEb25uZWxs=MjAwMy0xMi0wMQ%3D%3D&static=yes

Canute

01-08-04, 06:32 PM

Bush administration officials have been accused of misrepresenting the threat from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
The accusation comes in a report from the influential left-of-centre Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which opposed the war in Iraq.
It also says there was no evidence for the claim that Saddam Hussein would give such weapons to terrorists.
The US and UK cited concerns over weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq last March.
Meanwhile, a 400-strong US team of weapons disposal experts is being withdrawn from Iraq.
US Government officials confirmed reports in the New York Times that the mission was being wrapped up, but stressed that the team had finished its work.
The newspaper reported that 400 - out of a team of 1,400 - had been assigned to search for depots for missile launchers and other equipment that might be used in conjunction with weapons of mass destruction.
'Future threat'
The Carnegie Endowment said it had studied hundreds of documents and interviewed dozens of specialists for its report WMD: Evidence and Implications.
The report says there was "no convincing evidence" that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear programme.
There was greater uncertainty about its biological weapons, it continues, but the threat related to what could be developed in future rather than what Iraq actually had.
The report says it was unlikely Iraq could have destroyed, hidden or moved large amounts of chemical and biological weapons without the United States detecting some sign of activity.
And it adds: "There was no evidence to support the claim that Iraq would have transferred WMD to al-Qaeda and much evidence to counter it."
The study concludes that while the long-term threat from Iraq could not be ignored, it was being contained by a combination of UN weapons inspections, international sanctions and limited US-led military action.
"Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile programmes," it contends.
There was no evidence to support the claim that Iraq ould have transferred WMD to al-Qaeda and much evidence to counter it".

BBC America Report

The report is actually stronger than this makes it sound. BBC News in England has made it an important feature, but reports that it is not being given much publicity at home. Is this the case?

Tiassa

01-09-04, 08:59 AM

The "Kurdish headache," massive troop movements, and the United Nations

The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com) recounts events of interest across the Iraqi adventure today, including a staff report (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1767-2004Jan8.html) on friction between Kurdish representatives to the Iraq Governing Council and U.S. authorities.The United States faces the prospect of two governments inside Iraq -- one for Kurds and one for Arabs -- after so far failing to win a compromise from the Kurds on a formula to distribute political power when the U.S. occupation ends, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials.

L. Paul Bremer, the chief U.S. administrator in Iraq, twice met with the two main Kurdish leaders over the past week to urge them to back down from their demands to retain autonomy, according to U.S. officials.

But in a new setback for U.S. plans in Iraq, the Kurds have not budged. They insist on holding on to the basic political, economic and security rights they have achieved during a dozen years of being cut off from the rest of Iraq during Saddam Hussein's rule.

"They have a strong hand and they're playing it," a senior administration official said. (Wright/Sipress (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1767-2004Jan8.html))The disagreement makes all the more desperate the Bush administration push toward Iraqi self-government due at the end of June. While the administration might hope to craft other parts of the system around these troublesome issues, one Kurdish member of the IGC said that ignoring such details was tantamount to building a time bomb.

Also, the United States is seeking a UN return to Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1495-2004Jan8.html) in support of the new Transitional Administration Law set for June 30, 2004. The UN is reluctant to put personnel in harm's way without the independence to carry out its mission, and today's closed-door meetings between John Negroponte of the US, Emyr Jones Perry of the UK, and Secretary Annan will seek to reassure the United Nations of Coalition capabilities to protect UN personnel and to discuss organizational roles.

The US also hopes the UN can help head off a movement to change current plans to use caucuses to elect the first transtitional government into regional elections.They will also seek to enlist the U.N. chief's help in heading off an effort by influential Shiite Muslim leaders, including the cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, to renegotiate the plan for political transition in Iraq. The current plan calls for a series of regional caucuses to appoint a provisional government this summer. Sistani wants elections conducted to create that government.

Abdel Aziz Hakim, a Shiite political figure who served as rotating president of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council last month, asked Annan in a confidential Dec. 29 letter to send a U.N. team to Iraq to determine whether national elections could be organized before creation of a provisional government. He also appealed to Annan to help negotiate the terms for the country's political transition in the event that elections were deemed "unfeasible."

In an important concession to the United States, the U.N. chief sent Hakim a reply Thursday night, saying that elections cannot be organized in time for the establishment of the provisional government. He also declined to commit to a role in negotiating new terms for elections, but said that a more representative group of Iraqis should participate in the political process, sources familiar with the letter said. (Lynch (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1495-2004Jan8.html))Apparently this concession is not enough to satisfy some American purpose, as the Post reports that Negroponte will meet with Annan instead of a "high-level delegation" originally scheduled to include Assistant Secretaries of State Kim Holmes (International Organization Affairs) and William Burns (Near Eastern Affairs).

Essentially, it appears that the US wishes the UN to play a cheerleader role. The Post article indicates that while the Bush administration wishes to deepen the UN role, the US is not prepared to grant the international body sufficient independence to negotiate the political transition.

And all this comes as the US initiates a massive personnel transfer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1773-2004Jan8.html) in Iraq. According to the Washington Post: The Pentagon has begun a shift of troops into and out of Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan that promises to be the most challenging movement of U.S. forces in more than half a century, military officials announced yesterday . . . .

. . . . An advance team from the Army's III Corps -- whose commander, Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, is due to take operational control of the new force -- has also gone to Baghdad.

The turnover of troops, intended to substitute fresh U.S. forces for the battle-tested ones that have spent up to a year at war, poses enormous logistical burdens. Scheduled to last between now and May, the operation is unusual not only for its large scope and compressed timetable but also for its need to transport sizable numbers of troops into and out of combat zones at the same time.

"It's the biggest one we've ever had in some respects," Lt. Gen. Franklin "Buster" Hagenbeck, chief of Army personnel, said in an interview. He predicted "hiccups along the way" but added: "It's going to work." (Graham (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1773-2004Jan8.html))While plans involve airlifting many troops into Iraq, the recent attack against an Air Force C-5 reminds American troops of a nearby enemy. As one senior Army officer expressed, "The enemy gets a vote."

Over 100,000 troops each way will move into and out of Iraq; 20,000 or so troops in Kuwait will rotate out, as will 10,000 in Afghanistan. The shift will involve eight and a half of the Army's ten active-duty divisions.

Commentary: This is one of those weeks that really just sucks if you're in charge. Even in the morally relative aspects of a war, the only thing you don't look forward to more than a week in which separatists are making waves, your most necessary assistance is being stubborn, and you initiate your largest troop transition in a half-century is a day with high casualties. The Oval Office ages people. Some may not have noticed it so much with Reagan since they were already working to hide the appearance of his age, but the senior Bush showed the office, and Clinton downright crumbled under its weight insofar as his voice went, his hair went white, he gained weight, and the bags under his eyes got bigger than the two-pound bag of Chee-tos. And look at Dubya. 9/11 sucked some of the life out of him; he looks comparatively like your grandparent with a broken hip. I remember a photograph, grainy black and white--I think from Time or some such--of Bush in the Oval Office at about 4 am in the days after 9/11. The man hadn't slept for seventy-two hours or so, and was held together simply by the knowledge that, no matter how much he hated the idea, he had asked for the presidency and now it was his. He couldn't come apart right then. And that knowledge was the fragile string binding his sanity.

This week will be a bit like that. It's sure to add a few more gray hairs, crease a couple more wrinkles, and hopefully go down better than a pretzel.

Good luck, George. Don't choke. At this point, Mr. President, even I'm with you on the simple grounds that somebody has to go through it and, well ... you're it, whether we like it or not.

Notes:

• Graham, Bradley. "Huge Movement of Troops Is Underway." Washington Post, January 9, 2004; page A13. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1773-2004Jan8.html

• Lynch, Colum. "White House Wants U.N. to Return to Iraq." Washington Post, January 9, 2004; page A12. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1495-2004Jan8.html

• Wright, Robin, and Alan Sipress. "Kurds' Wariness Frustrates U.S. Efforts." Washington Post, January 9, 2004; page A13. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1767-2004Jan8.html

15ofthe19

01-09-04, 11:11 AM

The one bit of good news for the United States is that Iraq appears to have averted a crisis over the role of Islam in its new government. The Iraqi council has come up with a formula declaring that Iraq is a state with a majority Muslim community committed to the protection of minorities. Islamic law, or the Sharia, will be a source of legislation, but not the only source, Iraqis and U.S. officials say.

It's not much, but it's a critical bit of news. At least that's one step back in the right direction for this region.

Couple that with this next article and I see baby steps...baby steps. :cool:

http://csmonitor.com/2004/0108/p01s04-wome.html

hypewaders

01-09-04, 02:21 PM

These are baby steps very similar to those the Shah's regime was making right before the curtain came down on them. As the Saudi elite and their American associates wall themselves up and lose touch, a groundswell of oppposition is building all around them. Just because the sane majority of central Arabians abhor terrorism and chaos does not mean that they will not cheer the fall of the House of Sa'ud when it comes.

Remember, any journalist interviewing people in the Kingdom is reporting from an environment where political dissent is not tolerated by the government. Foreign correspondents who write anything pessimistic are banished. Domestic ones go to prison. Saudi is a society constructed for the benefit of an embattled minority elite, and even peaceful popular dissent is forbidden. Violent dissent is therefore inevitable. As things approach a boil, an unprecedented exodus of Americans and other long-term foreign residents is happening right now.

Tiassa

01-09-04, 08:09 PM

Update: Kurdish autonomy

The U.S. and the Iraq Governing Council have apparently resolved enough of the Kurdish "issue" to move forward with plans for the transition to Iraqi self-government.

The Daily Times (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_10-1-2004_pg4_1) reports:Iraq’s interim Governing Council has agreed to a federal structure for the country and to enshrining Kurdish self-rule in three northern provinces in the fundamental law that will precede national elections in late 2005, council member Judge Dara Nurradin said Friday.

The fate of three more provinces over which the Kurds have claims would be decided later, he added.

“In the fundamental law, Kurdistan will have the same legal status as it has now,” he told AFP, referring to the region that has enjoyed virtual autonomy since the end of the 1991 Gulf War . . . .

. . . . The decision came after the 25-member council’s five Kurdish members refused to budge on the issue during heated discussions. (AFP (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_10-1-2004_pg4_1))Indeed, it looks as if the Kurdish faction played a strong enough hand to win the present round, though the unresolved issues surrounding the three additional provinces claimed by the Kurds could still prove to be the "time bomb (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1767-2004Jan8.html)" that undoes a fragile federalism. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal said, of the Kurdish situation: "Regimes founded on a confessional or ethnic basis do not help bring stability and territorial integrity to a country . . . . The danger of starting on the confessional and ethnic road will consequently partition Iraq . . . ." (Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1767-2004Jan8_2.html))Whether or not this latest development is good news will only be determined in history. Despite its heavy-handedness in matters of war, the Bush administration is scoring quiet successes on the international front; it's a wonder they don't play up the Libya angle a bit more. So it seems, all-around, to Bush's favor, in light of the administration's apparent unwillingness to meet the Kurds on every point, to leave certain issues to another day. While this could prove folly for the administration, the last thing Bush needs is a bunch of Kurds in the north prepared to resist Coalition occupation. Finesse, a gentle touch--the world likes a man with a slow hand.

And speaking of slow hands, the good news from the U.N. (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=436575&section=news) so far seems to be that the administration and the Secretary-General are still on speaking terms. While talks aren't by any means going badly--"He (Annan) is more in a listening mode today," said his spokesman Fred Eckhard. "We are maintaining an open mind." (Leopold, Reuters (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=436575&section=news))--they're hardly a rush to new progress. Security and autonomy issues still separate the Coalition and the UN, and everybody seems to be looking to January 19, when more discussions are set to take place. The UK has offered Ambassador Greenstock, while the US has not yet indicated its representation.

Notes:

• Report, Wire. "Iraq's Governing Council okays Kurdish autonomy." Daily Times/AFP, January 10, 2004. See http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_10-1-2004_pg4_1
• Wright, Robin and Alan Sipress. "Kurds' Wariness Frustrates U.S. Efforts." Washington Post, January 9, 2004; page A13. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1767-2004Jan8.html
• Leopold, Evelyn. "Government discusses Iraq with U.N.'s Annan." Reuters UK, January 9, 2004. See http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=436575&section=news

Undecided

01-10-04, 01:04 PM

Here is a link for the C-5 attack:

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040108221902.tna5m386.html

On December 10, a defense official in Washington said an Air Force C-17 cargo and troop transport plane was hit by a surface-to-air missile after takeoff from Baghdad with a crew of three and 13 passengers.

On November 22, a DHL cargo plane was hit by a shoulder-fired SA-14 surface-to-air missile as it took off from Baghdad airport. DHL temporarily suspended flights into Iraq after the incident.

Three major cargo jets have been attacked sucessfully, starting to look like Afghanistan 1981 a lot more, eh boys?

hypewaders

01-15-04, 07:16 PM

US Occupation insists on Selection, not Election

As Iraqi Shia begin taking it to the streets, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3401559.stm) US administrators are stammering "not so fast", exhibiting behavior that can only be described as anti-democratic.

