View Full Version : News from the Colonies - America's War in Iraq
My article is about how military analysts fight the war.
Right, right, right. I'm actually familiar with the article. What I mean is, simply, that it seems there's a typo, or misstatement involved:
And whether we have democracy in Iraq or not, it doesn’t mean a tinker’s damn if we end up with the result we want, which is a regime over there that’s not a threat to us.
Doesn't it seem like there should be a "don't" in there? As in, "... it doesn't mean a tinker's damn if we don't end up with the result we want ...."
Or is this one of those telling moments often called a Freudian slip? I mean, it doesn't take much effort to convince me that we're not actually there to win a war. I think we're in Iraq in order to start a conflict for the ages, a hundred year war. You know, the New American Century?
It's just ... it's just a strange quote.
Right, right, right. I'm actually familiar with the article. What I mean is, simply, that it seems there's a typo, or misstatement involved:
And whether we have democracy in Iraq or not, it doesn’t mean a tinker’s damn if we end up with the result we want, which is a regime over there that’s not a threat to us.
Doesn't it seem like there should be a "don't" in there? As in, "... it doesn't mean a tinker's damn if we don't end up with the result we want ...."
Or is this one of those telling moments often called a Freudian slip? I mean, it doesn't take much effort to convince me that we're not actually there to win a war. I think we're in Iraq in order to start a conflict for the ages, a hundred year war. You know, the New American Century?
It's just ... it's just a strange quote.
I read it differently
as in
And whether we have democracy in Iraq or not, it doesn’t mean a tinker’s damn
followed by,
if we end up with the result we want, which is a regime over there that’s not a threat to us.
To me that says the democracy part is not as significant as the getting a friendly regime part, which is sort of consistent with US foreign policy in the region, like in Saudi Arabia for example. IOW, the aim is a friendly regime, rather than democracy.
The idea is, now how to sell that notion to Joe American? Bring in nonexistent Iranian nuclear bombs for instance.
Vkothii
05-03-08, 08:58 PM
And to nail the nuclear threat message home, or give sleeping Ammuricans something to dream about, a little "nuclear weapon mishap", where some grunt forgets to fill out the form properly, or whatever, means live cruise missiles fly across the continental US, gosh darn it.
Sure, the military screw up with their nukes, on like a daily basis, maybe. "It happens all the time".
Or the whole thing just happened to coincide with raising the awareness of the American public to the threat of nuclear weapons poised above the nation...?
To me that says the democracy part is not as significant as the getting a friendly regime part, which is sort of consistent with US foreign policy in the region, like in Saudi Arabia for example.
I do not disagree with you that this appears to be the intent, but I'm not sure the sentence actually equals that result.
I don't disagree with you, S.A.M., but rather
Actually, a switch flipped, just now, and I think I see your point. Really. As I was writing the sentences struck above.
I'll still go with the statement being poorly phrased by the analyst, but I do think I'm seeing your interpretation now.
Thank you for helping me resolve that one.
Iraq did go to war against Iran and Kuwait.
As far as i can tell Saudia Arabia is not bad, i dont know whats bad about it? Maybe Tiassa or SAM know.
And what about Kuwait? Isn't that an outstanding country? Tell me, is it?
And what about that other place where they are building all that outstanding architecture? Sorry, I can think of the name right now.
All i am saying is that the regime in question did start a lot of wars. Or maybe I am wrong. Does anyone see where i am going with this?
Say maybe he meant what he said. I dont care for him either, but i am just saying.
iceaura
05-03-08, 11:59 PM
All i am saying is that the regime in question did start a lot of wars. Or maybe I am wrong. Does anyone see where i am going with this? The operative part was "friendly to us" - whoever Rumsfeld meant by "us".
If "starting wars" were the problem, Iran would not be problematic.
But they were not friendly to Kuwait and Iran either.
The Gitmo Disaster
Guantanamo prosecutions falling apart
After years of waiting, Guantanamo Bay's terror suspects are getting their day in court. Sort of. In the first place, they're appearing before military judges. And, to the other, some curious results are coming about:
One judge in the Guantanamo Bay military tribunal has threatened to suspend the case against a Canadian terrorism suspect if Pentagon prosecutors continue withholding evidence from the defense.
Another judge has disqualified an Air Force general from advising the war-crimes court because of what he agreed was the general's politically motivated "unlawful command influence."
On Tuesday, the Pentagon lawyer in charge of the military tribunal approved charges that carry the death penalty against confessed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators but dropped them against the alleged "20th hijacker" without saying why. Mohammed Qahtani in February had been designated for prosecution along with the others.
As the six-year effort to bring alleged terrorists to justice crawls toward its first trial next month, military jurists have been distancing themselves from the prosecutorial juggernaut that appeared to have been launched earlier this year to bring swift convictions before the November election.
(Williams (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-tribunal14-2008may14,0,4723388.story))
The stunning turn of events leaves analysts and commentators scrambling for explanations. Dan Slater writes for The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/05/14/defense-department-jettisons-charges-against-20th-hijacker/) that, "A source told the WSJ that Crawford had seen 'a real difference in the level of culpability' between Qahtani and the other five prisoners proposed for the 9/11 trial". Qahtani's lawyer, LtC Bryan Broyles suggested that Tribunal Convening Authority Susan J. Crawford's decision recognized the impact of abusive treatment his client allegedly endured at Guantanamo. "An objective view of the evidence in his case," he said, "would convince any attorney with criminal law experience that the charges should be dropped." The Washington Post editorial board wrote,
By most accounts Mr. Qahtani is now indeed a broken man, unable to communicate meaningfully even with those who would help him. Susan J. Crawford, who dismissed the charges against him, either came to believe that Mr. Qahtani's statements were unreliable and inadmissible because they were coerced; or, perhaps, that the proceedings against Mr. Qahtani had to be halted to keep a litany of abuses from being recounted within earshot of the rest of the world.
(Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051503705.html))
According to the Post, military prosecutors are attempting to "cleanse" the statements made by terrorism suspects at Guantanamo by attempting to compel them to repeat themselves through more legitimate methods. The board notes, however, that "it should not be forgotten that by the time the need for such cleansing arises, serious damage has already been done -- to those who were subjected to abuse and to the country that authorized it."
While some might describe the United States' unfortunate and buffoonish foray into the realm of torture as a "frat party", the reality is far more grim. In the race to justify sadism as necessary for national security, the government has created a situation in which the truth—and therefore the real nature and magnitude of the threats facing the United States—has been quite possibly irretrievably damaged.
____________________
Notes:
Williams, Carol J. "Charges dropped for 20th alleged 9/11 hijacker". Los Angeles Times. May 14, 2008. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-tribunal14-2008may14,0,4723388.story
Slater, Dan. "Defense Department Jettisons Charges Against ‘20th Hijacker’". The Wall Street Journal Law Blog. May 14, 2008. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/05/14/defense-department-jettisons-charges-against-20th-hijacker/
Editorial Board. "Torture's Blowback". Washington Post. May 16, 2008; page A18. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051503705.html
How do we know the rest of the testimonies aren't equally unreliable?
Or even that they will get a fair trial?
Military and civilian defense lawyers have complained for years that terrorism suspects cannot get fair trials at Guantanamo. Hearsay evidence and that obtained through coercive interrogation techniques are admissible in tribunal proceedings if the judge deems it necessary. Defendants can be prevented from seeing confidential evidence or confronting accusers whose identities the prosecution considers protected.
Upon learning that the five Sept. 11 suspects had been charged, Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, complained that security clearances for volunteer defense lawyers were being blocked by the Pentagon. "This raises very serious questions when civilian lawyers and civil liberties organizations step up to the plate in an inherently unfair and fundamentally flawed process and the government still impedes our efforts to do vigorous lawyering," he said.
Looks like a kangaroo court
DiamondHearts
05-18-08, 03:30 AM
What's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan right now is simply ridiculous and makes all claims of America or the other Western nations spreading democracy and freedom void.
This is real terrorism (state terrorism on the scale of hundreds of thousands of deaths) perpetrated on innocent civilians (women, children (girls mostly), elderly are the ones suffering the most). The utter disregard for all human decency as portrayed in prisons of Abu Ghareeb and Bagram airbase are only the tip of the iceberg. These sadistic acts (rape of women and men) and inhuman torture (simulated drowning, attacks by dogs, having metal tools sticks into inmates, beatings, and continuously being under bright lights, wet, naked, in cold prisons). These people are mostly not soldiers from the resistance, these are innocent people who have happened to be alone and been captured, raped, abused. What do you expect when there are all women jails in Afghanistan and Iraq captured by male American soldiers? These prisoners are not soldiers, these are mostly civilians. One of the main demands of many of the resistance groups fighting Western forces right now is the release of women prisoners.
If you think that peace and justice can prevail while Iraq and Afghanistan are in chaos, anarchy, and oppression, then you are either really naive or simply inhumanely insensitive to human suffering (like those who support the wars).
All people in Middle East and Muslim world are rightfully angered at these blatant imperialistic and terrorist acts perpetrated by the "champions of liberty." In reality this is all hypocrisy and only a means to control, oppress, and scare people into submission. These are war crimes, and eventually in a more fair and just world order we may be able to punish these soldiers, government officials, and warmongers for their crimes.
The foolish things is after they occupy, destroy infrastructure, and engage in constant and gross acts against the public, they blame them for their situation. Its similar to how you can bulldoze someone's house and blame them for the crime. People are not foolish, most people in the world know this war is a sham and it is a crime. Those people who tell themselves that this is for freedom and justice to help "Iraqi and Afghani victims" are either extremely naive or imperialistic racists to whom one life of their race is preferable to thousands of Muslim lives. Some people really think like this, and its unfortunate, but then again Hell is made for these people. These innocents who are victims, what crime is theirs other than to be Iraqi, Afghani and Muslim.