So in review: The US invaded Iraq to save us all from Saddam's fearsome aresenal of WMDs. Um, well, actually, it was to avenge all those mass graves, but not the ones that resulted from uprisings the US encouraged and then abandoned. No actually, we did it to promote democracy. Well, actually, um- "Next question, please".

Tiassa

01-15-04, 09:56 PM

Update: U.S. military suicides

Somewhere around Sciforums--I can't find it at present--is a short discussion about suicides by US personnel in Iraq. At any rate, to update the story:

• Loeb, Vernon. "Military Cites Elevated Rate of Suicides in Iraq." Washington Post, January 15, 2004; page A14. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18452-2004Jan14.html
Col. James K. Gilman, director of health policy and services for the Army surgeon general, said that July's spike in suicides caused "great concern" but that no obvious common factor has emerged linking the individual cases. July's high rate, he said, did not reappear.

"You don't see worsening over time," Gilman said. The findings of the mental health team sent to Iraq in September have not been publicly released, he said.

The 19 Army deaths represented a suicide rate of more than 13.5 per 100,000 troops, officials said, which is higher than the Army's average of 10.5 to 11 per 100,000 troops in recent years. The overall suicide rate in the 1.2 million-member, active duty military is about one-third lower than that of the civilian population of about the same age range, defense officials said.

One official who spoke on the condition of anonymity called suicides in Iraq "an issue of concern, not an epidemic" and said: "It certainly is not at the 'Oh, my God' stage or panic or anything. But when the Army saw the numbers start to go up, they took very swift action, and have been working very hard ever since."

The Army and the Marines have stressed suicide prevention since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, after suicides that officials say may be at least partly attributable to lengthy deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The numbers last year run counter to experience in past conflicts, when military suicides dropped during times of combat, officials said. During those conflicts, officials thought the reduction could be linked to troops' preoccupation with surviving combat, and with their removal from domestic problems and other personal pressures.

Tiassa

01-16-04, 07:22 PM

Good News? Bad News? News? "Bloody" future in Iraq

Reuters (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=440541&section=news) reports today that the United States is apparently considering making some changes to the Iraqi transition of authority, moving to quell the dissatisfaction that brought thousands to the streets of Basra this week.

The protests by Basra Shi'ites protested the US plan to transfer authority to Iraqis, demanding direct elections and supporting a leading Shi'ite cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-woiraq163628528jan16,0,3021675.story?coll=ny-worldnews-print), who, despite even UN advice that proper elections cannot be organized in time (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=436575&section=news), might issue a fatwa rejecting the American-backed government if his demands for direct elections are ignored.

A fatwa could put the occupying Coalition at odds with Iraq's Shi'ite majority. In the meantime, the transition to Iraqi authority faces disagreements over the range of Kurdish territory in the north, which issue brings protests from both Turkey and Iraqi Sunnis. The US finds itself at a delicate crossroads with seemingly similar territory in all directions; Turkish General Ilker Basbug said, at an Ankara news conference, ""If there is a federal structure in Iraq on an ethnic basis, the future will be very difficult and bloody."

In the meantime, Reuters reports:

• The US military is investigating apparently-new complaints of abuses in detainment camps, but gave no details of the accusations.
• The US estimates that it holds 9,500 detainees on Iraq security grounds, and notes that others have been detained and released since April.
• Japanese troops prepare for next month's deployment, marking an historic, difficult, and potentially politically-disastrous shift from Japanese defense security policy.
• US combat deaths: 343. Since end of major combat: 228. Casualties including non-combat deaths: 496.

Commentary:

Flip a coin; while it's important to get over the wounds of WWII, Japan's entry to the Iraqi Bush Adventure is at once impressive, puzzling, and the aftertaste is curiously bitter. A Japanese return to proactive and extrapolated security efforts° is an issue that I'm sure some could find to debate in and of itself, but I'm having some difficulty grasping the timing of the deployment. Aside from the pace of Japanese politics, I'm left wondering how it is that once international agreements and laws are smashed, once the "major combat" ends, now that the dictator is rolled up tight, and it's mostly a battle between the ideal of democracy, the idea of profit, and the complications of trying to kill occupiers ... now Japan's in? Interesting times, indeed. What strikes me about the political risk the move poses for Koizumi's governance is uncertain insofar as a choice by anti-Coalition operatives to focus on the Japanese contingent in order to strike a blow against Japanese morale and incite a political crisis could simply galvanize the Japanese fighting spirit and harden resolve.

Beyond the Japanese issue, which is merely a minor aspect, a microdrama at this point, looms a bloody future in Iraq. Can the Kurds and Sunni both be satisfied? Will old resentments toward former Sunni advantage in Iraq? And could Bush realistically have expected, at any point, that tromping into Iraq and trying to introduce "democracy" in any recognizable form in the 21st century demanded that centuries of American, colonial, and European history be compressed into ... what, an indefinite plan subject to the political pressures introduced by an American political mass that can't seem to get its collective head out of it's figurative ass?

American ideological coprophilia aside, how quickly can we convince the Iraqi people that the thing about democracy is that you get to argue about stuff without shooting each other to death over it? With Kurds solidifying their political vision in the north and al-Sistani leading the protest cry for the Shi'ites, the Sunni minority is probably quite nervous, and who can blame them? But will the issues be fought out at the ballot box or on the battlefield?Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,
Witches' mummy, maw and gulf
Of the ravined salt-sea shark,
Root of hemlock digged in' the dark,
Liver of blaspheming Jew,
Gall of goat, and slips of yew
Silvered in the moon's eclipse,
Nose of Turk and Tartar's lips,
Finger of birth-strangled babe
Ditch-delivered by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab:
Add thereto a tiger's chaudron,
For the ingredients of our cauldron.

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.

Cool it with a baboon's blood,
Then the charm is firm and good.

(Shakespeare, Macbeth)Or, to paraphrase Roger Waters, "Georgie, what have you done?"

Interesting times indeed. Best of luck to the Bush team on this; too many lives are at stake for anything else.

Notes:

° proactive and extrapolated security efforts - In addition to the politically-correct (PC), there is also the bureaucratically-suitable (BS). A cynical smile goes with the phrase, "proactive and extrapolated security efforts."

- Reference links

• Marshall, Andrew and Adam Entous. "US acts to win over top Iraqi cleric." Reuters, January 16, 2004. See http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=440541&section=news
• Associated Press. "Iraqi Shias Protest. U.S." Newsday.com, January 16, 2004. See http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-woiraq163628528jan16,0,3021675.story?coll=ny-worldnews-print
• Leopold, Evelyn. "Government discusses Iraq with U.N.'s Annan." Reuters, January 9, 2004. See http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=436575&section=news

Tiassa

01-25-04, 12:53 AM

Why Bush doesn't read newspapers, or, "When the news just sucks."

It struck me immediately, upon checking in at the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/) website that there might be good reasons for President Bush to forego newspapers and mainstream media. Some days the news must just be mind-numbing around the White House. Imagine being the poor bas-- . . . . I mean, imagine being the unfortunate person in the administration whose job it is to pay attention to mainstream news sources for the president.

So along comes the Washington Post:• "The Bush administration has produced a list of possible changes for Iraq's political transition, with some U.S. and British officials acknowledging for the first time that the original plan could even be scrapped altogether if the United States is to preempt the growing clamor for elections." (Wright and Shadid (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45188-2004Jan24.html))

• "Five U.S. soldiers and four Iraqis were killed Saturday and dozens of people were injured in three bombings in the volatile region known as the Sunni Triangle that extends north and west of the capital." (Constable (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45151-2004Jan24.html))

• "Administration officials said the atmosphere in Davos was much warmer than last year, when the United States was on the brink of invading Iraq and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was met with a barrage of complaints. But the reaction to Cheney's 58-minute appearance was tepid. The audience withheld applause during the speech and then clapped for hostile questions about the U.S. government's handling of Arab visitors and its treatment of military detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." (Allen (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45118-2004Jan24_2.html))

• "Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who urged the United Nations to endorse a preemptive war to strip Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, conceded yesterday that Saddam Hussein's government may have no longer had such munitions." (Slevin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45117-2004Jan24.html))The grand total of the major Iraq--related headlines littering the Post's A-section is grim for the administration's political sensibilities.

It would seem strange to some of us that the rising democratic tide in Iraq should be somehow unsatisfying to Bush; he wanted to bring democracy to Iraq and now the people are screaming for it. Sistani seemed to be a headache to the administration, but with the blow dealt by Chalabi's endorsement of the direct-election idea, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove & Bush, Inc.--America's foremost lawless firm--cannot ignore that the democracy they wanted is coming faster than would suit their agendas. Such is irony, albeit minor. In the end, if the Iraqis get their own state out of this, reasonably elected, well, there will be that. Bush seems to trust that Americans will remember him as a pioneer of democracy in the Middle East because he invaded Iraq; he has reason to be confident, as few will remember that democracy, in the end, had to tap Mr. Bush on the shoulder and say, "Ummm ... you can't keep ignoring me."

Nonetheless, with Democratic candidates smelling blood in the water, neither democracy in Iraq nor the rising death toll among American soldiers is healthy for the Bush junta's outlook. Five soldiers dead, and while these are the costs of war, more dead that the president doesn't have time to publicly receive are just bad news for the administration.

Meanwhile, the Vice-President goes to Davos and gives a speech that cable chatterbox news tickers described as a spirited defense of Halliburton. Regardless, I would not want to have to explain to the President that, while the atmosphere was brighter this year at Davos, the delegates gave only courtesy applause to Cheney and cheered the dissent, and that nobody's really impressed ....

And Powell ... it's his turn. Many of us who found Powell one of the reasonably likable things about the Bush junta were stunned at the downright erroneous case he stated to the UN in support of the Iraqi Bush Adventure. And he knew it then, and he knows it now. It's his turn to extricate himself from all of this, because in the end we must remember to blame George W. Bush, Jr., the forty-third President of the United States.

But come on ... if you were Bush, would you want to read today's Washington Post?

One wonders if the colony might issue a Declaration sooner or later. I won't personally dwell much on the irony until the situation develops further; I'm not sure whether it deserves a wan smile or not.

Notes:

• Allen, Mike. "Cheney Reaches Out To Iraq War Critics." Washington Post, January 25, 2004; page A17. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45118-2004Jan24.html
• Constable, Pamela. "3 Bombs Kill 5 U.S. Troops And 4 Iraqis." Washington Post, January 25, 2004; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45151-2004Jan24.html
• Slevin, Peter. "Powell Voices Doubts About Iraqi Weapons." Washington Post, January 25, 2004; page A14. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45117-2004Jan24.html
• Wright, Robin and Anthony Shadid. "Changes in U.S. Iraq Plan Explored." Washington Post, January 25, 2004; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45188-2004Jan24.html

goofyfish

02-01-04, 10:55 AM

Another 57 people that might still be alive if Bush had just stayed on the farm with his intellectual peers. IRBIL, Iraq - Two suicide bombers struck the offices of two rival Kurdish parties in near-simultaneous attacks Sunday as hundreds of Iraqis gathered to celebrate a Muslim holiday. At least 57 people were killed and more than 235 were wounded, officials said.

One Kurdish minister said the death toll could top 100.

The attack was believed to be the deadliest since an Aug. 29 car bombing in the holy city of Najaf killed Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim and more than 100 others.But don`t worry, our government has decided not to count dead brown people.
What’s another 50, 60, 100? Move along, people, there's nothing to read here.

Look! Walmart is having a sale!

:m: Peace.

Tiassa

02-14-04, 09:21 AM

Battle at Fallujah kills 21, frees prisoners

The Associated Press (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41565-2004Feb14.html) reports that guerillas have succeeded in an attack against a police station in Fallujah. 21 are reported dead, and 33 wounded. The attack is the second in a week; two days prior, gunmen struck during a visit by U.S. General Abizaid, who escaped unharmed.

Although the attackers freed 75 prisoners from the facility, police Lt. Col. Jalal Sabri said none were suspected in the effort against the Coalition occupation.

Furthermore, another disturbing note arises from the attack:One shop owner across the street from the security compound said he and his neighbors had been told by guerrillas not to open that morning because an attack was imminent . . . .

. . . . The brazen, bloody battle - on the heels of the Abizaid attack - raised questions about the preparedness of some Iraqi police and defense units to take on security duties as the U.S. administration wants. After the Thursday attack, Abizaid said of the Iraqi civil defense unit in Fallujah: "Obviously they are not fully trained. They're not ready." . . . .

. . . . In Fallujah, 35 miles west of Baghdad, no American forces could be seen in Saturday's battle. The U.S. command has said American troops could be quickly dispatched to trouble spots to help Iraqi forces as America hands over security to the Iraqis.

Lt. Col. Sabri said 17 people were killed - almost all police - along with four attackers, two of whom he said carried a Lebanese passports. He said he believed all the attackers were non-Iraqis . . . . (Fam (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41565-2004Feb14.html))So, just for the record, the score here appears to be:

• 17 "good guys" killed
• 4 insurgents killed
• 33 people injured (25 police)
• None of the insurgents Iraqis; 2 w/Lebanese passports
• "I suspect they were Arabs or Syrians or belonged to al-Qaida. They want to create instability and chaos." (Lt. Col. Jalal Sabri)
• "It sounded like gibberish to me. It wasn't Arabic." (Qais Jameel, wounded police officer, on language of attackers.)
• Someone somewhere may have had advance notice. That someone didn't tell anyone who did anything about it.

Sounds like a rough morning. Most disturbing to me is that some may have known the attack was coming and said nothing. This is a chilling sign, and hopefully that cold ripple is an overstatement of reality.

And it's also worth wondering how many of those murderers and thieves who weren't suspects in the insurgency might choose to offer their services against the Coalition and police.

In other news, Fam reports of anti-Coalition protests in Sulaimaniyah, 3 armed men wounded in Suwayrah; their truck was wired with a bomb. UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi left Iraq Friday after looking into the possibility of a national election; verdict: doubtful.

Notes:

• Fam, Mariam. "21 Killed, Prisoners Freed in Iraqi Raid." Associated Press, February 14, 2004. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41565-2004Feb14.html

Tiassa

03-17-04, 05:37 PM

The face of terrorism: Deadly blast in Baghdad

In an act that seems far-removed from warfare and best reserved to the terrorist class, a suspected car bomb has destroyed a Baghdad hotel and nearby houses. The toll stands at 30 dead, with 50 injuries. The BBC reports that the Mount Lebanon Hotel would have been a "soft target" for terrorists, and reporter Caroline Hawley says she dove for cover at the magnitude of the blast, despite being a kilometer away.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39902000/jpg/_39902356_remains-ap-203body.jpg
Pfc. Heath Balick (US Army): ". . . no rocket could cause that amount of damage."

The Washington Post reports that the blast left an eight-by-ten foot hole in the street; Al-Jazeerah describes a "huge crater around 20 feet across and 10 feet deep."

A late report from the Reuters wire notes that Iraqis on the scene argued that a missile hit the building and Deputy Iraqi Interior Minister Kadhim blamed a guerilla rocket attack, though a senior Iraqi policeman told news organizations that all evidence suggests a car bomb. Additionally, Col. Ralph Paker told CNN it was most likely one-thousand pounds of plastic explosives and artillery shells mixed in.

An American military official has reportedly stated that there are no western casualties in this hotel, which the BBC describes as mainly used by Iraqis and other Arabs. The Washington Post reports that Europeans and Americans were staying at the Mount Lebanon.

The live TV update

I digress here and refer to the broadcasts of CNN and MSNBC.

Do not channel surf during these occasions. On CNN, a reporter described the scene as we watched recovery work taking place; she was looking at the wreckage of a house, at part of a ceiling fan, bits of furniture, and, poignantly, a cane. The report continued, then CNN went to commercial. I flipped over to MSNBC, where James Hattori reported from the same site. A studio anchor asked there was anyone left to find; I winced in anticipation of the repeat of CNN's report, that a dead child may remain to be found in the wreckage. But Hattori spoke of the removal of an elderly man. I guess I know whose cane it was.

Channel surfing can be bad for one's state of mind.

Additionally, I now correct the above; while "most" of the victims are Iraqi or Arab, two telecom workers from Britain, reportedly in the employ of an Egyptian cellular firm, are unaccounted for.

The face of terror

The way I see it, when you go to war, you go to war. But this is absurd. This was simply not called for. A soft-target, agit-prop slap in the face running up to the anniversary of the invasion is exactly the sorry excuse for warfare we can expect from any number of desperate organizations bent on frightening communities into chaos. But I reflected, upon listening to an Iraqi calmly explain to CNN that many Iraqis think every bomb is an American bomb, that this kind of terrorism actually has a chance of achieving certain success:

• The idea was, in part, to "take the fight to them." War is fine, but Not In My Backyard. (Well ... the obvious counterpoint comes to mind.)
• What was that, Mr. President? "Bring 'em on?" (Are you happy, Mr. President?)

Whether conspiratorial or merely a blame game, Iraqis might just bear a few more concerns than Americans with the idea that, well, the Coalition did invite this. Welcome to Iraq. Someone came. Someone saw. Someone brought it on and blew up a hotel and some houses. And they were invited to do so.

This was not an act of resistance. This was not in-bounds according to any sense of warfare. This, we can pretty much agree, is the face of terrorism.

Indictment

There is the difference between the terrorism of warfare in general and the terrorism that destroyed the Mount Lebanon Hotel in Baghdad. But it is important for me to take a moment to reiterate the potential efficacy of this brand of atrocity. Whoever packed a vehicle with explosives and delivered it to its destination and caused its detonation is responsible for this terrorism.

But this terrorism occurred in Baghdad because the United States in particular, and the Coalition by default--as the Spanish outrage reminds--has asked that it should.

IGC spokesman Hamid el-Kafai blamed the attack on al-Qaeda, and called for international help to defeat the "enemies of humanity." And how many of those enemies of humanity have come to Iraq to play because they were invited by Bush-league bravado? This is a question that will play delicately among Iraqis, and with General Abizaid acknowledging what seems obvious--that we can expect an increase in violence as the June 30 deadline approaches for the transition of Iraqi governing authority--the United States and its allies need to bear in mind that many Iraqis have already indicted them as guilty parties in the destruction.

The Iraqis know who the bad guys are. And they also know that many of the bad guys are there strictly because of the U.S. invasion. Iraqis are happy to be liberated; they just hope to live to enjoy it.

How quick are the survey firms over there? Do we have any numbers yet? (Okay, such humor is perhaps distasteful at a time like this.)

Disclaimer

Actually, you know what? I can't keep up with the information at this point. Get the latest from whatever news source you use. I've said my two cents beyond that.

• Al-Jazeerah. "30 Killed, 50 Injured in Huge Blast at Mount Lebanon Hotel in Baghdad." March 17, 2004. See http://www.aljazeerah.info/18%20n/30%20Killed,%2050%20Injured%20in%20a%20Huge%20Blas t%20at%20Mount%20Lebanon%20Hotel%20in%20Baghdad.ht m
• BBC. "Blast rips through Baghdad hotel." March 17, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3521200.stm
• Reuters UK. "Baghdad hotel blast kills 25." March 17, 2004. See http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=478037&section=news
• Washington Post. "Bomb Blast Destroys Central Baghdad Hotel." March 17, 2004. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1234-2004Mar17.html

(Note: Gotta love those Al-Jazeerah links.)

goofyfish

03-17-04, 07:50 PM

Tiassa, you've got it all wrong. Rumsfeld will pop out any time now to
explain to you how this is just another sign of how we are succeeding!

:m: Peace.

Tiassa

03-18-04, 02:11 AM

US holds out on Halliburton payment

There's trouble a-brewin' at Camp Crony as the US Army changes the deal in the wake of ongoing criminal investigations into Halliburton subsidiary KBR's alleged overcharging of the Pentagon for Iraq-related operations.

The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3521690.stm) reports that the Army will withhold 15% of its payments to Halliburton for services rendered in Iraq until auditing of expenses is complete.The Pentagon is to withhold 15% of the payments it owes controversial firm Halliburton for the company's supply of meals to US troops in Iraq.

A Pentagon spokeswoman said the 15% - some $300m (£165m) - will not be paid until auditors have established the actual final cost of the food.

It comes as US criminal investigations continue into whether Halliburton has overcharged the Pentagon for the meals. (BBC)Meanwhile, Bloomberg (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a4DArlOC9VVs&refer=top_world_news) reports that Halliburton today announced that the Army will not withhold certain outstanding payments:Halliburton Co., the world's largest oilfield-services provider, said the U.S. Army opted to pay all of past invoices for logistics work in Iraq rather than withhold part of the money during audits of the bills.

Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root unit believes such withholding shouldn't be required under its $9.4 billion Army logistics contract and is "working through" the issue with the government, the Houston-based company said in a statement.

Starting April 1, the Army will impose the 15 percent withholding on new Halliburton billings, as normally required during its auditing process, said Lieutenant Colonel Rose-Ann Lynch, a Pentagon spokeswoman. The move might mean holding back up to $300 million over the next six months, she said.

Halliburton has spent more than $1.2 billion in Iraq for which it hasn't yet been reimbursed, Kellogg Brown & Root Chief Executive Randy Harl said in the statement. Any amount that the government withholds from Halliburton will be withheld from subcontractors, the company said. I agree with KBR inasmuch as withholding shouldn't be required, but such is the way of the American businessman that the cookie jar must be guarded at all times.

• BBC News. "US to withhold Halliburton bills." March 17, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3521690.stm
• Bloomberg. " Halliburton Says Army Won't Withhold From Past Bills (Update2)." March 17, 2004. See http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a4DArlOC9VVs&refer=top_world_news

Tiassa

03-18-04, 03:55 PM

Update: Baghdad blast, explosion in Basra; mortars near the border; al-Zarawhi surrounded in Pakistan

News from the BBC:

Baghdad blast

Once in a while I wonder if something's an editorial issue. But no, as I look around, it seems that the death toll from the Mount Lebanon Hotel bombing has been revised downward, and dramatically. With the death toll running as high as thirty yesterday, the number has dropped to seven--six Iraqis and one British--with forty-five injured.

This is one of a few occasions in which death tolls from hits against Coalition authority and Iraqi people have been revised downward in the aftermath; the bankroll firefight in which Coalition (US) troops were accused of firing indiscriminately into the city, stands out in my mind, as well.

On the one hand, I have a problem with the idea that these witnesses the news media find are so gravely wrong. One Iraqi said he saw, "many, many people killed," around the Mount Lebanon Hotel. He said he saw dead children. To the other, I think of a scud-stud reporter for the BBC in Liberia turning his back to the camera and heaving into the street after he came upon the sight of what looked like the first dozen or so bodies stacked up outside the US Embassy as a desperate appeal in Monrovia. Seeing seven dead people, I suppose, could certainly scar one into thinking they had seen "many, many" bodies littering the street.

Nonetheless, a downward revision is a positive thing. One cannot let their annoyance at the Bush administration--which has proven itself both unreliable and corrupting of the flow of information--minimize the loss of seven human lives to a 450-pound car bomb.

Violence continues

Additionally, a car bomb in Basra has killed four people, though one of the dead may be the bomber. The BBC has few details.

Mortar attacks near the Syrian border have claimed the lives of three American soldiers.

An attack against a television station in Baquba has claimed thee civilian lives.

Meanwhile, in South Waziristan

A measure of good news may come from Pakistan, where President Musharraf has announced his troops have surrounded Ayman al-Zarawhi, believed to be al-Qaeda's number-two man in Egypt. The government has ordered residents in and around the South Waziristan village of Wana to move away from the area and seek shelter in the mosques. There are reports of minor combat occurring; the BBC reports that "thousands of troops" with helicopter support have come under fire from militants.

al Zarawhi has ties to the terrorist group Islamic Jihad, and is described as the "architect" of al-Qaeda's ideology, and also is believed to be Osama bin Laden's "spiritual advisor." Fifteen Pakistanis and twenty-four militants are reported dead in "fierce clashes" taking place in the region earlier this week.

Not all the news from the colonies is bad; and in light of recent weapons-technology issues, Musharraf would certainly enjoy the elevated prestige that would come with bagging al Zarawhi.

• BBC News. "Iraq violence claims more lives." March 18, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3523764.stm
• BBC News. "Troops ring 'top al-Qaeda figure'." March 18, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3525000.stm

Tiassa

03-18-04, 08:18 PM

Well ... Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski says his country was misled about the alleged threat from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

However he also defended the decision to go to war in Iraq and said he had no plans to withdraw Polish soldiers . . . .

. . . . "Of course I feel a certain discomfort that we were misled about weapons of mass destruction," Mr Kwasniewski told journalists on Thursday . . . .

. . . . "Iraq today, without Saddam Hussein, is a much better place than Iraq with Saddam Hussein," the Polish president said . . . .

. . . . Mr Kwasniewski did not say why he had chosen to make his comments now . . . .

. . . . Some polls suggest public support for Poland's role in Iraq has declined to 35%. (BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3525356.stm))On the one hand, I heard the Morroccan monkeys never made it to the war; perhaps they're glad to not be around for the occupation--they're not as good, I hear, with IED's. To more serious considerations, it must be difficult to be in Poland's position. If the thought, "Maybe it'll be the Brits next," comes up, it's a guilty comfort.

It's not exactly a ringing endorsement--not the cover blurb Bush might hope for--but the minor concession to honesty makes it a genuine one.

• BBC News. "Poland was 'misled' over Iraq WMD." March 18, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3525356.stm

hypewaders

03-18-04, 08:26 PM

Re: Baghdad Blast

Tiassa: "Nonetheless, a downward revision is a positive thing."
Fewer deaths are certainly a positive thing, But: Manipulating civilian death tolls is not. In a country where the occupying power forbids medical establishments from tallying civilian deaths, and where freedom of press does not exist, scepticism over how these statistics are handled by occupation forces and their Iraqi collaborators is warranted.