I may get carried away so you must forgive me as this hits very close to my heart.
I always think about on my satellite channel when I say an Iraqi mother who was crying and when the reporter asked her to tell her story, she said that her son who was a grown man, was captured one day by American soldiers on his way from work, and she had not heard anything about him for months. She finally saw him, but he was in a pile of tortured human corpses in one of the pictures of Abu Ghareeb prison, she recognized him from a scar on his thigh. Now for billion plus Muslims around the world who see this, what do you expect their response to be. This is one mans story, but what of the thousands of raped women, children, and of those abused innocent young men. What kind of justice is this?
After this, no kind of "winning hearts and minds" tactic will work, as long as this torture of innocents and plunder of nations' resources, children, and honor takes place.
Source: BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/)
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7411862.stm
Title: "US 'stuck' with Guantanamo prison"
Date: May 21, 2008
The latest excuse from the Bush administration:
The US is "stuck" with the Guantanamo Bay detention centre even though it wants to close it, Defence Secretary Robert Gates has said.
Mr Gates said the US wanted to send up to 70 prisoners home but countries would either not take them or could not be trusted to.
(BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7411862.stm))
Left at that, it seems a legitimate worry. After all, some countries probably don't want these people back. Others might do their own harm to the suspects.
But wait. While the question of whether or not some governments will take them back is fair, the idea that others might torture or persecute Guantanamo suspects isn't even on the radar:
Mr Gates told a US Senate hearing: "The brutally frank answer is that we're stuck... We have a serious 'not in my backyard' problem.
"Either their home government won't accept them or we're concerned that the home government will let them loose once we return them home," he said.
"What do you do with that irreducible 70 or 80 who you cannot let loose but will not be charged and will not be sent home?" he asked.
The Pentagon has said 36 former inmates who were released are "confirmed or suspected of having returned to terrorism".
(ibid)
Note that phrase, "returned to terrorism". How many of the suspects released were ever proven to be terrorists, and why were they released?
It is a remarkable charge, all things considered, suggesting gross negligence if Gates is being truthful.
To the other, the problem is that these are Guantanamo suspects.
In March, 2006, the Chicago-based radio program This American Life broadcast an episode about Guantanamo suspects. Some of it plays like the sickening farce so many critics suspect. For instance, Jack Hitt reported:
HITT: The administration quickly put together a kind of hearing based, in part, on the old Geneva Conventions hearing they'd abandoned. They called this hearing a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, or, in the elegant shorthand of the Pentagon, a CSRT. These new hearings have one oddity to them: the tribunal assumes all the evidence against the detainee is correct. If the detainee wants to prove them wrong, it'll be difficult—because he's not allowed to see the evidence. It's classified. As a result, these hearings make strange reading. In many of them, there comes a moment in the dialog like this one between detainee Abdul Malik and the judging panel.
MALIK: Regarding the charge that I worked at several guest houses and offices, what was the work?
JUDGE: I cannot answer that. This is the first time we've seen the evidence. I know nothing more than what is written here.
MALIK: Same with me. I don't know anything about this. Regarding the charge that I was frequently seen at Osama bin Laden's side—who saw me?
JUDGE: I don't know.
MALIK: If it says "was frequently seen", you have to prove that.
The Supreme Court has said the detainees did not deserve a full criminal trial, of course, only the basics of a fair hearing, which came down to three things: a lawyer, an impartial judge, and the chance to see the evidence against them. In practice, though, they get none of these.
Baher Azmy is a lawyer who represents one of the detainees, but he couldn't attend his client's CSRT—because actual lawyers aren't allowed.
AZMY: They were each appointed a personal representative who's a military officer, um, who in my case met with my client the day before for 15 minutes, sat silent and failed to present all of the exculpatory evidence in his file, which, of course, any lawyer would have done. Not the personal representative.
Hitt: And as for confronting the evidence, consider the case of Azmy's client, Murat Kumaz, a Turkish citizen raised in Germany. The Pentagon accidentally declassified the file with all of the secret evidence against it. And here's what's in it: nothing.
AZMY: The classified file contains—the Washington Post wrote about it—six statements from military intelligence. That's really what the classified file is. Memos saying "this person was here" or "so-and-so witnessed him ..." In Kumaz's case, there are five or six statements saying, "There's no evidence of any connection to Al Qaeda, the Taliban or a threat to the United States. The Germans have concluded he has got no connection to Al Qaeda. There's no evidence linking him to the Taliban." Over and over and over again.
HITT: But here's the thing: At the hearing, nobody talks about any of that. His personal representative doesn't bring it up. The tribunal doesn't consider it. And Kumaz himself doesn't even know about it. He's declared an enemy combatant; he's still at Guantanamo today.
But wait. There's more. The reason they give for holding him? A friend of his named Selcuk Bilgin blew himself up as a suicide bomber in Turkey in 2003. That's 2 years after Kumaz got picked up.
AZMY: So setting aside the sort of remarkable legal proposition that one could be detained indefinitely for what one's friend does, it's actually preposterous in that a simple Google search or a call to the Germans would have revealed that his friend is alive and well, and under no suspicion of any such thing.
HITT: You heard that right. Kumaz is in Guantanamo because two years after he got picked up, a guy he knows became a suicide bomber. Except that he didn't become a suicide bomber and is currently living in Germany.
AZMY: Yeah, he's walking around in Germany; I've met him.
(This American Life (http://thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1123))
And neither Malik or Kumaz's stories are unique. The prisoners at Guantanamo are a strange bunch, all things considered.
HITT: The government says that they would release Adel and the other Uighurs, if only it could find another country to send them to. I have an idea. Adel could go 90 miles north to Miami where there's an entire city of anti-Communists. Or he could be sent to one fo the largest Uighur ex-pat communities: in Washington D.C. So, why aren't we going to be seeing Adel anytime soon? Here's Willett:
WILLETT: I'll tell you what I think the answer is, although no one from the government would admit this. I think the answer is that if anybody actually met these guys, actually looked at them, and took their pictures and, you know, had them on TV shows or the radio, they'd be shocked. Because they've been told for four years that the people at Guantanamo are terrorists, that they're the worst of the worst. And you take a look at Adel, you're suddenly gonna realize you've been lied to for a long time. He struck me when I first met him like the kind of kid your college age kid would bring home—his roommate, his buddy from college, home for the weekend. People who meet Adel for the first time, they walk out of the meeting and, and, their jaws are a little unsprung. And they don't say much, because it's hitting them like a ton of bricks. You know. "This guy's in Guantanamo?"
• • •
HITT: Of course, as we're so often told, this war is different. Who wants to be the one who lets somebody go who then turns out to be the next 9/11 hijacker? So for the military, there's also this other new thing. A terrifying calculation that there can be no margin of error. Joe Marguiles of the University of Chicago represents a few detainees, and has been trying to make sense out of what has been happening at Guantanamo.
MARGUILES: If we give them the benefit of the doubt, it is possible—and there is a lot of evidence to support this—they had no idea who they were going to be capturing. And they thought they might get more, uh, serious people, people who were more seriously involved. The reality is, those people never came to Guantanamo. The most serious folks are those in CIA custody, of which there are approximately 30; 27 to 30, something like that. Those are the people in black sites that we don't even know where they are. The people who are of any significance never arrived at Guantanamo, but they didn't know that when the base opened. And they said, at the time, that these are the worst of the worst, they were trained killers, they would gnaw through the hydraulic lines to bring down the plane that was flying them to Guantanamo ... I mean, they used the most inflammatory rhetoric, and it very quickly became apparent that they were just mistaken. And then they were stuck with this PR nightmare. At the same time, there was this sense, this nagging sense, that maybe they are really bad and we just can't find out. Maybe they're not Afghan dirt farmers as all appearances seem to be. How do we really know? Maybe we need to use more aggressive techniques to find out. So they kept turning up the heat and using more and more coercive techniques on people who were less and less significant.
(ibid)
And these seem to be the people to whom Gates refers. They were never proven to be terrorists. They likely aren't terrorists. And yet, some of them, upon release, "returned" to terrorism.
It's a shameless con.
____________________
Notes:
Chicago Public Radio. "Habeas Schmabeas". This American Life #310. March 10, 2006. http://thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1123
PDF transcript: http://thisamericanlife.org/extras/radio/310_transcript.pdf
synthesizer-patel
05-21-08, 06:04 AM
Tiassa - this is kind of what I suspected all along with Gitmo - nice to see it confirmed though.
If the War on Terror was in fact a reality, and not a scam, putting "enemy combatants" and "terror suspects" through the court system and bringing them to justice publicly (even if it were just a show trial) - would win absolutely priceless PR and propaganda for the pro-war/TWOT cause - and at a time when they really needed some
The fact that so few terrorist were brought to justice, the fact that so little positive political capital was made out of the detainees in Gitmo speaks volumes
... nice to see it confirmed though.
I'm not sure "nice" is the proper word. I mean, in the end, I would prefer that these people actually are guilty, because, while the terms of their detention are distressing enough, it is nearly unbearable—and certainly infuriating—to think of the number of innocent people we're putting through all this.
And the nearly religious affirmation of our government's presumption of guilt is at once chilling and disgusting.
I find no pleasure or sense of vindication about this nightmare. Maybe I should lighten up.
synthesizer-patel
05-21-08, 09:05 AM
I find no pleasure or sense of vindication about this nightmare. Maybe I should lighten up.
bad choice of words on my part - perhaps I should have said something like "being proved right is something of a hollow victory"
oh yeah, and lighten the fuck up! :D
Source: BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/)
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7411862.stm
Title: "US 'stuck' with Guantanamo prison"
Date: May 21, 2008
The latest excuse from the Bush administration:
Tiassa's excuse; wait for it...
So, T, why don't you adopt all the Gitmo detainees and put them up at your place?
I always think about on my satellite channel ...