Tiassa

03-18-04, 08:44 PM

Agreed. I just am so repulsed by the notion of--and I tread cautiously here--"wishing more people were dead" in order to find vindication in my opposition to this war that I prefer to demonstratively slink away whenever I come near it.

Part of it may come from the idea that seven or twenty-seven, or twenty-seven hundred forty-nine is just not a difference I like to make unless it's absolutely necessary. It's all too many. Had I my druthers, I'd hope the administration is being truthful; the alternative seems to be that four times that many are dead, and ....

Something like that.

I mean ... we all know .... In the meantime, I have this faith in humanity--I don't think the modern age can keep that kind of secret. Someday we'll hear something closer to accurate numbers. And to some of us the magnitude will be shocking in and of itself, but we won't be surprised.

The only real curiosity on that count is how long it will take. Depending on the mess Bush leaves Kerry, the GOP could press to haul that information into the open by the end of Kerry's first term in an attempt to unseat him in the wake of a difficult Iraqi operation.

(Just a side consideration: I wonder how significant people will find it if Kerry hasn't managed to fully extricate the US from the Iraqi mess by the end of his first term. People make much of the slightest whiff of irony.)

hypewaders

03-18-04, 09:56 PM

Sadly, from what I have learned about Kerry, his maneuverability and vision for defusing the very ominous situation in the mideast is very small. His campaign website (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/foreignpolicy/) indicates how boxed-in his thinking and platform are.

On Israel:
"John Kerry believes that history and our own best interests demand that the United States maintain a steady policy of friendship and support for Israel. As the only true democracy in the Middle East, Israel is our most important ally, and a critical partner in the quest for peace and security in this troubled region."

On Iraq:
"Winning the peace in Iraq is critical to us because it’s going to have a profound impact on the war on terrorism... We literally cannot allow ourselves to fail."

On Afghanistan:
“We must drain the swamps of terrorists,” he said, “but you don’t have a prayer of doing so if you leave the sources to gather and flow again.”

Absent any coherent exit strategy, Kerry substitutes "internationalising" our quagmires, and we can already surmise that this will be unsuccessful. Kerry may find himself the engineer of a runaway train, without a clue as to how to slow it, much less turn it around.

dsdsds

03-18-04, 10:25 PM

How depressing it is to hear that. With Americans approval of Bush is still what I consider extremely high, any opposition has to tread too carefully for any chance at winning. There really is no hope. We, You will get the government and the consequences we, you deserve.

hypewaders

03-18-04, 10:39 PM

It is very sad. The Bush administration encouraged the USA's ugliest misconceptions and fears of the world outside, and set disasters in motion that will persist for many years. Because the American majority has yet to confront its illusions about the world, and America's place in it, any significant alternative in leadership is uncomfortable, and hence unelectable. I am hoping that my countrymen will request new leadership, if not because they have a miracle-working alternative, at least to repudiate the reckless zealots who have set the world on a very dangerous course.

Undecided

03-19-04, 07:29 PM

It looks like anti-Iraq contagen is started to spread outside of Spain in some pretty ominous ways:

SEOUL, South Korea (CNN) -- South Korea has canceled plans to send 3,000 troops to the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk due to security concerns, and is working with the United States to decide on a more suitable location for its troops to be deployed.
---------------------
The statement said the United States and South Korea "share the view" of selecting a new region for the South Korean troops to be deployed.

The 3,000 troops were to be deployed in early April. About 600 South Korean troops are already in Iraq.

When the additional troops arrive, South Korea will have the third largest contingent of troops in Iraq, behind the United States and Britain.

Obviously the "progress" being made in Iraq seems to be a twisted new item. We hardly see what is happening in Iraq outside of Baghdad and we are in ignorant oblivion about regions like Kirkuk. I think we should start watching those important regions like the north and the south a little bit more.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/03/18/korea.iraq.troop/index.html

Also some good news for Bush, a silver lining story:

WARSAW, Poland -- Poland's president is reported to have told U.S. President George W. Bush his country's troops will stay in Iraq "as long as needed ... plus one day longer."
Aleksander Kwasniewski made the promise in a phone call by Bush, a day after saying he was "misled" about the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and that Polish troops could leave Iraq months earlier than envisaged.

It’s starting to get interesting.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/19/poland.iraq/index.html

DeeCee

03-21-04, 12:40 AM

Some say this has been a media war.
So what happens when you lose the media?

Iraqi Journalists Rebuke Powell Over Killings (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=4607406)

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi journalists gave Secretary of State Colin Powell a hostile reception in Baghdad on Friday (19th), walking out of his news conference in protest at the killing of two of their colleagues by U.S. troops.

I wonder what sort of copy those boys are pushing on the long-suffering citizens of Baghdad?

And to update Tiassas post.

100 detained in 'al-Qaeda' siege (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3552209.stm)

A senior al-Qaeda figure is reported to be among those cornered.
But Pakistani officials have dismissed speculation that it is Osama Bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, regarded as the brains behind al-Qaeda.
The commander of the Pakistani operation, Gen Saftar Hussein, said intercepted telephone conversations suggested the principal target was an Uzbek or Chechen militant commander, who might have fled the area.
He said a bullet-proof vehicle, flanked by two cars, had raced through a line of troops on Tuesday, and its whereabouts was now unknown.

"It wasn't him it was someone else and err no we didn't catch him"
No luck there then.

I hear Colin Powell has been sent to cosy up to the Pakistanis, much to India's annoyance. Strange how a country that openly admits its head Nuke researcher has sold designs to Iran NK et al (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3481499.stm) can suddenly become a family favourite. It's as if catching OBL is the only thing that matters.

Colin Powell says Washington will elevate its military ties with Pakistan, making it a major ally outside of Nato. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3522174.stm)

Election year I guess
Dee Cee

Tiassa

03-21-04, 01:27 AM

Random Comment

Not that I intend to be oppositional, cantankerous, or otherwise. Rather, it strikes me:
Absent any coherent exit strategy, Kerry substitutes "internationalising" our quagmires, and we can already surmise that this will be unsuccessful.Not that I am in any way personally annoyed, but there is something these days about the phrase, "exit strategy," that sort of bugs me. Hype, I pick no argument with your argument, but rather it's this pipe hit while reading your post that brings the issue to mind.

The widespread use of the phrase exit strategy seems to be a case of anti-identification. We only talk about it in its absence. Otherwise, an exit strategy is not an independent thing in and of itself.

So just as a random note to those who recall the Orwell (1984) references in the wake of 9/11, the USA-PATRIOT Act, and the declaration of a War on Terror--all of which tended toward the idea of perpetual warfare:

• Exit Strategy is only an issue of discussion in its absence; otherwise it is an essential part of your warfare strategy.

Now, I'm obviously not a military historian, professional soldier, or otherwise qualified to make a full-blown technical judgment about certain aspects of war, but I feel very confident in saying that war plans usually involve delivering troops, executing a mission, and returning the troops home at some point, at the very least.

The lack of an exit strategy is perhaps a persuasive suggestion of "perpetual warfare," but I think more telling--perhaps, even, a subtle clincher--is that we have to discuss a phrase like exit strategy in the first place.

The idea of the exit strategy existing independently of the warfare plan itself is essential to a perpetual war.

It is much harder to discuss the merits of an exit strategy when an exit strategy is taken for granted to be part of the war plan itself. The only way the Bush administration makes any real sense is on an impressively abstract scale; in which case, Karl Rove is perhaps the most brilliant sinister genius in decades.

Remember, we're not just fighting to get the guys who bombed the World Trade Center. We're not just fighting to sack Iraq. Dubya, with his PNAC policy, is laying the foundations for the future of perpetual warfare. Not only is he conducting and commanding the opening rounds of the New Terror, but also is framing the discussion for future generations who will not learn to think of a war with no end in sight as an aberration.

The impact of the "exit strategy" discussion will be felt and heard in about twenty years at the latest. You'll see radically-different priorities among voters who consider the ongoing perpetual war a given, and not some strange beast invented for the most arcane of follies.

Just some random thoughts. I think it's time to remove "exit strategy" from the lexicon and instead of saying that Bush lacks an exit strategy we ought to just say what it really means: Bush, Rumsfeld, and his military planners have either botched what should have been a neat little war or else have laid another stone upon which our New American Beast slouches toward Bethlehem.

We're doing Palpatine a favor by entertaining the failure to devise an "exit strategy." Did any of us believe that this was going to be a war with classic objectives? Hardly. We were told to expect something different. The failure to account for the return of deployed troops, to prepare for the end of the war, may well be intentional--this surprises few. But when we stop and think about what it means, it seems rather more significant than the new conservative PC ("exit strategy") would consider.

Bush did not plan for this war to end. I don't think he really expected it to, whether he got four years or eight.

Welcome to the New American Century.

DeeCee

03-21-04, 01:42 AM

Or for those with short attention spans..

"Empires don't have exit stategies"

Dee Cee

Eluminate

03-21-04, 03:12 AM

EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO WALK AROUND NAKED IF THEY WISH , THEY ARE JUST ESCORTING THOSE GUYS SO THAT THEY COULD EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO WALKR AROUND NAKEd

hypewaders

03-21-04, 10:55 AM

A US empire, and the corresponding perpetual war in the Mideast, will inevitably produce too many fresh graves, and too many amputee and deranged veterans walking around the streets of the USA to remain politically defensible. Support is already beginning to unravel now, and it is unlikely that Americans will stomach what the British did on the last attempt, when they lost 30,000 troops (http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=7610) in Iraq. I agree that "exit strategy" is a ridiculous term, in that the neoconservatives had no coherent occupation strategy, much less exit strategy. But exit they will.

Every person who is informed and politically active to end the war is part of the real exit strategy. As for government planning, the inevitable US departure from the corpse of Iraq will involve less strategy than tactics, as in covering fire for evacuation, until some Saigonesque scene is recorded as the last GI boot boards the last military transport out of Baghdad.

Undecided

03-21-04, 05:42 PM

hypewaders

You are assuming that the US will stay democratic in the long run. The way I see it the more and more the neo-cons stay in power, the fascist it will get. The relentless fear emanating from the mouths and actions of this administration speak of holocausts and genocide against the American ppl. If you notice there are country songs about American soldiers and how brave they are. Sadly this bit of propaganda belies the truth. The less and less rights you as a citizen have so that notion of "political accountability" simply dissipates into the far off land of history. Is this the freedom that those soldiers are fighting for? I want to read the new book from Richard Perle and his college Mr. David Frum who wrote that axis of evil speech (can you believe he is Canadian!). It becomes fairly obviously to the observer that you as a citizen of the US are becoming more and more like a citizen of the USSR. Sure I would lambasted by conservatives who just don't want to hear it, but it's sadly true. Already you have men in power in Washington who like the communists of the 30's want, to change the world, and will stop at nothing (neo-consevativism did stem out of Trotskyism). We the proletariat class are ignorant we don't know what is best for us, and those heathens you invade know less. For it is the political reality of today that you live in an America more isolated then ever, in a country that makes up allies, and when allies drop like flies they are considered enemies. According to Perle France is an enemy of the US! The same country that secured American victory in her war of independence and in return had guaranteed her own downfall. It was America who saved France in WWII. These two greatest of allies fighting for the same things have now grown further apart, into creating a new bi-polar world. It is America's unfortunate reality that she is for as long as the PNAC gangs stays around, will be doomed into a dictatorship of power.

hypewaders

03-21-04, 06:26 PM

I agree that what you have described is a real threat, and it is conceivable that attacks on America may be considered in some circles to be worth provoking, in order to consolidate power.

But I'm still holding out hope. The Busheviks have shown considerable clumsiness, are displaying growing gaps of credibility, and even in an election year there is visible division in the Republican ranks. From the initial self-righteous knee-jerk of nationalistic fervor, to the delayed and filtered public examination of events and their meaning, the totality of American response to terrorism is not yet finalized. I'm still hoping that just maybe we're getting smarter.

Bush administration policy has been extremely provocative of further attacks, maybe even intentionally so, from a cynical standpoint. But next time around the shock may not last as long (assuming the scale of attacks is not larger), and next time public scrutiny of government may be more readily applied, more focused, and more sustained. America's biggest political scandals could in such a sense become her greatest strength, whereby the really big intrigues and hidden agendas carry high risk of being scandalized. WHile the future is uncertain, and not a little frightening for people who value openness and freedom, it's also a very tricky era for the last gigantic colonialist dinosaurs still roaming the earth.