Nice to see you're well informed. TV has all the answers for those who seek them. :deal:
A Question for (Q) and Mr. G
Why not contribute to the News from the Colonies instead of just complaining?
A Question for (Q) and Mr. G
Why not contribute to the News from the Colonies instead of just complaining?
I'm the nail in your over-inflated tire.
The Universe, beyond your local horizon, considers that a contribution to most of its constituents.
I make my points in brevity (cut-to-the-chase stuff). Unlike yourself, for whom words in volume is your argument to authority.
That you complain is an interesting counter-point. Wouldn't you say?
Oh.
Regarding America's war in Iraq?
Advocated for it. Personally support(ed) it. Looking forward to its successful completion. Happy to have Iraqis as new-found friends.
Happy to have Iraqi friends who wouldn't give you the time of day if they met you on the street.
Now that's a contribution the Universe-at-large can duly appreciate.
DiamondHearts
05-26-08, 04:41 AM
Advocated for it. Personally support(ed) it. Looking forward to its successful completion. Happy to have Iraqis as new-found friends.
People who supported the invasion and support it now are and forever will be the enemies of all Iraqis and all Muslims.
You may continue to delude yourself into thinking you are helping them, but the reality is the vast majority of Iraqis resent the destruction of their country and the dishonor of innocent men and women by US soldiers.
This is the truth, Iraqis hate the US military presence in their country just as Americans would resent a foreign military in their country.
America earns what it wants.
America cares what its ankle-biting detractors think, exactly why?
Small-d darwinism is your mommy's darwinism.
We Americans are your Daddy.
Go ahead. Take us on. Make our day.
We appreciate a good laugh.
Vkothii
05-26-08, 08:01 AM
We Americans are your Daddy.But you aren't an American, and if you are anyone's Daddy, I feel bloody sorry for them already.
America is a big dream dude, it doesn't actually exist - there are no Americans, so you can't be one. You might be a self-opiniated sonofabitch, though, it's hard to say. You might just be trying to push buttons.
P.S. How long are you going to look forward to successful completion of whatever you think the mission is in the ME? When do you think the situation might stop looking like a protracted conflict that could last decades? Do you expect to still be alive if this ever happens?
America earns what it wants.
America cares what its ankle-biting detractors think, exactly why?
Small-d darwinism is your mommy's darwinism.
We Americans are your Daddy.
Go ahead. Take us on. Make our day.
We appreciate a good laugh.
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/nba0132l.jpg
But you aren't an American, ...
You might be a...sonofabitch,...
I am both. For sure.
How long are you going to look forward to successful completion of whatever you think the mission is in the ME?
Every bit as long as the ME, and the rest of the world, thinks that America should pay attention to it because it exists as something more significant than it really is.
When do you think the situation might stop looking like a protracted conflict that could last decades?
When the ME grows up and starts acting like adults.
Do you expect to still be alive if this ever happens?
No.
Hey, I'm clueless.
Yes. Yes, you are.
You can't insult the $ with a foreign currency note, dweeb.
So how do adults act, G?
Why do you ask?
Why do you ask?
Because I want to see your definition. So far, the ME has acted pretty well in accordance with your values- the weak take from the strong, and if anyone bitches about it, who cares? Saw her head off or something.
James R
05-27-08, 01:30 AM
America earns what it wants.
It's not earning so well right now. Heading for a recession, last time I heard.
America cares what its ankle-biting detractors think, exactly why?
Because it likes to paint itself as world policeman and moral guide? Hmm... that isn't going too well right now either, is it?
We Americans are your Daddy.
You presume to speak for all Americans, as usual. Have you ever considered that they didn't appoint you as their spokesman? You may have a daddy complex, but don't drag your fellow countrymen into it.
Go ahead. Take us on. Make our day.
We appreciate a good laugh.
I don't see too many of your soldiers who are serving in Iraq and dodging the IEDs laughing.
Vkothii
05-27-08, 02:09 AM
I wonder what they do for laughs in the V.A. hospitals stateside, while they wait around for an artificial arm or leg (or two)?
I bet they come up with some real side-splitters.
I bet they come up with some real side-splitters.
No pun intended! Ahahaha!
Vkothii
05-27-08, 05:13 AM
When they finally get their kit, they probably have a right old knees-up.
Sorry, I don't know where I get this stuff, seriously.
Because I want to see your definition. So far, the ME has acted pretty well in accordance with your values- the weak take from the strong, and if anyone bitches about it, who cares? Saw her head off or something.
Mine was a rhetorical question.
It wasn't needing an actual response.
It was a place-keeping crowd pleaser.
Good to see that your expensive leftie education has you at the top of your game.
;)
It's not earning so well right now. Heading for a recession, last time I heard.
Even in our worst recession we earn more than your little piece of paradise.
Oz iz a personal favorite of mine. Like us, y'all don't seem to appreciate your true place in the scheme of things as decided by others.
You just seem to have a problem with your actual betters. ;)
Because it likes to paint itself as world policeman and moral guide? Hmm... that isn't going too well right now either, is it?
We're the planet's current Alpha Male.
We roll our socks down for you so you can bite our ankles as if cotton socks were no obstacle.
You presume to speak for all Americans, as usual.
No.
I only presume to speak for my fellow Americans who are so commited to the American concept that our cold, dead hands will be your best earned trophy -- if your ilk actually survives such an encounter.
Have you ever considered that they didn't appoint you as their spokesman?
Have you ever considered that I'd be appointed long before you?
You may have a daddy complex, but don't drag your fellow countrymen into it.
You may own effete, but we aren't required to imitate you.
I don't see too many of your soldiers who are serving in Iraq and dodging the IEDs laughing.
I don't see your limited powers of observation as mattering in the grand scheme of things.
You're Ozzie. You're family.
You're welcome at my table.
I have a big back yard with plenty of room, and a shovel, if you insist on disrespecting your betters.
Mine was a rhetorical question.
It wasn't needing an actual response.
It was a place-keeping crowd pleaser.
Good to see that your expensive leftie education has you at the top of your game.
;)
I get it it.
You say contradictory things without substance to rile people up, right?
There's a special word for people like you on the internet. Troll.
I get it it.
No, you don't don't.
You say contradictory things without substance to rile people up, right?
No. I say contradictory things of substance to rile people up.
There's a special word for people like you on the internet. Troll.
No. The word is Professor.
I'm not the source of your issues.
Vkothii
05-28-08, 12:11 AM
I have a big back yard with plenty of room, and a shovel, if you insist on disrespecting your betters.How many piles have you got buried in it, for goodness sake?
If you keep digging, do you just find more of the same old shit, or do you think there might be some new shit somewhere?
How many piles have you got buried in it, for goodness sake?
If you keep digging, do you just find more of the same old shit, or do you think there might be some new shit somewhere?
You're smelling new.
Vkothii
05-28-08, 01:03 AM
Oh crap, I bet you say that to all your shovels.
James R
05-28-08, 04:40 AM
Mr. G:
Even in our worst recession we earn more than your little piece of paradise.
Is this a competition to see whose country is bigger?
The Oz dollar is set to overtake the US dollar in value any day now.
You just seem to have a problem with your actual betters.
Are you supposed to be one of my betters? Better in what way?
We're the planet's current Alpha Male.
You big Republican, you! :)
I only presume to speak for my fellow Americans who are so commited to the American concept that our cold, dead hands will be your best earned trophy -- if your ilk actually survives such an encounter.
So, you speak primarily for gun-toting rednecks, I take it?
synthesizer-patel
05-28-08, 07:16 AM
We're the planet's current Alpha Male.
since when were raging paranoia, insecurity and inferiority complex the sign of an alpha male?
Sounds more like a geeky teenage girl to me.
The USA needs someone to braid her pigtails while she pigs out on a 3 gallon bucket of icecream, and bitches about how the rest of the world hates her and thinks she's fat.
iceaura
05-28-08, 04:18 PM
The USA needs someone to braid her pigtails while she pigs out on a 3 gallon bucket of icecream, and bitches about how the rest of the world hates her and thinks she's fat. The pig-pig alliteration doesn't work for me. But gem quality is in reach. I'd keep the first, turning the blade sideways, and change the second.
Vkothii
05-28-08, 06:47 PM
Interesting news item on the Beeb last nite: the Bush Administration has decided to maintain a permanent military presence in, guess where? The Bill is about to be signed.
Some White House dude was on camera denying that the US wants any permanent large bases in the country (it has built a few big ones though??), and said nothing or wasn't asked about plans for a 0.7b US Embassy, which sounds like a codeword for "Administrative Complex with Multiple Intelligence Assets", or somesuch.
Mr. G:
Is this a competition to see whose country is bigger?
No. It's a foregone conclusion.
The Oz dollar is set to overtake the US dollar in value any day now.
Ah. Any day now the Oz dollar will be worth more than it ever has. As much value as the US$ in a moment of temporary situational weakness.
Only one of our two dollars has a serious upward valuation in its future.
Are you supposed to be one of my betters? Better in what way?
More lucky. Just like all us post-KT mammals.
More wealthy.
You big Republican, you! :)
I'm a big, non-affiliated registered Independent.
And you're just a pedestrian bigot driven by intellectually lazy stereotype.
Progressive, is it?
So, you speak primarily for gun-toting rednecks, I take it?
I speak primarily for gun-toting Americans.
Americans who spell Testosterone with a capital T.
I speak primarily for gun-toting Americans.
And yet gun-toting Americans get really pissed off if others depict them as being remotely like you. What an irony, then, that their spokesman should be the epitome of everything they don't want to be seen as.
Vkothii
05-29-08, 01:36 AM
Some White House dude was on camera denying that the US wants any permanent large bases in the countryBy this I mean he was moving his head from side to side, and starting sentences with: "No, ..." but if you turned your own head to rotate the image, he was in fact nodding his head, and saying: "On, ...".
synthesizer-patel
05-29-08, 04:29 AM
The pig-pig alliteration doesn't work for me. But gem quality is in reach. I'd keep the first, turning the blade sideways, and change the second.