Undecided

03-21-04, 08:17 PM

I think that Americans have given up on the vital checks and balances that the US has thrived off on for so long. All three levels of the federal gov't are republican, which by nature is not going to be overtly critical of the Bush administration. I think the Neo-Cons have done a very good job of convincing Joe Shmoo out there that America is threatened by enemies large and small. I was watching a Canadian program called hot type, and an author of An End to Evil being David Frum. Tried to defend his claims that America should combat terrorism because if it doesn’t a holocaust and genocide will befall the American ppl. This is the scare tactics that made the US go into Iraq. Its simple the public bought the premises of the war when many ppl were questioning it. Ppl in the US call these ppl peaceniks, of freaks but history has proven them to be correct. But Americans have such a high esteem for their nation (so they should) but nationalism should never blind the populous to the obvious. It’s a sad state of affairs when one looks at the US from the outside. You notice how tame the US media is, how uncritical of the administration it is. I don’t necessarily blame the American ppl for their blissful ignorance. It has been their gov’t and media which has short changed them of reality. Although I did not read the book as of yet, I will soon enough. An End to Evil is really a collection of thoughts on what the Neo-Con gods want:

Law-abiding citizens value privacy. Terrorists require invisibility. The two are not the same, and they should not be confused. (pg 71)
---------------------------------------------------
We may be so eager to protect the right to dissent that we lose sight of the difference between dissent and subversion... (pg 74)
-------------------------------------------------
But even a nation of laws must understand the limits of legalism. Between 1861 and 1865, the government of the United States took tens of thousands of American citizens prisoner and detained them for years without letting any one of them see a lawyer. (pg 229)
---------------------------------------------------
People who live next door to a storefront mosque in Brooklyn, New York, will almost certainly observe more things of interest to counterterrorism officials than will people who live next door to a Christian Science church in Brookline, Massachusetts. (pg 79)
-------------------------------------------
The lax multiculturalism that urges Americans to accept the unacceptable from their fellow citizens is one of this nation's greatest vulnerabilities in the war on terror. (pg 93)
-------------------------------------------
The administration's solicitude for Muslim sensitivities might well have been interpreted by many Muslims as a vindication of bin Laden's methods. (pg 149)

And it goes on and on and on:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5490.htm

To all Americans, it may seem pretentious of me to say this but you must get these men out of power. These men are some of the most powerful men in Washington; do you want them to rule you for much longer? This is nothing short of fascism at its best, nationalism, fear, xenophobia, in this case islamophobia, and imperialism. Your rights are being diminished and it seems very little effort is being done to combat this. Of course the US should deal with terrorism effectively but it must be done within what makes America great, with civil liberties, international alliances, and American popularity overseas. The masse ignorance of American society about the world around them and how it works do these men many favors. It's harsh criticism but it has been proven time and again. American democracy is at stake, and your way of life is as well, the American ppl are capable of doing this and the American ppl alone you are the strongest army in the world.

Tiassa

03-22-04, 07:46 AM

I hate it when this happens.

A morbid smile tugs at my lips. Apparently two Finnish businessmen have been shot dead in Baghdad, and it is neither death nor Finn jokes that makes me want to laugh so badly. It's the testament to the fact that modern society no longer has the time to make sense. From the BBC:Details of the attack on the Finnish businessmen emerged from the Finnish capital, Helsinki.

"I can confirm that two Finnish businessmen were shot and died in Baghdad this morning, but at this moment we have no further details," Rolf Johansson, a spokesman for the foreign ministry, said.That's just rushed writing with minimal copy editing.

F@ck the BBC. F@ck them right in the ear for that one.

• BBC. "Finnish businessmn shot in Iraq." March 22, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3556223.stm

hypewaders

03-22-04, 09:28 AM

In their defense, the press is under US restrictions in Iraq, and chaos is not. Imagine enduring the ordeal of getting into Iraq with BBC credentials, spending a few days rushing toward firefights, and asking corpses in dangerous empty streets, "what just happened?" It's a tough beat.

In some dark alley in the USA, someone may be the wrong color at the wrong time and end up dead in the next few days, as too often happens, and the papers will only be able describe the scene of the murder in a short routine blurb. Finnish.

Tiassa

03-28-04, 04:46 AM

(This post has been removed by Tiassa in order to make its own topic - 3.29.2004)

dsdsds

03-31-04, 09:12 AM

This is no way to treat your liberators:

Associated Press Television News pictures showed one man beating a charred corpse with a metal pole. Others tied a yellow rope to a body, hooked it to a car and dragged it down the main street of town. Two blackened and mangled corpses were hung from a green iron bridge across the Euphrates.
link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040331/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716)

Conclusion: Iraqis don't deserve to be "liberated". Americans go home.

hypewaders

03-31-04, 09:13 PM

If these blokes (http://www.blackwaterusa.com/) were foreigners cruising your neighborhood, would you consider them liberators? Tourists? Friendly visitors?

They were armed mercenaries, and for these types to be portrayed as victimized American civilians in Iraq is quite a stretch. As a colony, the party was over for America in Iraq before it ever started, and it's going to continue deteriorating.

There can be no salvaging American legitimacy in shaping Iraq. If American leadership had any sense of reality they would be begging for UN peacekeepers to replace all Americans as rapidly as possible.

15ofthe19

03-31-04, 09:33 PM

Blackwater is a private security firm employed by the DoD to provide protection for civilian contractors operating in Iraq. Companies like KBR that provide the bulk of the food and water and shelter for our troops hire firms like Blackwater to provide protection for their convoys. Blackwater hires former soldiers from countries all over the world.

There are literally thousands of civilian contractors at work in Iraq today rebuilding everything from the water systems to the power grid to restoring the oil fields, all in a collective effort to get the country back on its feet. These people might live down the street from you or I. They might work for the same company that you do. Do they not need security?

To suggest that it makes any difference that these poor souls were employed by Blackwater, or by Mactec Engineering is absurd. It's very sad to see someones politics cloud their sense of human decency.

To suggest that these sorts of attacks would automatically cease if U.S. troops changed their pots from desert brown to U.N. blue shows an incredible ignorance of the recent history of U.N. peacekeeping missions, notably the similar events that occured barely five years ago in Kosovo, or ten years ago in Somalia.

hypewaders

03-31-04, 10:27 PM

I am not suggesting that changing their pots to blue would help the situation. I am suggesting that everything that is institutionally American-branded within the corpse of Iraq is inevitably going to turn to shit. When I point out that American occupations in the mideast are unacceptable, I am referring to Arab sentiment, and not my own: American solutions to Arab problems are compromised by regional US policy that is distinctly unpopular among Arabs.

Attacking my "human decency" for this observation is your prerogative. My concept of human decency includes willingness to confront realities that contribute to escalating violence and tragedy in a part of the world I particularly care about. Examining why residents of Fallujah may be brutally venting their emotions is not to condone or encourage the insanity. Or, to acknowledge the reasons for violence is not to support the resultant acts of violence.

This is precisely where understanding breaks down between proponents of the US occupation / "nation building" and everyone else, and especially between interventionists and Iraqis, and it's important to take a long, disquieting look.

Everything happening in the aftermath of the US decision to invade Iraq is a US liability. The dying horror experienced by these Blackwater operatives, and the bereavement of their loved ones is in no way any different than the horrific trauma experienced by thousands of Iraqis as a direct result of American intervention.

The mainstream US media is scrupulously avoiding images of what war and hostile occupation looks like, because the American majority is under many illusions that are necessary for national comfort, and for staying national and corporate courses. Media fears very similar attacks on their "human decency" as you have made on mine- attacks that are based more on repressing truth for it's non-cooperation with a particular world view, than they are based on repressing the spectacle of suffering.

The horrific killing we choose to witness or ignore that stems from intervention in Iraq will continue and worsen until it is made painfully clear that the USA does not have a mandate to dismantle and assemble foreign governments, especially in such overt, violent, and deceptively justified ways.

Human decency sometimes requires not looking away from ugly realities, because denial and repression of these situations prolongs the violence. This intervention in Iraq was doomed from the start, and the suffering and dying will continue until this disturbing fact is accepted by the American voters and taxpayers who are consenting to it.

15ofthe19

03-31-04, 11:03 PM

They were armed mercenaries, and for these types to be portrayed as victimized American civilians in Iraq is quite a stretch.

You wrote that sentence Hype, and even if you regret it now, you still have to live with it. To suggest that you didn't realize what you said connotes means either you're backtracking, or you were not committed to the statement when you made it.

If you truly were committed to that statement, you were attempting to rationalize what happened today. You know it. I know it. Anyone with a brain can interpret what you meant when you used the word "mercernary" in place of "security contractor". Don't ever try to lose me in a circular argument.

hypewaders

04-01-04, 08:02 AM

I don't know it. I don't know why you are incredulous (we can leave that alone as an emotion you are entitled to). I don't know why "mercenary" does not apply to these personnel. I don't know where my argument is circular. Please explain.

Dr Lou Natic

04-01-04, 08:29 AM

Have you seen the footage? How can they be described as anything other than terrified do-gooders?
Mercenaries? Are you trying to be funny?

hypewaders

04-01-04, 09:12 AM

"...terrified do-gooders..."

:D The best medicine from the good Dr.

So long as we can laugh at our self-deceptions, there is hope. I realize some find humor insultingly inappropriate in these situations, but I know how it's always right there, and somehow psychologically precious, in the immediate experience of trauma. Many die spontaneiously laughing at the ridicilousness of war, and I've been surprised at the irrepressible giggle that adrenaline delivers right behind the dread of someone trying to kill you in very sudden and noisy ways. Of course there exists agony too, and humor does not deny it. I know that through deepest sorrow, the first good belly-laugh, even if over something stupid, means so very, very much.

dsdsds

04-01-04, 03:33 PM

US Promises Overwhelming Response to Iraq Killings (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=1&u=/nm/20040401/ts_nm/iraq_dc_15)

Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt - "It will be at a time and a place of our choosing. It will be methodical, it will be precise and it will be overwhelming."

That'll show'em who's boss!!

Are they also going to go after (with "overwhelming" force) the individuals who mutilated the corpses? Do they really deserve death?

otheadp

04-01-04, 03:49 PM

what would you suggest?

dsdsds

04-01-04, 04:00 PM

I already suggested to leave them alone and go home. They're not welcomed!

It’s interesting to think that a couple of more incidences like this could significantly affect US public opinion on the occupation of Iraq. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=2&u=/nm/20040401/ts_nm/iraq_images_dc) I never understood how the stupid public can be more concerned for mutilation of corpses than the suffering living. If that’s what it takes to change public opinion about the war then I say steal every god damn American corpse in Iraq and dance around with it in the streets. (I would say that even if it were the body of my son or daughter. I don’t want, need, or care about their dead body.)

otheadp

04-01-04, 04:19 PM

the Iraqis are divided in what they want. certainly those who live in the Sunni Triangle do not represent all of Iraq

Iraqis want stability, and the US forces are the only visible object at which they can throw their frustration at.

the Americans are simultaneously blamed for being in Iraq, and not being enough in Iraq (law and order haven't been restored yet)

the wild mob mentality doesn't really mean much if you look at these kids playing with the hung corpses, as drool flows from their mouth.

what comes to mind is the Colorado Avalanch fans in 1996 rampaging and rioting through Denver after the Avalanch won the Stanley Cup.
what was the purpose of burning cars and vandalizing property? just mindless mayham

of course, in Iraq it's not just that... there is, as i said before, some frustration, with the Americans being the only visible object...

so it's 2 of those elements mixed together.

the answer is to stay and prevent complete destabilization. if they leave, it will be a disaster

Tiassa

04-01-04, 05:08 PM

Source: Information Clearing House/The Independent
Article Link: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5976.htm
Article Title: "Occupiers Spend Millions on Private Army of Security Men," by Robert Fisk and Severin Carrell
Article Date: March 29, 2004

Robert Fisk and Severin Carrell write in The Independent about private "security contractors" in Iraq. An army of thousands of mercenaries has appeared in Iraq's major cities, many of them former British and American soldiers hired by the occupying Anglo-American authorities and by dozens of companies who fear for the lives of their employees.*

Many of the armed Britons are former SAS soldiers and heavily armed South Africans are also working for the occupation. "My people know how to use weapons and they're all SAS," said the British leader of one security team in southern Baghdad. "But there are people running around with guns now who are just cowboys. We always conceal our weapons, but these guys think they're in a Hollywood film."*

There are serious doubts even within the occupying power about America's choice to send Chilean mercenaries, many trained during General Pinochet's vicious dictatorship, to guard Baghdad airport. Many South Africans are in Iraq illegally--they are breaking new laws, passed by the government in Pretoria, to control South Africa's booming export of mercenaries. Many have been arrested on their return home because they are do not have the licence now required by private soldiers.*

Casualties among the mercenaries are not included in the regular body count put out by the occupation authorities, which may account for the persistent suspicion among Iraqis that the US is underestimating its figures of military dead and wounded. Some British experts claim that private policing is now the UK's biggest export to Iraq--a growth fueled by the surge in bomb attacks on coalition forces, aid agencies and UN buildings since the official end of the war in May last year. (The Independent)The issue apparently carries some implications for the British; an opposition MP noted, "This suggests that British forces are unable to provide adequate protection . . . ."

The Department for International development told The Independent, of its security situation: "DFID staff would prefer not to have this . . . It's much easier for them to do their job without any visible security, but the security risks are great down there."

Additionally, aid groups are concerned about the amount spent on security, such as the £278 million spent by DFID. Christian Aid's Dominic Nutt said, "It's right that DFID protects its staff, but this is robbing Peter to pay Paul."

Comment: The thing is that "nobody deserves to die," and "nobody deserves to die horribly." But this is a war zone, and those simple rules just don't apply.

Regardless of the roles of Fallujah's desecrated dead in dealing with the Iraqis, we must wonder at what an "army of thousands" of mercenaries/security contractors, does to the image of the occupiers held by Iraqis. Does the presence of irregular armed security forces blur the line between aid worker and oppressor? Are these contractors prepared for the "sensitivity issues" of the communities they work in?

Has South Africa turned "against us"? Does George Bush need to bomb Pretoria? Or does South Africa's desire to not be a staging ground for private offenders not count as lacking the resolve to do what's right?

(I'm not nearly as worried about the Pinochet-aspect of the Chileans; hey, if Iraqis can be retrained to the New American Order, so can the Chileans. But it's not necessarily good PR, and that can have a massive effect within the war zone while we all sit around and yap about it.)

hypewaders

04-01-04, 05:34 PM

Washington is allowing Iraq to very closely mirror the opening of the Lebanese civil war, when the appearance of foreign war dogs on the streets heralded the beginning of the country's complete shredding.

hypewaders

04-01-04, 11:39 PM

On a slightly heavier note, here's a little taste of Baghdadi nightlife (http://www.reason.com/hod/nr032604.shtml) to ponder, along with the future of this country:

"...waxing nostalgic about the good old days under Saddam, a refrain I am by now accustomed to hearing, and I was trying not to roll my eyes, two sharp gunshots cut her words short and returned her to reality. By now the sound of gun shots rarely distracts me, but this time it was too close, and too incongruent with the bustling nightlife. I saw two men walking hurriedly across the street in between the traffic, arms raised and pistols in the air. "They killed a man!" someone shouted. I got up and saw a man in a suit collapsed on the curb, blood spreading from beneath his head. The two men had walked up to him, shot him in the head, taken his pistol, then walked away laughing into a dark street."

This website is a sobering read for anyone under illusions about the "liberation" of Iraq.

crazy151drinker

04-02-04, 02:51 PM

AHHHH lets stop all the wars! Lets just stick our heads in the Sand and pretend that nothing is happening. Hype, wake up. Your isolationist crap led to two WORLD WARS that KILLED MILLIONS. WWII caused an estimated 50 MILLION DEATHS. We could have stopped Hitler years before but NO, Isolationists cried "its none of our business, stay out of it....". Thanks alot for nothing.
Terrorists, Dictators, and the like are like weeds. They are always popping up in our garden of life. Yes it sucks picking them but if you ignore them youre garden becomes full of weeds and dies.
Hype, were is your little red book?

hypewaders

04-02-04, 05:50 PM

Oh, please. My "isolationist crap" may not have lead to 50 million deaths, but maybe it's gratifying for you to toss that out in your rhetorical drive-by. It might have some impact if you would give your accusations some meaningful corroboration.

151: Do you really believe that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States last year? Are you still living in the 1950s? Little Red Book???

If you have nothing to add about America's neocolonial quagmire, or no way to refute the observations, and just want to say "I don't understand this, and it upsets me"... then I can respect that.

Tiassa

04-03-04, 07:46 AM

Have you seen the footage? How can they be described as anything other than terrified do-gooders?What footage are we talking about here? I know I'm missing some someplace. All I've been able to find is the Real stream that's about 1.14 long and I only see corpses and fire; the terror is long-passed.

hypewaders

04-03-04, 11:27 AM

For these mercenaries, as I think you know, T there was likely much more adrenaline and "oh shit" than terror. We'll never get to watch these fighters die on Real TV, even if we wanted to, because Journalists who try to film the opening volleys of firefights in places like this don't last very long.

When Geraldo Rivera was prancing around Baghdad with a pistol on his hip, I was so hoping that he might actually pursue such a line of work: "Geraldo Rivera, reporting from Fallu-(whack!)". OK, not really- I think we can fill in the blanks with reasonable accuracy without watching footage of foolhardy mercenaries getting cut down in and beside their cars.

Tiassa

04-03-04, 06:50 PM

We'll never get to watch these fighters die on Real TVThat's what I figured. When I finally got the APTN Real stream to run, I couldn't believe what I was seeing:

• Savage, yes, but the networks are having trouble running this footage? Hey, guys, I thought that we all--pro-war or against--agreed that it is the French who are the neighborhood professional pussies. There was nothing on there that shouldn't have made the CBS Evening News.

It's not problematic that I don't get to see people die on TV. It just strikes me that this whole time, for a couple of days, I thought he was talking about the same footage and mercenaries/contractors that I perceived you and 15 to be discussing .... I'm just confused. Where's the footage of the terrified do-gooders? Why haven't I heard more about it? I mean, if we've got that on tape they should be playing it on CNN every hour on the hour and half-hour (and quarters, if they want to go too far) because that will pretty much harden the resolve of the American public in a way not seen since a Powell went and told a pack of lies to the United Nations.

hypewaders

04-04-04, 02:34 PM

I suppose "terrified do-gooders" may have originally referred to, and likely better applies to Larry & Jean Elliott, Karen Watson, and David McDonnell, (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/16/iraq.main/) so some comparison and contrast is in order, because these deaths seem to be often compared.

I didn't know these personally, but was among their associates in Lebanon and Yemen. You won't find any veteran mideast Southern Baptist missionaries promoting the world view that is prominently espoused by American TV evangelists and Washington neoconservatives.

While nearly always maintaining a firm grip on their faith, these folks seem to invariably "go native" in understanding local concerns and perspectives where they serve. On returning home to the Southern Baptist Convention and hometown churches, there is often a much more ponderous gap in understanding that experienced missionaries confront. The culture shock upon returning home, especially concerning political issues, can be more severe than the initial culture shock of going abroad.

Experienced "do-gooder" missionaries in dangerous places generally abhor the idea of their own, or associates' perversion into poster-martyrs for the likes of Paul Wolfowitz. During some very bad times in South America, when friends of Washington were killing missionaries, it was similarly counterproductive to mission work for deaths to become politicized. For associates of slain missionaries, it's like the victims are not butchered only once in the physical sense, but also again in their earthly afterlife, or legacy, which is ground up by political operatives to fortify with martyrdom their particular and distinct recipes for public consumption

Many ghosts of the past at times haunt the work of modern missionaries who genuinely live by example of service and sacrifice for others, and employ no other means of persuasion, or any coercion in following their beliefs.

Bill Koehn, Kathy Gariety, and Martha Myers were killed at the Jibla Baptist Hospital (http://www.iht.com/articles/83686.html) where for a generation Yemenis have been offered unheard-of emergency and routine health care, without religious coercion. I lived there as a lad, when my father worked at the hospital. Activities were entirely for the support of the medical mission, and any "evangelism" was only conveyed by the living of lives and sharing of talents in service of others, with nothing asked in return. Jibla was sort of like a MASH unit in its remoteness, but grew to provide amazing levels of care, where highly skilled medical teams achieved many amazing good works, not for monetary but spiritual reward.

Now that the consequences of a shift in US foreign policy have poyzund* the future of this facility, there will be no converted Christian Yemeni community left behind, because one was never created- These missionaries devoted themselves to service and example- not conversion- even while sharing their faith freely when asked. These missionaries will not be remembered as people who came to impose a religion and culture on the natives. They can only be remembered by the Yemenis they served as amazing Christians from America (I should add that many committed workers also were also hired from other countries) who saves thousands of lives and improved the quality of many more, with no demands for payment or a single religious discussion.

I just wanted to briefly draw the distinction between bona fide "do-gooders" who are out there now, who actually do get caught up in the gory wheels of conflict, along with soldiers of fortune, who make so much more money, but who in both works and death leave behind so much less that the world can gain from.

In the rising climate of conflict and fear in the Mideast, a disconnect, a little-noticed exodus is underway, because it is becoming less possible for Westerners and especially Americans to involve themselves in productive activity within the spreading hotspots of the "War on Terror". Under present policy, many more people are going to meet America in violent and impoverishing experiences. It's out with the do-gooders, and in with the dogs of war. Welcome to the New American Century.

* note

I apologize for the phonetic spelling, "********" (poy-zund) is a forbidden word for some reason. If you also find this curious, we could explore this weirdness over here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=547117#post547117)

hypewaders

04-05-04, 01:09 AM

http://www.pacifica.org/images/PacInIraq-Mar30.jpg

What started as just a little censorship in US-occupied Iraq may have some very sticky consequences.
(link) (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5993.htm)

As it turns out, it seems clear that the newspaper closing played into Muqtada al-Sadr's apocalyptic mindset. He became convinced that it meant the US planned to silence him and destroy his movement, leaving him no choice but to launch an uprising. The Coalition, which just closed a newspaper for 2 months, probably thought of it as a relatively mild response to Sadr's own provocations. But Muqtada saw his father and brothers cut down by Saddam and he is clearly a paranoid personality deeply traumatized by Baath terror against Shiites, and he views the Americans as little different from the Baathists. Saddam also sent warnings to Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr, in January of 1999, which were a prelude to Sadiq's assassination in February of that year. In Muqtada's own mind, the Coalition 'warnings' may also have been perceived as a prelude to removing him. The US army appears to have seriously threatened him with arrest or worse last October.

For the US occupation, crisis management will likely be like walking on floating logs from here until the US withdrawal. Just when the Sunni log started rotating faster with the grisly killing of American mercenaries in Fallujah, a Shia intifadeh has been launched. Maybe Uncle Remus had an even better analogy than mine. Sistani's thus-far stabilizing influence may no longer hold sway, which is a very ominous development, because we're not talking about Rumsfeld's minority "dead-enders" anymore.

Perhaps a third of Iraqi Shiites are sympathetic to the radical, Khomeini-like ideology of Sadrism, and some analysts with long experience in Iraq put it at 50%.

Americans, we now have two fists buried deep in De Tar Baby (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG97/remus/tar-baby.html). We had better think carefully before the next knee-jerk.

crazy151drinker

04-05-04, 07:54 PM

Hype,

Are you proposing that isolationialist views actually saved lives in WWII? Probably not because you use the term "may have". Im simply stating that becuase of the isolationist views of the American Public prior to our entry into WWII Millions of people needlessly died. If we would have entered the War at an earlier stage and thus blunting Hitlers European domination we would have saved millions of people.

No I do not believe that Saddam was a threat- at least not at that point in time. Would he have been if we hadnt been there, yes. Did we put him in power? Yes. Did we screw up Iran. Yes. So what. We made the mistake now we have to fix it.

Lets continue with your isolationist views. We shouldnt have been there during the first war either. With the same logic Isreal should not have destroyed his nuclear facilities. So then Saddam would have a Bomb. If you think that would be a good idea then you are a NUT.

Im just pointing out that your isolationist peace loving views do not save lives they cost lives.

Please explain how peace saved 800,000 Rwandians.

Tiassa

04-05-04, 08:31 PM

Here we go! US issues arrest warrant for al-Sadr
Cleric branded "outlaw" sitting in at mosque in Kufa

The Associated Press (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001895896_webiraq05.html) reports on the inevitable: the US government has issued a warrant for the arrest of Muqtada al-Sadr, a prominent Shiite cleric whose supporters staged riots and assaults in several cities.The showdown with al-Sadr threatened to heighten tensions with Iraq's Shiite Muslim majority at a time when U.S. troops are burdened by the Sunni guerrillas' bloody insurgency. But American officials apparently hope the Shiite public — many of whom distrust al-Sadr — will not rally around the cleric.

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said the potential for violence depended on "whether (al-Sadr) decides to come peacefully or whether he decides to come not peacefully. That choice is the choice of Mr. Muqtada al-Sadr."

Al-Sadr, a 30-year-old firebrand who frequently denounces the U.S. occupation in his sermons, vowed to resist.

The Americans "have the money, weapons and huge numbers, but these things are not going to weaken our will because God is with us," he said in a statement sent to the Arab TV station Al-Jazeera, which provided a copy to The Associated Press.

"We don't fear death and martyrdom gives us dignity from God," al-Sadr said.

Several hundred of his armed militiamen control Kufa, holding its police station and blocking a road leading to the main mosque. (AP (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001895896_webiraq05.html))Something strikes me about this situation as apropos, par for the course, only what we could expect.

Just some of the things that drift up to the surface at this point:

• Enemy combatants from the Afghani war are not afforded the Geneva Conventions
• While the Geneva Conventions contain exceptions for heads of state and heads of militaries, Saddam Hussein has been given POW status in accordance with the Geneva Conventions
• The United States has lamented as terrorists the ongoing resistance to the occupation that comes in the form of grenade, rocket, mortar, and IED attacks seemingly at random.
• We now have a militia occupying Kufa.

Something strikes me about "right condition, wrong time." During the war many of us--especially, it seems, some Iraqis--were surprised at how quickly Saddam's forces capitulated in Baghdad. Are we now going to get the street-by-street bloodshed wondered about--even feared--at the outset?
____________________

• Associated Press. "Arrest warrant for radical Shiite cleric announced." Seattle Times, April 5, 2004. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001895896_webiraq05.html

hypewaders

04-05-04, 08:31 PM

Dear Crazy151drinker:

"Isolationialist views"
Look, it's not isolationism to criticise reckless unilateralism. To say doing "x" is a mistake is not to say do nothing. I'm taking a pass on your straw man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html), you could start a history thread on isolationism, but don't do it expecting to find me on a diametrically opposite side from you.