Thanks for the constructive criticism - I hadn't noticed the duplication of "'pig" -had I spotted it I would have phrased it slightly differently.
How about:
The USA needs someone to braid her pigtails while she shovels a 3 gallon bucket of icecream down her insatiable gaping maw, and bitches about how the rest of the world hates her and thinks she's fat.
James R
05-29-08, 04:42 AM
Mr. G:
Ah. Any day now the Oz dollar will be worth more than it ever has.
No. The Oz dollar was worth more than the US dollar until the Oz was floated in the 1980s. Originally, when Australia converted from Pounds to dollars, the Aus dollar was based on the UK pound sterling.
Only one of our two dollars has a serious upward valuation in its future.
I assume you mean the Australian dollar.
I'm a big, non-affiliated registered Independent.
You're not really independent when you vote Republican every time, you know.
But I'm sure it gives you comfort to think you are.
And you're just a pedestrian bigot driven by intellectually lazy stereotype.
If it quacks like a duck, as they say...
Source: Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/)
Link: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004444827_iraqgospel29.html
Title: "Marines accused of proselytizing in Fallujah; gospel verse on coins", by James Naji and Leila Fadel
Date: May 29, 2008
This is just what we need:
At the western entrance to the Iraqi city of Fallujah on Tuesday, Muamar Anad handed his residence badge to the U.S. Marines guarding the city. They checked to be sure he was a city resident, and when they were done, Anad said, a Marine slipped a coin out of his pocket and put it in his hand.
Out of fear, he accepted it, Anad said. When he was inside the city, the college student said, he looked at one side of the coin. "Where will you spend eternity?" it asked.
He flipped it over, and on the other side it read, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16."
"They are trying to convert us to Christianity," said Anad, a Sunni Muslim like most residents of this city in Anbar province. At home, he told his story, and his relatives echoed their disapproval: They'd been given the coins, too, he said.
"Iraq is investigating a report that U.S. military personnel in Fallujah handed-out material that is religious and evangelical in nature," said Rear Adm. Patrick Driscoll, a U.S. military spokesman, in a statement e-mailed to McClatchy Newspapers. "Local commanders are investigating since the military prohibits proselytizing any religion, faith or practices."
(Naji and Fadel (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004444827_iraqgospel29.html))
The Iraqi people, already wary of their occupiers, are looking upon this latest matter as one of exploitation, a humiliating proselytization intended to take advantage of their weak position in their own country. In the battle for hearts and minds, such as it is called these days, a deviant appeal to the soul is a prescription for disaster. Indeed, as one man explained, the coins recalled for him tales of abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib, the rape adn murder of a fourteen year-old girl: "Now we have this missionary way by these coins .... We feel the Muslims are weak and we hope that we will reach a point when we are strong to let them know what is wrong and what is right."
While in truth this incident does not have the makings of the proverbial straw, we must be wary of the burdens we place upon the backs of the Iraqi people. Certainly there are some who would view this incident in puzzlement should retribution arise, but we must take care that when the Iraqis throw off their burdens, part of that task does not involve gunning down more Americans. Quite clearly, there are elements within the theater that need less provocation than this to kill.
So is that how adults behave Mr. G? Arguing over who has the biggest? Who can beat who up?
Real grown up.
Has anyone ever converted from a coin?
And yet gun-toting Americans get really pissed off if others depict them as being remotely like you.
We do?
Ah. We hate ourselves.
Got it.
Must..turn..gun...on...self. It's...commanded.
Screw that. We don't tote. We wield.
Punk.
What an irony, then, that their spokesman should be the epitome of everything they don't want to be seen as.
You presume beyond your station.
So is that how adults behave Mr. G? Arguing over who has the biggest? Who can beat who up?
Real grown up.
You ask for guidance, then presume to lecture.
You're confliction points directly to your personal inadequacy.
Not my problem.
Vkothii
05-30-08, 01:55 AM
Not my problem.Nothing is your problem, is it? So, at least there's someone on this god-forsaken planet who's well-adjusted, and with absolutely no problems with anything?
What can you tell everyone about how you managed to figure out you have no problems, but clearly a lot of other people do? What's a perfectly adjusted human being supposed to do about that?
Mr. G:
Is this a competition to see whose country is bigger?
No. Your country would lose at the starting line.
The Oz dollar is set to overtake the US dollar in value any day now.
For how long, if it should happen?
Are you supposed to be one of my betters? Better in what way?
No.
I'm American.
You big Republican, you! :)
I'm a non-affiliated Independent. I guess a reasoned appreciation of American political strata is not your strong suit.
No reason it should be.
It's not as though you think you know more about my politics than I do.
*cough*
So, you speak primarily for gun-toting rednecks, I take it?
I speak for my gun-wielding self, and others of my inclination.
It is you who seems more inclined to the redneck paradigm.
A good emitter is a good absorber-thingy, no doubt.
You own a major impedance mismatch.
What's a perfectly adjusted human being supposed to do about that?
Charge you for my product/service.
What? You think your natural inadequacies entitle you to a discount?
James R
05-30-08, 05:10 AM
Mr. G:
Your memory may be letting you down in your old age. You've doubled up and responded to the same post twice.
You responded first in post #795, then again in post #806.
Once you get yourself sorted, you can pick up the thread of our conversation by reading post #799.
Good luck!
You ask for guidance, then presume to lecture.
You're confliction points directly to your personal inadequacy.
Not my problem.
I am confliction points?
Anyway, rhetorical (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Arhetorical&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a).
By the way, your illiteracy points to your personal inadequacy.
Mr. G:
Your memory may be letting you down in your old age. You've doubled up and responded to the same post twice.
You responded first in post #795, then again in post #806.
Once you get yourself sorted, you can pick up the thread of our conversation by reading post #799.
Good luck!
Were the conversation compelling enough for my complete concentration...
The only thing that I wonder about with people like our neighbor G is what they're seeking. I mean, quite obviously, it's an inner gratification to which other people are mere accessories. We can only infer that he disagrees with something but we don't know what exactly because he won't actually tell us. And we can only infer something of his beliefs according to the theme of his rabid incoherence by presuming an anti-identification.
In the end, it's actually a form of wailing for help. He's sad, he's lonely, and he's too fucking full of himself to actually admit it. This pathetic behavior is, in fact, the best he can manage. It's one of the problems of self-derived "wisdom" that so many of these sages preclude their own recovery by categorizing it among the things they fundamentally despise. In other words, despite his hatred of communal goodness and solidarity, that positive unity is exactly what he needs. However, because of that hatred, it is the last thing he will seek. And, since certain people hold ideologies that he would include in the range of his hatred, it is easy enough for him to blame those other people for his own misery.
This is the sadness of the super man: waking up one day to realize that you're merely human, have rendered yourself inadequate, and must embrace everything you've built your identity around hating before you can, at last, feel complete.
The grave, in the end, is the preferable option for many. We should not be surprised, then, if our neighbor G spends the rest of his life angrily lashing out at other people in a desperate attempt to remedy his own sadness.
This discussion is about a war, not an impotent old man with nothing to offer the world save bitterness and denigration. Let us leave him to his shadowed valley of death. He knows where the sun is shining, and he knows that if we see him struggling to climb the hill, we will happily offer our hands at least.
He knows, and it's why he hates people the way he does. Let us leave him to it.
You forgot to mention the "intellectual dishonesty" in all that ad hominem, T.
hypewaders
05-31-08, 01:11 AM
"You're an idiot.
A verbose idiot."
You're not, but what am I?
Thanks for elevating our consciousness yet again,
Gee (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIsou0IRIQU).
"You're an idiot.
A verbose idiot."
You're not, but what am I?
Thanks for elevating our consciousness yet again,
Gee.
What's even the more interesting observation is my superiors have a thinner skin than me.
:D
So, T;
You aren't man-enough to take public humiliation like you give it?
One would think I can take it better than you.
And give it.
Thanks for your respect.
I'll be pointing back to this thread in the future.
Good job.
You forgot to mention the "intellectual dishonesty" in all that ad hominem, T.
It would be wrong to call it "intellectual" dishonesty. There's just not any intellect about it.
Which raises another point: It is only by the loosest of definitions that we might call my post ad hominem. Which definition would you like? The classic definition (http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/A0087100.html)° fallen into disuse? Not even close. The Wikipedia version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)?
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
How about the longtime standard at Sciforums, the Nizkor version (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)?
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
How about a dictionary definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem)?
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
None of these definitions suffices. Rather, what suffices is the undisciplined assertion that anything one might perceive as insulting constitutes an ad hominem argument.
Now, perhaps my analysis of G is wrong. And perhaps he might find it insulting. He can certainly respond to it and demonstrate its error. And he can certainly continue to behave according to its speculation. But even by the snot-nosed, juvenile, coverall definition of ad hominem, we're still not there.
As to the more specific definitions, one of the elements this discussion is missing before it treads into the realm of ad hominem is an argument to respond to:
• ... replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
• ... a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
• ... attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
I don't think I'm making a particularly extreme assertion in saying that there are many of us who would much rather G actually make an argument instead of just stroke himself in a vain effort to convince us of his virility. We would much rather argue about an argument than overinflated egotism intended only to serve his perverse self-gratification.
And besides, it seems rather quite obvious that G is dishonest. There's no need to go on beating that dead horse.
But people are giving him disproportionate attention. Like I said earlier, this discussion is about a war, not some impotent old man. I, like many around here, am aware that G is a denigration of this community as a whole. And people need to realize a couple of things. First, it doesn't appear he's going anywhere; enough of my fellows consider his posts either vital and valuable to the community or else subject to protection for the sake of political correctness that little beyond the deletion of his most blatant and egregious offenses will ever happen. Secondly, he doesn't seem to care. His priorities are not refined in such a manner that he gives a rat's ass what kind of attention he gets. He's like a lonely, bitter child acting up because even negative attention is better than being ignored or forgotten.
So my suggestion to my neighbors is to leave him to it.
Between posts 766 and 813, there have been all of three posts that were on-topic. The remainder—forty-four posts—have been sidebar chatter, most of which has centered around Mr. G. Now, quite obviously, I'm all for sidebar chatter; it keeps a topic from achieving a certain unpalatable sterility. But at this level it's an overdose, and all we're doing is giving G exactly what he wants.
And so I'm asking my neighbors to recognize that they are not the only individuals who hold G in such low esteem. It's time to look around, catch the nods and winks, and recognize that there are no substantial arguments to knock a person with if they choose to simply walk the hell away and leave G to stew in his own fecal gravy.
____________________
Notes:
° classic definition — see Usage Note.
Works Cited:
"Usage Note: ad hominem". American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Fourth edition. 2000. http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/A0087100.html
"Ad hominem". Wikipedia. Updated May 25, 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"Fallacy: Ad hominem". Nizkor.org. Viewed May 30, 2008. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
"ad hominem". Dictionary.com. Viewed may 30, 2008. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem
Sure.
Whatever.
You work your side of the street for your purposes.
I'll work the other three for mine.
Hm, so what sort of argument would it be, then, to say that G holds the opinions he does because he must be a loser?
hypewaders
05-31-08, 02:18 AM
Mr. G: "Thanks for your respect."
You earn it, with high proportionality.
Mr. G: "Thanks for your respect."
You earn it, with high proportionality.
I work hard for it.
But not from you, et al.
hypewaders
05-31-08, 02:35 AM
G'nightijhi. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D7GTUmgkhc) :sleep:
iceaura
05-31-08, 10:20 PM
Quick reply to this message Roman is offline Report Post
Hm, so what sort of argument would it be, then, to say that G holds the opinions he does because he must be a loser? That would be an ad hominum argument.
I don't think anyone has bothered to make it, yet. Tiassa's above carries the opposite direction of implication, to the extent it matches at all, for example.
Vkothii
06-01-08, 12:19 AM
I find it fascinating that someone with such obvious superiority/inferiority issues would even admit having "superiors".
I mean, the word implies the distasteful idea that there are people better than you, and you have to do what they tell you. How demeaning for an otherwise well-adjusted, perfectly happy individual.
It must be tough. (Especially having people talk about you like you aren't there)
What has amused me for these years is that most of you still imagine that I hang out here so to purchase your validation.
Your superior nuanced mentalities imagine that I am not possibly simply mocking you.
News from the Colony, dudes.
Vkothii
06-02-08, 11:19 PM
"That which is brought to our attention, to be mocked, indeed shall be so mocked".
Signed - The Mockers.
"That which is brought to our attention, to be mocked, indeed shall be so mocked".
Signed - The Mockers.
As, indeed, is already mocked -- that which is not brought to your attention as being mocking.
Mockers not realizing they're mocked?
Scientist's all, no doubt.
And these seem to be the people to whom Gates refers. They were never proven to be terrorists. They likely aren't terrorists. And yet, some of them, upon release, "returned" to terrorism.
It's a shameless con.
This is so sad, those poor people. :bawl:
hypewaders
06-04-08, 12:51 PM
It's a travesty. Our unlawful imprisonments and "special renditions" are certainly fueling recruitment for our enemies, terrorist and otherwise.
This is so sad, those poor people.
It is also cause for outrage, not only for the innocent, but also for the proposition that, if Gates was being truthful, our government released known terrorists instead of prosecuting them.
Such a situation suggests that our cause for imprisoning people is not a matter of public protection, but rather a fulfillment of private sadism.
You know, we have this really annoying song that we're expected to sing sometimes. We even had to endure it during the seventh-inning stretch at baseball games after 9/11:
God bless America,
Land that I love,
Stand beside her and guide her
Through the night with a light from above;
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans white with foam.
God bless America,
My home, sweet home.
God bless America,
My home, sweet home.
(Irving Berlin (http://www.usa-flag-site.org/song-lyrics/god-bless-america.shtml))
It would be devastating to accept that this is where God has led us.
hypewaders
06-04-08, 06:31 PM
Such belief also leads to more devastation.
Vkothii
06-05-08, 08:16 AM
Just caught an item on Al-J about the proposed deal W wants the Iraqis and the coalition to ink right quick (he's leaving soon apparently), to allow up to 50 permanent large bases, and tens of thousands of American troops with immunity from prosecution and more or less free reign to operate without the consent of the Iraq government - which kind of begs the question what the hell is the Iraq government? - has popped up in The Independent after being "leaked" by someone.
It's a travesty. Our unlawful imprisonments and "special renditions" are certainly fueling recruitment for our enemies, terrorist and otherwise.
Why don't you adopt them and give them legal protection?
It is also cause for outrage, not only for the innocent, but also for the proposition that, if Gates was being truthful, our government released known terrorists instead of prosecuting them.
Such a situation suggests that our cause for imprisoning people is not a matter of public protection, but rather a fulfillment of private sadism.
You know, we have this really annoying song that we're expected to sing sometimes. We even had to endure it during the seventh-inning stretch at baseball games after 9/11:
God bless America,
Land that I love,
Stand beside her and guide her
Through the night with a light from above;
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans white with foam.
God bless America,
My home, sweet home.
God bless America,
My home, sweet home.
(Irving Berlin (http://www.usa-flag-site.org/song-lyrics/god-bless-america.shtml))
It would be devastating to accept that this is where God has led us.
You know, t, it's really easy to move to Canada so that you don't have to endure the American experience, here in America.
If your life here sucks as much as you claim because here sucks so much, why not find a less suckful place to live that isn't here and so suckful?
Why do you devote so much time and energy bitching, even while you continue to voluntarily expose yourself to the chronically bitchable qualities of this annoying America?
Why would you continue to live with your mother even while she beats you for being who you are?
You know, t, it's really easy to move to Canada so that you don't have to endure the American experience, here in America.
You're the one who hates this country enough to trash its principles and advocate a forfeiture of everything good about it. There are plenty of places in the world you could have moved over the years. Why did you stick around and try so hard to ruin this one?
This can't be good news:
At least 10 Pakistani soldiers are reported to have been killed in an apparent airstrike by US-led forces close to the Afghanistan border.
Eight Taleban militants were also killed in the attack, reports say.
Reports say the militants had launched a cross-border attack and the US-led forces in Afghanistan countered with an airstrike, killing the soldiers.
(BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7447608.stm))
It's a breaking story at the Beeb website, posted minutes ago, if I'm counting my time zones correctly. Details, of course, will emerge with time.
Quite obviously, this just isn't what anybody needs. Well, maybe if you're a militant fundamentalist in Pakistan hoping to see the U.S. further demonized throughout your nation.
____________________
Notes:
BBC. "Pakistan troops 'die in US raid'". June 11, 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7447608.stm
Why is there always a pattern of "insurgents" being met with airstrikes and ending up killing innocents?
And how do they identify insurgents from the air? Are they carrying signs?
You're the one who hates this country enough to trash its principles and advocate a forfeiture of everything good about it. There are plenty of places in the world you could have moved over the years. Why did you stick around and try so hard to ruin this one?
He's a fascist at heart. He couldn't do much in a fascist state, he would be irrelevant. Now rooting for a democracy to become a fascist state? That's an achievement.
Source: Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/)
Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-563791/Greetings-Guantanamo-Bay---sickest-souvenir-shop-world.html
Title: "Greetings from Guantanamo Bay ... and the sickest souvenir shop in the world", by Angela Levin
Date: May 4, 2008
I missed this little item the first time through. And then I just had to go catching up on back episodes of Wait, Wait ... Don't Tell Me!
That's the problem with podcasts. When you hear something unbelievable, the first thing you do is turn to Google. Then you wish you hadn't. The conventional wisdom is fairly simple: If you hear it on a National Public Radio game show, it's probably true.
Scary? Maybe.
The sands are white, the sea laps gently and crowds of bronzed Americans laze in the Caribbean sunshine.
They have a cinema, a golf course and, naturally, a gift shop stocked with mugs, jaunty T-shirts and racks of postcards showing perfect sunsets and bright green iguanas.
Only the barbed wire decoration, a recurring motif, hints at anything wrong.
Welcome to "Taliban Towers" at Guantanamo Bay, the most ghoulishly distasteful tourist destination on the planet ....
.... While the detainees lie incarcerated, visitors can windsurf, take boat trips and go fishing for grouper, tuna, red snapper and swordfish.
The United States' 1.5million service personnel and Guantanamo's 3,000 construction workers are eligible to visit the "resort", which boasts a McDonald's, KFC and a bowling alley.
They even have a Wal-Mart supermarket.
The vacation comes at a knock-down price: just $42 (£20) per night for a suite of air-conditioned rooms, including a kitchen, bathroom, living room and bedrooms.
But it is the souvenirs that have led to the greatest criticism. One T-shirt from the gift shop is decorated with a guard tower and barbed wire. It reads: "The Taliban Towers at Guantanamo Bay, the Caribbean's Newest 5-star Resort."
Another praises "the proud protectors of freedom". A third displays a garish picture of an iguana and states: "Greetings from paradise GTMO resort and spa fun in the Cuban sun."
A child-sized shirt says: "Someone who loves me got me this T-shirt in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."
(Levin (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-563791/Greetings-Guantanamo-Bay---sickest-souvenir-shop-world.html))
http://bdhilling.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/gitmogear-468x527.jpg (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-563791/Greetings-Guantanamo-Bay---sickest-souvenir-shop-world.html)
Gitmo gear: Some of the toys and trinkets available at the gift shop.