"Did we put him in power? Yes. Did we screw up Iran. Yes. So what. We made the mistake now we have to fix it."

Sometimes when you've screwed up badly and visibly enough in someone else's domain, it's more prudent to back down.

"...your isolationist views..."
-from your perspective, then you go on to put words in my mouth:
"...We shouldnt have been there during the first war either. With the same logic Isreal should not have destroyed his nuclear facilities. So then Saddam would have a Bomb. If you think that would be a good idea then you are a NUT."
That's both personal attack (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html), guilt by association (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html), false dilemma (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html), and who knows what else.

"Im just pointing out that your isolationist peace loving views do not save lives they cost lives."
No you're not. You're inventing and imbellishing on my position, and then pronouncing what the impact of my position is on the world.

"Please explain how peace saved 800,000 Rwandians.
Do a little background reading and you'll have more to say, then start a thread on Rwanda, and I'll be glad to discuss how the de-escalation of violence, and at least some internationally-sponsered programs have and are arguably saving untold thousands of lives there. The Rwandan catastrophe has generated a great deal of soul-searching within the UN about how to secure a true mandate for future situations like this. A legitimate mandate is missing in the US occupation of Iraq, and no amount of firepower is going to substitute for that. Regarding Rwanda, even though it's way off topic, here are a few sources your concern should motivate you to spend a few minutes with, and I'll be glad to discuss that subject in another thread:

PBS Frontline- INteractive Rwanda Background (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ghosts/)
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (http://www.ictr.org/default.htm)
Human Rights Watch- Rwanda Ten Years Later (http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/10years.htm)
UN Anti-Genocide Plan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3437695.stm)

Undecided

04-06-04, 09:18 PM

Some Dire News from the Colony:

At least 12 US marines are reported to have been killed and about two dozen others injured in a ferocious attack on their position in the Iraqi city of Ramadi.
------------------------------------
"There may have been as many as a dozen Marine deaths," the official said, adding that a "significant number" of Iraqis were also killed in the exchange of fire.
-------------------------------------
Falluja fight
--------------------------------
Ramadi, 80km west of capital Baghdad, is close to Falluja – currently under siege by US occupation forces.
-----------------------------------------------
CNN said it appeared the attack in Ramadi had been carried out by supporters of the ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and not by followers of the Shia leader Moqtada Sadr, whose fighters have been battling occupation troops in several places in Iraq.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/86EBAB6B-FB76-4811-AB87-A82B035A36FA.htm

In response:

The US is considering sending military reinforcements to Iraq.
------------------------------------------
"The events of the weekend show an obvious potential for more demonstrations and more violence," a Central Command official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
--------------------------------
"But the situation is obviously very serious," said retired general William Nash, a veteran of the Bosnian conflict.
----------------------------------------------------------
"There's always a possibility that in the short term they might
add some response forces, but I think they're kind of trapped by their own rhetoric and I don't think they will bring in any more," he said.
---------------------------------------------
Sadr is "already marginalised by most of the Shiite community," the official said.
--------------------------------------------------
But he acknowledged that Sadr "does have a strong following in a minor group" that includes "3000 militia members".

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C92751A6-4ABF-4CE3-80A6-9D9099492D44.htm

Things are not looking grand in Iraq as Bush was to have expected.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdonlyres/C92751A6-4ABF-4CE3-80A6-9D9099492D44/33820/8C14BCCACC9D4CCB832036013F34AD13.jpg

dsdsds

04-07-04, 11:39 AM

U.S. Hits Mosque Compound; 40 Said Killed (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040407/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_2)

That's one way to get the country on your side. It's absolutely rediculous. The US (out of the goodness of its heart) went to liberate a country. Now it turns out that the liberated Shiites are turning against its liberators. Those ungrateful bastards! Bomb them All! Mission accomplished!

crazy151drinker

04-07-04, 12:36 PM

Hype,

All im saying is that putting your head in the Sand solves nothing.

crazy151drinker

04-07-04, 12:40 PM

So let me ask you this:

In your humble opinion, when is it OK for the US to invade a country?

hypewaders

04-07-04, 07:43 PM

"All im saying is that putting your head in the Sand solves nothing."

I wholeheartedly agree. There is much the US can and must eventually do in our self interest, without recklessly ignoring the most basic historical lessons of colonialism, imperialism, guerrilla warfare, assymetrical warfare, Arab and Muslim sentiment, World sentiment, domestic security vulnerability, domestic energy vulnerability, economic vulnerability, and human nature.

It takes a little patience to repeatedly assert that present foreign policy is not the only alternative to inaction, so I hope that you will reciprocate a little effort in sincerely considering some alternatives (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=549291#post549291), as I and others (hopefully) offer them.

crazy151drinker

04-07-04, 07:47 PM

Hype,

Yes, there is alot we can do- however, once again it requires the opposing sides to do the same thing. Thats were the problem is! You will NEVER change the fact that people want to have power. We cannot change Hitler, or Mao or any other brutal dictator. Even with our 'brutal' foriegn policy we still have genocides. While it would be nice to live in a world were everyone was nice, it will never happen.

hypewaders

04-07-04, 09:19 PM

Why must you summarily dismiss all alternatives as utopian? I'll offer some pragmatic alternatives where it's more topical to the thread. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34678)

Tiassa

04-08-04, 05:27 AM

Borrowing a headline: One mosque, one missile, forty dead
"Kill them all, oh mighty God! With you we shelter from their evilness."

We'll start with an excerpt from The Scotsman:PINNED down and taking casualties, the US marines called for air strikes against the fighters dug in at the nearby mosque.

At least twice, their commanders refused. "We’ve got to be careful," said one officer, according to a Washington Post reporter with the marines in Fallujah.

Again the request came. "We have some bad folks dug in. They’re creating a problem for us. What should we do? We need back-up."

Soon after, a missile and a 500lb laser-guided bomb slammed into the compound with devastating results. According to witnesses, the strike came as worshippers were gathering for afternoon prayers. The bodies of dead and wounded were rushed away in cars to private homes in the area, where temporary hospitals had been set up.

Although the Abdul-Aziz al-Samarrai mosque was undamaged, part of the wall surrounding it was demolished. Witnesses said up to 40 people had died. It was not clear whether the dead were civilians or fighters.The CNN report I heard earlier told the story differently, sounded considerably less-sympathetic to American actions. Air Force commanders, according to one televised report, twice refused the mission.

I hope to follow up on that with a reference.

Nonetheless, the situation on the ground sounds ugly; if it was tank fire or some-such that took down the wall at the Abdul-Aziz al-Samarrai mosque, I might have a different opinion, but the words of Lieutenant Colonel Brennan Byrne speak well enough: "We believe we killed a bunch of these guys," Lt-Col Byrne said. "Marines will never do anything like this unless fired upon."As I understand it, Marines don't like to waste ammunition; especially in the form of airstrikes.

At the same time, though, with forty dead and much confusion among the Iraqis, I can't say this is a positive development. By this point in the war, when "bringing back Saddam" is a joke of wistful macabre, we can safely presume the Iraqi patience thinned and thinning. Regardless of whether or not we consider the Coalition true "good guys" of a new conflict, this is an unfortunate turn for the PR image, and in that Iraqi patience and cooperation.

Things will, obviously, get worse before they get better. But still ....

Additionally, the article mentions 25 dead on Tuesday allegedly from a US missile fired into a house.

And here's an interesting note from the Scotsman article: In the Sunni city of Ramadi, where 12 US marines were killed on Tuesday night, portraits of Sadr and graffiti praising his "valiant uprising" appeared on mosque and government building walls.Sunnis praising a Shiite firebrand? Hey, what do you know? G.W. Bush is a uniter, not a divider.

What's happening in this war ... in Seattle and around the state, we have a phrase for it: Bush is couging it.°As Mr Abid and his two sons began to pray, a few bursts of gunfire hit their neighbour’s home.

Women in the house next door screamed. Mr Abid’s wife shouted at her husband and sons not to go outside. "You want to get killed, are you crazy?" Umm Ali cried. "Don’t you see they are shooting civilians?".

Mr Abid’s prayers got louder, as he appealed to God to rid the town of the US forces attacking it.

"Kill them all, oh mighty God," he said. "With you we shelter from their evilness." (The Scotsman)On a personal note: Well, I was only a couple days ahead of the military on this one. From a couple posts ago:

• "During the war many of us--especially, it seems, some Iraqis--were surprised at how quickly Saddam's forces capitulated in Baghdad. Are we now going to get the street-by-street bloodshed wondered about--even feared--at the outset?" (Tiassa, 4.5.2004)

And this, from the BBC:The BBC's Pentagon correspondent Nick Childs says US officials accept that troops are now engaged in the most difficult type of fighting - the kind of urban warfare that never really materialised in the initial stages of the conflict. (BBC, 4.7.2004)We should be hearing more about this aspect as the days go by.
____________________

Notes:

° couging it - "Couging it" is a disparaging term relating to the Washington State University Cougars football program. It is a term that refers to ineptly blowing a sure thing; allowing a comeback when the other team isn't playing well enough to deserve it; when the comeback comes not on the merit of the other team's performance, but on the demerit of your preferred team's mistakes. It's different from "not showing up to the fight." It would be a little more akin to me knocking out Mike Tyson because he forgot how to box.

• The Scotsman. "One mosque, one missile, forty dead." April 8, 2004. See http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=397512004
• BBC News. "US bombards Iraq mosque complex." April 7, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3609665.stm

crazy151drinker

04-08-04, 12:29 PM

Hype,

Ok, here is my alternative:
Super Aliens from mars can come down and zap the world with love rays and thus stop the violence.

An Alternative: Yes. Reality: No

DeeCee

04-08-04, 02:39 PM

Hey Crazy
How about this.
You put this chat with Hype on hold for a couple of months, say to around the end of June, then you can both look again at the ongoing situation in Iraq and decide who was right and who was wrong.
By then, I imagine Iraq will be well on it's way to being an Islamic theocracy and America can pat itself on the back (again) for a job well done. Meanwhile this thread gets to stay on topic.

Doubles all round!
Dee Cee

Tiassa

04-09-04, 04:36 AM

A bad sense of humor revisited: United by Bush

"Sunnis praising a Shiite firebrand? Hey, what do you know? G.W. Bush is a uniter, not a divider." (Tiassa)

My sense of humor went and burned me again. I should learn one of these days.

From the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62783-2004Apr8.html):Solemn announcements boomed from mosques across Baghdad on Thursday beseeching Iraqis for donations of blood, money and medical supplies for "your sons and brothers in struggling Fallujah." And across the capital, Shiite Muslims joined Sunnis in rolling up their sleeves and reaching into their pockets.

The U.S. Marines' incursion into Fallujah, the eager contributors said, has recast the city long known as the epicenter of the volatile Sunni Triangle as a freshly minted emblem of shared religious identity.

Since a massive multiple suicide bombing on March 2 killed more than 140 people here and in the Shiite holy city of Karbala, Iraq has been shaken by assassinations of clerics and attacks on mosques that religious leaders say were calculated to sow mistrust between Shiites and Sunnis. But on Thursday, residents of Kadhimiya, this overwhelmingly Shiite neighborhood in northern Baghdad, were giving what they could to help Sunni insurgents in Fallujah.At this time, with rumors swirling of serious coalition casualties (foreign news sources say a Pentagon source puts the number at 130 in recent days) and my opinion shifting to indicate that "occupation" is no longer a sufficient term for the state of things in Iraq, the sarcasm that would otherwise go here becomes overkill. The title is enough; I just don't think this is what George "The Uniter" Dubya Bush had in mind.
____________________

• Washington Post. "Rallying Around an Insurgent City." April 9, 2004; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62783-2004Apr8.html

DeeCee

04-09-04, 07:17 AM

Ho Hum.
To maintain to impression of political objectivity here's an account of a 'pro war' Journo's recent visit to Baghdad.
It goes heavy on the human angle (the only one that counts IMHO) and features interviews with a few of the people on the interim council.

When we went for lunch I was told to be quiet. "Don't speak English so loudly," whispered my translator. This was to happen several times during my stay, the implication being that "they" might be listening, and that someone might do something about me. Or, maybe, something about my translator. It wasn't quite the carefree way I'd envisaged dining in Baghdad a year on from the liberation.

With proper local knowledge and action, "Falluja could have been controlled a year ago." And the coalition authority had been arrogant. "They pick people up and then let them go again without consultation. And if we say, 'But why did you let them go?' they answer, 'OK, if you want to, you capture them again!' No, they don't know the people. They don't know the language. They had a good plan for the war, but not a good plan for the peace. They can't solve the problems - and we are not authorised to."