(via Daily Mail)
On reflection, it's not really that hard to believe. Rather, it is kind of like the march to war; while it is easy enough to accuse our government of being so crass, it really is unpleasant. Although we consider our politicians and policymakers twisted and unworthy of our trust, there comes a point when it seems simply too much. Just as it was somehow offensive to accuse the administration of lying in its pitch for war in Iraq, it seems utterly distasteful to accuse the government of making a crass tourist pitch for Guantanamo. I mean, just how low do we think these people are?
At some point, we should just accept that there really is no limit.
You know, t, it's really easy to move to Canada so that you don't have to endure the American experience, here in America.
If your life here sucks as much as you claim because here sucks so much, why not find a less suckful place to live that isn't here and so suckful?
Why do you devote so much time and energy bitching, even while you continue to voluntarily expose yourself to the chronically bitchable qualities of this annoying America?
Why would you continue to live with your mother even while she beats you for being who you are?
Seems pretty clear to me. In a country where potential can flourish, no one is satisfied if their only potential is stay-at-home mom.
T would probably be more satisfied in a state-run environment where potential is an electrical term.
How, exactly, do we measure progress in Iraq? During recent declines in violence around Baghdad, much has been made about the improvement, the surge, and the future of Iraq. But a deadly bombing in the Huriya neighborhood of Baghdad punctuates that talk with a significant question mark:
A car bomb during the evening rush in a northwest Baghdad neighborhood of Huriya on Tuesday evening wrought spectacular damage to a bustling market. According to one eyewitness, stall and shop-fronts were completely blasted away and rescue workers were struggling to attend to at least 51 dead and a yet unknown number wounded, while lamentations, screaming and vows of vengeance filled the air. As of 10:30 p.m., a spokesman for the Iraqi Ministry of Interior said casualties were still being tallied because not all the wounded had even been found.
The bombing, the worst violence that Baghdad has seen in three months, is a sharp jolt to a city where confidence was running high after a long run of relative stability, and it serves as a stark reminder of just how fragile the sectarian peace here is.
Predominantly Sunni before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, Huriya became one of the most vicious scenes of Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence in the urban chaos that followed, with night-roaming Shi'ite militias eventually gaining the upper hand, either killing or expelling most of the Sunni population. During this period, a Shi'ite death squad executed the head of the Bata tribe, a Sunni clan prevalent in the neighborhood.
According to one eyewitness tonight, a car with four women occupants was somehow allowed into what is otherwise a vehicle-restricted market area. The women parked the car; they all departed; and the auto then detonated in a massive flash of heat, light, noise and destruction. The bombing may have been timed to coincide with a meeting at a nearby military base just 150 meters from the blast site, between U.S. forces and the Sunni leaders who used to be in charge of the area. If those attendees were the true targets, the bomb may have been intended as a sign that the Shi'as who now occupy Huriya have no intention of ceding any territory.
(Frederick (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1815524,00.html))
Certainly, this bombing does not mean that all talk of progress is wrong. We cannot expect perfection. But today's dead starkly remind that, as the situation in Iraq continues to develop, those wishing to wreak havoc are still capable of doing so.
Last night I started catching up on a couple of Ultimate Fighting events I'd missed, and a certain loose analogy strikes me. Are the statistical changes hailed over recent weeks and months genuine progress, or is it akin to saying, during the break between rounds that a fighter is doing better because he's not getting hit as much right now? In other words, did we achieve real progress, or simply enjoy the slightest of breathers while the fighters reassessed their situations and came back out after the sound of some cosmic bell?
Obviously, we all hope for real progress, but in this age of 24/7 political coverage, how much of what we hear is reliable? Perhaps time will prove today's bombing a deviation from the general trend, but for now it may well serve its intended effect of terrorizing the people caught up in the middle of a waking nightmare.
____________________
Notes:
Frederick, Jim. "Once Again, a Shattered Peace in Iraq". Time. June 17, 2008. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1815524,00.html
You're the one who hates this country enough to trash its principles and advocate a forfeiture of everything good about it. There are plenty of places in the world you could have moved over the years. Why did you stick around and try so hard to ruin this one?
I was here on the planet long before you ever were.
I stick around here to ruin your personal take on reality.
You are not the resident authority.
You're just another late-comer.
Vkothii
06-19-08, 01:50 AM
I was here on the planet long before you ever were.You mean, back before the North American landmass was colonised?
Or just "back before" any old time that anyone cares to mention?
Back when an education was an education worth mentioning.
Ouch.
I stick around here to ruin your personal take on reality.
Gosh, G, I'm honored.
hypewaders
06-22-08, 10:37 AM
WaPo: The War's Expiration Date (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040402581.html)
It's interesting how little attention the "liberal media" is giving to this looming deadline. Supporters of the expedition used to always fall back on the UN Mandate as justification. The Bush Administration is now scrambling to make back-room deals bypassing any semblance of Constitutional treaties. Meanwhile in Congress, the only legal appeal for an appeal for an extension of the "mandate" is packaged with a bill (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=summary&bill=h110-5626) that any remaining Bush Administration supporters will find most unpalatable.
Sometimes I think everyone knows the whole package spoiled a long time ago, and all that is transpiring now in US opinion and policy is an embarrassed, stymied nothing- the USA is feigning meaningful activity while leaving events to take their course in a precipitous collapse of the Iraq experiment.
Source: WashingtonPost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/08/22/BL2008082201762.html
Title: "A Timetable By Any Other Name", by Dan Froomkin
Date: August 22, 2008
So maybe it's not a timetable. Maybe the aspirational horizon line is a timeline.
Or something.
In agreeing to pull U.S. combat troops out of Iraqi cities by June, and from the rest of the country by 2011, President Bush has apparently consented to precisely the kind of timetable that, when Democrats called for one, he dismissed as "setting a date for failure." Bush can call it an "aspirational goal" until he turns blue, but a timetable is exactly what it is, thank you very much.
Bush has repeatedly warned that politics and public opinion should have no role in the decision about when to leave Iraq, but apparently he just meant American politics and public opinion. A clear majority of Americans has favored a withdrawal timetable for several years now, putting anti-war Democrats in control of Congress in 2006.
Bush ignored them. But in the end, he bowed to the will of the Iraqis' elected representatives. After five and a half years of occupation, it was their turn to put a gun to Bush's head: The timetable was the price they demanded for agreeing to let American troops remain in the country beyond the expiration of a United Nations mandate in December.
(Froomkin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/08/22/BL2008082201762.html))
Friday's edition of "White House Watch" asks how this is not exactly what Bush once called an invitation to disaster. It's a fair question, and also one that Froomkin, himself—perhaps unwittingly—answers in the next paragraph: "Bush's real accomplishment here is that he has stalled long enough that none of the deadlines he has now agreed to will be on his watch. This will all be somebody else's problem."
The problem with calling the timetable a timetable is that the Bush administration has reserved for itself an out ... or, rather, what the many of us might consider a step even deeper into the quagmire. While the war party might assert that only Bush's war policies even make the timetable possible, well, that timetable extends beyond Bush's time in office. And therein lies the key. If we get to the point that we're supposed to withdraw, and things are still a disaster in Iraq, President Obama would have a serious political crisis on his hands, and President McCain would have exactly what he wants. All in all, it seems a safe bet ... for the GOP ... in 2012.
Perhaps the strongest lesson, though, is still reserved for Bush supporters: this is all it's worth. Those seven years of patriotic chest beating? It never was genuine. It never was real. It was all just politics, and that's all the thousands upon thousands of dead Iraqis are worth to Bush. And that's all our thousands of dead and wounded service personnel are worth to Bush.
Good show.
Be proud.
When we set aside the jingoism and look at what it really is—a bungled war, an American government even more dysfunctional than usual, average Americans feeling the press of a tight economy, corporate interests getting rich as hell, and much-needed domestic investments including health-care, prison reform, education, and physical infrastructure seeming farther away and more expensive than ever—George W. Bush has been the most successful conservative president in history.
Think of it this way: President McCain would have his way paved for him by the blood and bone and ashes of Americans and Iraqis alike. President Obama, at least if Bush continues to get his way, will be hamstrung.
All for politics. Congratulations, Mr. President. You truly have seen the light.
I'll believe it when the last trooper is out of Iraq
I'll believe it when the last trooper is out of Iraq
Indeed. Prime Minister al-Maliki, for the record, is apparently viewing the date with greater firmness than I had attributed to the Bush administration in my prior post:
Iraq and the United States have agreed on a date for the departure of all American troops, as part of a broader security pact they are negotiating, the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, said Monday.
"There is actually an agreement concluded between the two parties over the definite date, which is 2011, to end any foreign presence on Iraqi soil," Mr. Maliki said, echoing what other officials have described as the content of the latest draft.
(Robertson and Mohammed (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/world/middleeast/26iraq.html))
Nonetheless, the Bush administration continues to push the idea of wiggle room:
"These discussions continue, as we have not yet finalized an agreement," a White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, said on Monday. "We’re optimistic that Iraq and the U.S. can reach a mutual agreement on flexible goals for U.S. troops to continue to return on success — based on conditions on the ground — and allow Iraqi forces to provide security for a sovereign Iraq."
In a seemingly tacit recognition that a final agreement had not yet been reached, Mr. Maliki insisted that a Dec. 31, 2011 departure date was non-negotiable. "An open time ceiling is prohibited in a security agreement for the remaining international forces," he said.
Previously, Iraqi negotiators have said the 2011 date was for combat troops only, and that "training and support" forces could remain after that if invited by the Iraqi government. But they refused to give specific numbers.
Mr. Maliki also stressed that there were other parts of the security pact on which the sides had yet to agree. Those points of dispute, he said, include the scenarios under which American soldiers will be granted immunity and Iraqi approval of American military operations.
"There are some articles on which we are stopped," he said. "Unless these articles are changed, it will be hard for this agreement to pass."
(ibid)
The question naturally arises whether this is mere politics. Al-Maliki wants to shore up support within Iraq, and President Bush hopes to improve what is shaping up to be a miserable legacy. Additionally, the White House may be looking to suck some wind from Democratic sails heading into the convention this week and election in November.
Nonetheless, the United States must gain some sort of authorization for a continued presence beyond the end of this year. Then again, if we recall Poppy Bush's Somali Adventure, it is not beyond possibility that Bush will change back to his original "no timetable" course after the election, and leave President Obama (such as the approach would demand) to take office with a renegade occupation to resolve.
The coming weeks will tell us much about the true nature of this alleged agreement, and also the Bush administration's intentions. While the situation is politically entertaining, providing grist for armchair analysts to mill over, this could also lead to yet a darker chapter in the great American tragedy known as the Bush Follies.
____________________
Notes:
Robertson, Campbell and Riyadh Mohammed. "U.S. to Leave Iraq by 2011, Maliki says". The New York Times. August 25, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/world/middleeast/26iraq.html
all of you have something to say and have a way to take sympathy for all of the iraqi people, but yet you yourselves have never been there, have never had the opportunity to understand the real fear of never knowing who may be walking up behind you, it might be a child just asking for a bottle of water or it could be that child that the terrorist parent put up to taking a grenade within arms length of you to blow you up, you have no idea the fear and the sacrfice but yet you want to judge and put your opinion out there, you cannot tell the difference between the terrorist and the common iraqi folk anymore. They do not play that game anymore, they blend in as the common folk and then when you least expect it are blowing you up or shooting at you, so unless you are willing to go over there and experience all that iraq has to offer in this war you have no right to judge how things are done over there, as long as it is fair and within the geneva conventions, and if you read the posts and the comments that are posted under those pictures, it clearly states the iraqi folk are the ones offering up that type of punishment, we are working with iraqi forces and i feel that any iraqi force that feels their own people should get that punishment deserve every bit of it. The only thing you are willing to do is bash what myself and my brothers and sisters serving in our armed forces are wrongfully displayed doing, as the media likes to bash anything even it being the most minimal possible they blow it out of proportion and then suddenly the military is doing no good over there and the iraqi's no longer want them there, thats what you are sorely mistaken about, if you could personally be there yourselves then maybe you would understand how much the iraqi population really does want us there and is glad we are there because there has been a ridiculous increase in securtiy for them, and none of you will ever realize that because you believe only what the media has shown you, so until you are willing to sacrfice your life to fight for the freedoms we are fighting for you have no room to judge or submit your opinion. If it weren't for us, you wouldn't even have the right you display right now, freedom of speech!!!!
Sodomise any Iraqi kids while you were there? :rolleyes:
haha you have so many jokes, its ok though because you can all say what you want you do it every day along with everything else and take it all for granted, but maybe you should read and understand every right you have because of all the fighting the US Military has done over the years and then reconsider your jokes and everything bad you have ever said about us, because in the end we can say we know we made a difference, what have you done to deserve the rights you take for granted?
Yeah we know what the US military has been doing over the years
Its called Killing Hope
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm
You're the cannon fodder who does their dirty works.
http://ch.indymedia.org/images/2004/05/22916.jpg
who does their dirty works.
you are.:D
Buffalo Roam
08-30-08, 12:43 PM
you are.:D
I wonder how long before her sons take their first Head, in the Name of Allah.
Rape their first woman of Jihad.
I'm not in the US army. Raping (http://creativedestruction.wordpress.com/2006/07/13/american-soldiers-arrested-for-rapeexecution-of-14-year-old-girl-and-her-family/) fourteen year olds sodomising (http://www.metafilter.com/34356/Who-exactly-are-the-terrorists) children and playing (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s1867167.htm) football with people's heads is what US troops do.
Look at USAF07, he is in someone else's country, killing people who have done nothing to him. And he is upset because no one supports it? Thats what I call idiocy.
Buffalo Roam
08-30-08, 06:25 PM
I'm not in the US army. Raping (http://creativedestruction.wordpress.com/2006/07/13/american-soldiers-arrested-for-rapeexecution-of-14-year-old-girl-and-her-family/) fourteen year olds sodomising (http://www.metafilter.com/34356/Who-exactly-are-the-terrorists) children and playing (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s1867167.htm) football with people's heads is what US troops do.
Look at USAF07, he is in someone else's country, killing people who have done nothing to him. And he is upset because no one supports it? Thats what I call idiocy.
Yes SAM, all those perfectly Innocent Moslems from outside Iraq, who came to defend the Ummah, on jihad, rape, sodomy, murder, torture, suicide bombings, and against who? Fellow Moslems in Iraq, all is forgiven in the name of Jihad, all is permissible for Allah and Islam, in the Name of Jihad.
The idiocy is in you SAM, and your failure to condemn the action you accuse the West of doing, done by Moslems on Jihad, to fellow Moslems in Iraq.
James R
08-31-08, 12:54 AM
Sodomise any Iraqi kids while you were there? :rolleyes:
This comment is completely inappropriate, and you know it.
USAF07 has been here about 2 minutes, and you come out with that?
This comment is completely inappropriate, and you know it.
USAF07 has been here about 2 minutes, and you come out with that?
Conflicting skill-sets.
Duh.
USAF07,
Thank you for your service.
We love you, dude!
Gosh, G, I'm honored.
Were you?
Can't take heat. Can't be vulnerable.
Good to have the editorial ability to send inconvenient truths down the memory hole, I see.
superstring01
08-31-08, 01:32 AM
I'm not saying I disagree, just that it wasn't the right place. You can, however, start a poll in another forum.
~String
Superiors acting otherwise.
Of course.
I'm not saying I disagree, just that it wasn't the right place. You can, however, start a poll in another forum.
~String
So, which right place forum did you move it to?
Oh, you erased it.
Just sayin'.
superstring01
08-31-08, 01:38 AM
I don't have moderator powers in the "site feedback" fora.
Please to post your complaints and or polls regarding SAM there.
~String
I don't care enough.
It was a point minimally made about a minimal personality.
Enough melodrama has already been made in counterpoint.
superstring01
08-31-08, 01:46 AM
Agreed.
hey SAM ... since im calling you out i figured we start with that fact that you say you are not in the US Army, what a coincidence, neither am i i am the US Air Force and you say HE try again I am a female but wait since you like to bash my country and what i stand for, atleast the men and women of the military before me fought to make it so that I am able to do what it is I do today, at least my religion and my country stand behind every move I make, whether you or any other arrogant asshole would like to take a stab at my pride in what i do and what i stand for or try to push on us that no one supports us to bring down our confidence level and our level of hope. I have news for you, the media bashes us and what we do, because it brings them more viewers, and you and a lot of other people believe that, but guess what, if you are living in the US of A I and my fellow military have given you the right to do so, but look around at just how many people still support us, and it doesnt have to be big and showy, its something as simple as our yellow support ribbon!!! That in itself means the world to us when we see that someone is displaying that either on their car, their front door, their front lawn, or when we come home from deployment on their shirt and in their hand they are waving the american flag, that flag stands for so much more than just americas freedom!!! But you are too shallow to give a damn what anyone else thinks or anyone elses beliefs because in your mind you do no wrong, however i wish for just one day you could patrol as just another ride along to see what things are really like, I would hope that you could lose someone so close to you that you feel their every pain as you watch them die!! But you could never ever falthom something like that, your arrogance and selfishness would get in the way first, you will never truly know the meaning or feeling of pride that we feel and all because you are too damn cocky to pull your head out of your ass and see everything as we see it, guess what, we will win this war and we will get things done just the way we have been, whether you or any other asshole approves, but from now on if you are going to post things on here that the media has shown i would advise you to pick and choose wisely!!!
and hey thanks for the SUPPORT Mr. G .... hmmm i really wish people werent so damn stuck up, maybe if they'd open up they'd learn a little!
humphhhhh ... oh well... thanks again!
The only thing you are willing to do is bash what myself and my brothers and sisters serving in our armed forces are wrongfully displayed doing, as the media likes to bash anything ....
So its wrong for the people to know what's going on in a war?
And yes—
A former Marine sergeant told jurors Tuesday he saw dread on the faces of two detainees after the apparent shooting death of another detainee during some of the fiercest fighting of the Iraq war.
"It's something I wouldn't forget, that face, the dread," Cory Carlisle told jurors during testimony in the federal trial of former squad leader, Jose Luis Nazario.
(AP (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/26/america/NA-US-Marines-Fallujah.php))
—it's that evil, evil media making up stories to "bash anything".
Apparently they're even recruiting former Marines.
(chortle!)
____________________
Notes:
Associated Press. "Former Marine testifies in detainee killings". IHT.com. August 27, 2008. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/26/america/NA-US-Marines-Fallujah.php
guess what, we will win this war and we will get things done just the way we have been, whether you or any other asshole approves
I thought we already won? :shrug:
no its not wrong to know whats going on, not at all, but people that have no affiliation with the war are seeing only what is in the media, and the media is portraying mostly negative images of the troops!! And read exactly what that says and understand it, during some of the fiercest fighting, were talking ramadi when things there were cut and dry, you knew who the terrorists were they just had a lot more strategy then, they didnt hide among the common iraqi folk in the markets and didnt focus mainly on IED's to do their work, now they are just trying to blow up every military vehicle they can regardless of whether they kill or not, but as for the media, its portraying us negatively most of the time, this shows that during the war we actually feel some sympathy for detainees, how is this even an argument?!