Early in the morning, waiting to gent my flight tickets, I was approached by Salih, 30, an unarmed security guard. He started by saying that he wanted to visit Britain. And then he broke down. Here's what he said, more or less verbatim. "I sorry. But I die in Iraq. I die now, every day. Maybe I shoot me. I can't live here. Weapons, tanks, enemy all the time. I can't sleep with shootings. No money. I die. I must go."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1188791,00.html

Enjoy
Dee Cee

Kunax

04-09-04, 09:04 AM

Dansih soldiers has been attack today/yesterday near Al Qurnah(south iraq) by about 20 rebels armed with RPG and other items that make lout noises, noone was hurt or kill according to the Danish army.

USA has also called for a ceasefire in the city Fallujah, to get in aid and other stuff to the people in the city.
(from danish source)

I hope the DK goverment pulls out its troops so the amerikans can figth and die in a war they brought in to the world.

DeeCee

04-09-04, 03:30 PM

Things are not improving.
Elswhere, a US fuel convoy near Abu Ghraib was attacked by insurgents, killing at least nine people.

Truckloads of people from the area have also tried to head further west to help other insurgents battling US forces in Falluja and Ramadi. Marines tried to hold a temporary ceasefire in their assault on Falluja.

One of the strongest pro-American voices in Iraq's US-appointed governing council, Adnan Pachachi, condemned the operation in Falluja as "unacceptable and illegal" - a sign of Iraqi anger at the siege, which for some has become a symbol of resistance.

In a symbol of the state of Iraq a year after the US invasion, a portrait of Muqtada al-Sadr - the radical Shia cleric whose militia has rebelled across the south - was today hung on the plinth in Firdous Square, where one year ago today marines toppled a statue of ousted leader Saddam Hussein.

At the city's Um al Qura mosque, Sunni and Shias alike flock to pray. And to chant anti- American slogans.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1188965,00.html

http://www.channel4.com/news/2004/04/week_2/09_iraq.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3613299.stm

I'm getting a bad feeling...
Dee Cee

Undecided

04-09-04, 05:12 PM

According to Jack Straw the new rebellion in Iraq is the "most serious" danger the coalition has ever faced:

LONDON, England -- British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has acknowledged that the upsurge in violence against U.S.-led forces in Iraq represents the "most serious" threat the coalition has faced since the end of the war.
------------
"The lid of the pressure cooker has come off, and some of the tensions and pressures which were there and would have come out in any event, have to a degree been directed towards the coalition," he said.
-----------
Straw was asked whether the Americans had been wise to move against Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
-------------
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/09/iraq.straw/index.html

Elsewhere Bush is trying to mitigate the inevitable:

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- President Bush discussed the situation in Iraq Friday with top national security aides and with three foreign leaders who have sent troops there, expressing sorrow for the first Salvadoran soldier killed.
--------------
Premier Silvio Berlusconi, Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski and El Salvadoran President Francisco Flores.

Nearly 3,000 Italian troops and paramilitary police are serving in Iraq; 2,400 Polish; 380 El Salvadoran.

Seventeen Italians have died in Iraq, and one each from El Salvador and Poland.
--------------
The leaders vowed to defeat the "minority, extremist elements who seek to derail the transition to democracy through a violent power play," he said.
-------------
Bush did not speak with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who was plunged into his deepest crisis since taking office when three Japanese were abducted in Iraq.

Their Iraqi captors threatened to burn the Japanese hostages alive unless Japan withdraws from Iraq, and in Japan, thousands of protesters pressed the government Friday to pull out.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/09/bush.iraq.ap/index.html

About Japan this is a very interesting case indeed. Already the Japanese public (who was against the war) is asking their politicians to move out of Iraq. If the rebels maintain their threat to burn the Japanese alive, I can see the same force of democracy that overthrew the Spanish gov't happen in Japan. Iraq is like a poison it seems and its contagen is spreading. The more and more fighting seems to happen, the less and less support there is for this war. Japan like Spain will be crucial in determining the course of the so called "coalition of the wiling".

crazy151drinker

04-09-04, 07:56 PM

Hmm maybe we should round up all the Iraqi's in the US and threaten to burn them if the Iraqi's dont calm down.

dsdsds

04-10-04, 12:14 AM

Hmm maybe we should round up all the Iraqi's in the US and threaten to burn them if the Iraqi's dont calm down.

That probably happened. (http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12955&c=207)

hypewaders

04-10-04, 04:26 PM

In other colonial developments, the Coalition Provisional Authority (http://www.cpa-iraq.org/bremerbio.html) begins a visible collapse, with members of the "Governing” Council beginning to openly criticize (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/4/5A5535AA-82F4-4250-808F-762EBE7AA1E4.html) the latest US attacks on Iraqi cities, with some members threatening resignation, and they won’t be the first. If they follow through, they will be in good company among dedicated professionals who have come to understand that the Bush Administration’s vision for Iraq is increasingly impossible to implement (here's a few):

Isam al-Khafagi (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/650/re7.htm)
Abdel Basit Turki (http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=9596)
Haidar Mehdi Matar al-Mayyali (http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/af/Qiraq-us.RnCX_DN6.html)
Mohammad Bahr al-Uloom (http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2003-08/30/article09.shtml)
Marco Calamai (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1117-11.htm)
John Brady Kiesling (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16195)
John Brown (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0303/031203brown.htm)
Karen Kwiatowski (http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski-arch.html)
Thomas White (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4025.htm)
Rand Beers (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030319-040543-3049r)
Paul Redmond (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4025.htm)
David Kay (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030319-040543-3049r)
George W. Bush ;.) (http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=275&row=0)
Mary Wright (http://truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=3&num=298)
Andrew Wilkie (http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s804617.htm)
Jack Walters (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1980.htm)
Don North (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/14/1555223)
Clare Short (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3022139.stm)
1/2 of "New Iraqi Army" (http://www.cidi.org/humanitarian/hsr/iraq/03b/ixl112.html)
Martin Sullivan, Gary Vikan (http://courses.washington.edu/com361/Iraq/military/looting.html)
John Randall (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2836655.stm)
Denis Halliday (http://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/index.html?page=/iraqinfo/sanctions/sarticles/halliday2.html)
Hans Von Sponeck (http://rwor.org/a/v23/1130-39/1132/sponeck_iraq.htm)

As the transfer of Iraqi “sovereignty” approaches, and the toll in American (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/casualties/facesofthefallen.htm) and Iraqi (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) lives accelerates, taxpayers and voters supporting this intevention should take a little time, and consider carefully what these people with inside experience have to say.

Undecided

04-11-04, 02:32 PM

US CHOPPER SHOT DOWN OVER BAGHDAD

Two U.S. soldiers killed in chopper attack
----------------------
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A U.S. Apache attack helicopter was shot down by surface-to-air missile fire Sunday west of Baghdad International Airport, killing both crew members aboard, coalition officials said.

A rapid reaction force was immediately deployed after the 1st Cavalry AH-64 was shot down around 11 a.m. (3 a.m. ET), the officials said.

For a Apache helo. to be shot down is rather significant. That helo. is one of the best in the world, and take alot of damage for it to be shot down. I think this is important to see how professional the Iraqi insurgents are, obviously they must have been in the fmr. Iraqi army, or foreign fighters (imo).

On another front you have the hostages; some good and bad news:

Good-
British citizen Gary Teeley, who was taken hostage in Iraq, has been released, the British Foreign Ministry announced Sunday.

Bad-
News video showed abductors allowing journalists to shoot pictures of American Thomas Hamill.

Hamill told the reporters, "they attacked our convoy. That's all I'm going to say."

Later, Arabic language network Al Jazeera played a video of him sitting in front of an Iraqi flag, and a voice, apparently one of the abductors, said if U.S. troops did not leave Fallujah by 6 a.m. Sunday (10 p.m. ET Saturday) he would "be treated worse than the four Americans that were killed in Fallujah."

Then the Iffy side of the news:

Separately, the Japanese Kyodo news agency reported three Japanese hostages would be freed at 3 a.m. GMT Sunday (11 p.m. ET Saturday).

But that deadline also passed with no word on whether the hostages were let go.

The kidnappers have threatened to burn the Japanese hostages alive Sunday unless Japan pulls its troops out of Iraq. (Full story)

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/meast/04/11/iraq.main/story.hamill.jpg

invert_nexus

04-11-04, 02:51 PM

...leave Fallujah by 6 a.m. Sunday (10 p.m. ET Saturday)...
Funny how they set a time that coincide with the cease fire.

Tiassa

04-19-04, 02:32 AM

April, Bloody April - Killing and dying continues in Iraq
Ten US troops dead in weekend combat; April toll approaches 100; Spain confirms its intentions

U.S troops fighting in Iraq suffered tough casualties over the weekend; ten combat deaths and two accidental deaths brought the toll for April, 2004, to 98 (http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx). And amid it all comes the discouraging but expected news that Spain will, indeed, proceed with the pullout of its 1,300 troops as promised by newly-sworn Prime Minister Zapatero.

According to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21925-2004Apr18.html), the heaviest casualties came near the Syrian border, where five Marines perished in a daylong exchange with as many as 150 insurgents bearing automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades. The firefight, which reportedly began when a Marine patrol came under ambush near Qusaybah, claimed an estimated 25 to 30 insurgents.

Accidental deaths came in Baghdad, where an Abrams tank rolled over, killing one and injuring two others, and also near Samarra, where a soldier was electrocuted while working on a generator.

Adjusting to the dangerous conditions, Army Major Richard Spiegel told the press on Sunday, "In certain cases, the recent increase in attacks may have changed the way we do business, but it has not affected the way we supply or support the troops . . . . Water, food, ammunition, fuel, spare parts and other critical supplies are still getting where they need to be when they need to be there." (Washington Post)
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I22935-2004Apr18 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/article/largerphoto?contentId=A21925-2004Apr18&thisnode=world/mideast/gulf/iraq&showSky=false&imgId=I22935-2004Apr18)
The face of war:
"Marines carry a wounded comrade to a medical evacuation helicopter during
a battle Saturday in the city of Qusaybah, in western Iraq."
(Cutraro, St. Louis Post/AP)

Comment: Prices, obviously, will go up. In fact, Army Brig. General Kimmitt made that point on Friday. (Okay, he said, "probably." But come on ...?) The punchline, of course, is that this is mixed news for Kellogg Brown & Root, who are reportedly having a hard time deciding whether to take advantage of the new crisis by masking their fraud, or whether to keep their fraud consistent by exaggerating prices even more.

I know, I know, it's far too complex a joke to actually work on this occasion, and this certainly isn't the time to be making jokes. But April's bloodshed is certainly taking its toll on the war effort: "Whatever we take, it's dangerous now," Abu Abdullah said. "The mujaheddin stop you on the road. They ask you: 'Who are taking these things for?' They want to see the papers. If you lie and you don't have the right papers, they will burn you with the trailer."

He added that Kellogg Brown & Root, a unit of Halliburton Co., has begun offering trucking companies 1 million dinars -- about $700 -- for an overnight truck trip in some cases, a large sum in a country where $200 is considered a decent monthly salary. "The drivers still refuse," Abu Abdullah said, even when the firm has offered armed escorts to accompany the convoys.

Kellogg Brown & Root suspended convoys after insurgents ambushed an Army fuel-truck convoy on April 9, killing one soldier and an Iraqi driver. The company recently resumed the convoys, a Halliburton spokeswoman said. (Washington Post)These may be the first signs of molasses or tar under the feet of the lumbering American military giant, the first legitimate whispers of the quagmire. There is no question in anyone's mind whether or not the United States can squash this insurgency; how best to do it, of course, has become the subject of much debate. In a purely military consideration, you have all the time and fresh meat you can send to the line; what happens, though, if the security situation continues to degrade and the reconstruction effort becomes an even deeper, longer, harder slog? Every convoy and caravan that gets put off schedule is another hour or day that thousands of American troops and their Coalition comrades must stand in the line of fire.

At what point does the Bush administration put its foot down and say, "No more of this! Shia opinion worldwide be damned!"

Of course, how much will that also equal, "Muslim opinion worldwide be damned!"

The logical course of action . . . well, what is the logical course of action?

• Bush's Brain is cold enough to hold out and spend the lives to force the decision to wait until after the election, but that's so risky politically that a threshold of human expenditure might be crossed.
• Bush might choose to bet it all on Red and spin the wheel, stomping the insurgency with reckless abandon (a.k.a. "shock and awe") - either the American people support him or they toss him; he either enters the aftermath with a solidified mandate, having been finally legitimately elected (in theory), or being kicked out of office and leaving Somalia to the nth power for President Kerry. (Gotta top Poppy all around ....)
• Bush might withdraw ... right. And besides, he has created a situation where even I am more wary of a power vacuum than I am American tyranny.

Along more realistic lines, one might wonder whether or not Bush and Company have stopped to consider ....

Wait, wait. Of course they have. Allow me to rephrase myself:

I wonder whether or not Bush and Company have stopped to seriously consider the possibility that any Iraqi government operating in a nation rife with American troops or, even, at this point, Baby Blues should it come to that, will necessarily have to act from time to time in open defiance of its partners, overlords, or whatnot.

Let us hope for the best for everyone involved.

Notes:

• Iraq Coalition Casualties. See http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx
• Chan, Sewell. "10 GIs Die in Attacks In Iraq." Washington Post, April 19, 2004; Page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21925-2004Apr18.html