Challenger78
08-31-08, 08:25 AM
no its not wrong to know whats going on, not at all, but people that have no affiliation with the war are seeing only what is in the media, and the media is portraying mostly negative images of the troops!! And read exactly what that says and understand it, during some of the fiercest fighting, were talking ramadi when things there were cut and dry, you knew who the terrorists were they just had a lot more strategy then, they didnt hide among the common iraqi folk in the markets and didnt focus mainly on IED's to do their work, now they are just trying to blow up every military vehicle they can regardless of whether they kill or not, but as for the media, its portraying us negatively most of the time, this shows that during the war we actually feel some sympathy for detainees, how is this even an argument?!
Granted, The media focus on doom and gloom, but frankly, your leaders are letting you down too. There was no support allowed for Iraq from the start, the infighting between commands of the Army, The different tactics used by the marines and the army, (guess which was effective huh ?). Your leaders let you down as much as your supposedly media is. (which I don't think it is.) . Their tactics are getting more desperate yes, but there would be no insurgency if your leaders, had learnt the lessons of the past, and not micromanaged.
In essence, the left hand didn't know what the right hand is doing, and I don't think the media acknowledges the role politicians had in making this happen.
you dont think the media is?? REALLY! look back through the past 5 years and tell me how many positive things come up about us in the media, and yeah our leaders have screwed up but politician wise they couldnt give a rats ass at this point (or in previous years) what really happens as long as something looks good on them, and if my army and marine counterparts really had anything to do with my command and what i do over there i could understand my leaders letting me down yes, but as for that they have no say when it finally trickles down through the ranks. But again this is just you giving your opinion because you really have no idea beyond what the media is telling you.
James R
08-31-08, 09:31 AM
I would hope that you could lose someone so close to you that you feel their every pain as you watch them die!!
Don't you start, please. This quote from you is almost a threat, and we discourage such behaviour among posters here.
It is understandable to react as you have to the reception you received when you first posted here, but let's not get out of control, ok?
I'm sure a civil discussion of the pros and cons of life in the Air Force in Iraq is possible without the personal attacks.
Personally, I am interested to hear directly from somebody who has served in Iraq. It adds another perspective. If you think the media has treated/is treating the military unfairly, then here is one place you can correct some misconceptions people might have.
Challenger78
08-31-08, 09:34 AM
you dont think the media is?? REALLY! look back through the past 5 years and tell me how many positive things come up about us in the media, and yeah our leaders have screwed up but politician wise they couldnt give a rats ass at this point (or in previous years) what really happens as long as something looks good on them, and if my army and marine counterparts really had anything to do with my command and what i do over there i could understand my leaders letting me down yes, but as for that they have no say when it finally trickles down through the ranks. But again this is just you giving your opinion because you really have no idea beyond what the media is telling you.
What are you saying that the media always distort things? .. Give me a break, I already know that. It's called using sources and verifying data. Although we don't usually do it in a forum (cept tiassa), Any intelligent person would. People use multiple news sources for this very reason.
Anyone remember Iraq ?. The beginning ? Remember how it was all filled with flag animations, and feel good stories about the troops ?, Remember the beginning and the squeaky clean image we got of the US troops ? Again, What I do know may be limited by the media, but they've been wrong in both directions before. The real blame of the Iraq war lies with the politicians, and the media should focus on that. The unclear interrogation techniques were the fault of general sanchez, The violations done by the troops are result of unclear orders and leadership, The troops on the ground are being let down by their leaders and it is them you should direct their anger against.
hypewaders
08-31-08, 09:36 AM
Having served in US military intelligence, insinuations of special knowledge within the US military sometimes get my attention. During my own tours involving foreign intelligence, I discovered first-hand (and much to my surprise) how the quality and quantity of information within the military consistently falls far behind that of the media in general. Military culture has a profound effect on objectivity, and on objective penetration into foreign societies.
Obviously in matters of US military operations and systems, there is classified and secret information that the media is not privy to. But in matters of civilian life in other countries, including countries in turmoil, and including events and issues surrounding present-day life in Iraq (including the status of the occupation and US nation-building project) the US military and intelligence communities within are at a great disadvantage in gaining understanding of what is transpiring and why. The deeper within the organization you are privy to look, the more distorted the interpretations you will find, that are a direct result of the bureaucratic and political structure of US intelligence. The politicization of intelligence services under the present Bush Administration is unprecedented, and as a result our military services are at a pronounced disadvantage in terms of taking any fresh or objective look at what has become of our intervention in Iraq.
Much as we may criticize the major media, there is far better information available in the open than can be found within the US military. Much as we may respect an honor individual US soldiers in Iraq, they too are at a distinct objective disadvantage when it comes to approaching and being approached by Iraqis and Iraqi issues- There's scant special knowledge about Iraq to be gleaned from military sources, and whenever someone cryptically alludes to inside military information that generally surpasses and disproves freely-available civilian knowledge, it's a reasonable bet that that person is not being truthful.
Challenger78
08-31-08, 09:45 AM
Having served in US military intelligence, insinuations of special knowledge within the US military sometimes get my attention. During my own tours involving foreign intelligence, I discovered first-hand (and much to my surprise) how the quality and quantity of information within the military consistently falls far behind that of the media in general. Military culture has a profound effect on objectivity, and on objective penetration into foreign societies.
Obviously in matters of US military operations and systems, there is classified and secret information that the media is not privy to. But in matters of civilian life in other countries, including countries in turmoil, and including events and issues surrounding present-day life in Iraq (including the status of the occupation and US nation-building project) the US military and intelligence communities within are at a great disadvantage in gaining understanding of what is transpiring and why. The deeper within the organization you are privy to look, the more distorted the interpretations you will find, that are a direct result of the bureaucratic and political structure of US intelligence. The politicization of intelligence services under the present Bush Administration is unprecedented, and as a result our military services are at a pronounced disadvantage in terms of taking any fresh or objective look at what has become of our intervention in Iraq.
Much as we may criticize the major media, there is far better information available in the open than can be found within the US military. Much as we may respect an honor individual US soldiers in Iraq, they too are at a distinct objective disadvantage when it comes to approaching and being approached by Iraqis and Iraqi issues- There's scant special knowledge about Iraq to be gleaned from military sources, and whenever someone cryptically alludes to inside military information that generally surpasses and disproves freely-available civilian knowledge, it's a reasonable bet that that person is not being truthful.
I read a book from Michael moore, involving letters from Iraq.., There are a lot more people disillusioned in the military, and most of these guys are grunts. They know that they're being screwed over by their leaders.
Duty is a two way street.
hypewaders
08-31-08, 09:55 AM
True, but it's like the atheists in church pews: We'll never know the real number and intensity of the untold opinions withheld in sociopolitical deference. With time (if we back away from authoritarianism, as I expect) USAmericans and US Servicemembers publicly expressing dissent will likely manifest in tremendous numbers. I suspect that the dissent presently expressed is the tip of the proverbial iceberg- but we know that in political life, all that matters is what's visible. Those of us who look beneath the surface are ever few.
hey SAM ... since im calling you out i figured we start with that fact that you say you are not in the US Army, what a coincidence, neither am i i am the US Air Force and you say HE try again I am a female but wait since you like to bash my country and what i stand for, atleast the men and women of the military before me fought to make it so that I am able to do what it is I do today, at least my religion and my country stand behind every move I make, whether you or any other arrogant asshole would like to take a stab at my pride in what i do and what i stand for or try to push on us that no one supports us to bring down our confidence level and our level of hope. I have news for you, the media bashes us and what we do, because it brings them more viewers, and you and a lot of other people believe that, but guess what, if you are living in the US of A I and my fellow military have given you the right to do so, but look around at just how many people still support us, and it doesnt have to be big and showy, its something as simple as our yellow support ribbon!!! That in itself means the world to us when we see that someone is displaying that either on their car, their front door, their front lawn, or when we come home from deployment on their shirt and in their hand they are waving the american flag, that flag stands for so much more than just americas freedom!!! But you are too shallow to give a damn what anyone else thinks or anyone elses beliefs because in your mind you do no wrong, however i wish for just one day you could patrol as just another ride along to see what things are really like, I would hope that you could lose someone so close to you that you feel their every pain as you watch them die!! But you could never ever falthom something like that, your arrogance and selfishness would get in the way first, you will never truly know the meaning or feeling of pride that we feel and all because you are too damn cocky to pull your head out of your ass and see everything as we see it, guess what, we will win this war and we will get things done just the way we have been, whether you or any other asshole approves, but from now on if you are going to post things on here that the media has shown i would advise you to pick and choose wisely!!!
You're occupying someone else's country, killing innocent people. As far as I am concerned that makes you scum.
By the way, try using the ENTER key occasionally.
This comment is completely inappropriate, and you know it.
USAF07 has been here about 2 minutes, and you come out with that?
Did you read the BS he/she is writing? What the hell do you expect, gratitude? We're supposed to show understanding for the fact that these people are torturing and killing innocent Iraqis everyday? Just because its state sanctioned murder, does it make it any less deplorable? "They made me do it" is really not sufficient defence in this day and age.
Buffalo Roam
08-31-08, 12:09 PM
You're occupying someone else's country, killing innocent people. As far as I am concerned that makes you scum.
By the way, try using the ENTER key occasionally.
Did you read the BS he/she is writing? What the hell do you expect, gratitude? We're supposed to show understanding for the fact that these people are torturing and killing innocent Iraqis everyday? Just because its state sanctioned murder, does it make it any less deplorable? "They made me do it" is really not sufficient defence in this day and age.
The only people who are killing and torturing innocent Iraqis every day are Moslems, on Jihad supported by you and your propaganda.
Foriegn Moslems Suicide Bombers:
Suicide bombers head to Iraq from Damascus - Times Online
Oct 7, 2007 ... IN a small flat in Damascus, a young man in jeans and T-shirt draws frequently on a Gauloises cigarette as he describes how he dressed his ...
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article26...
Moslems on Jihad suicide bombing, market bombings, bombings of pilgrims, bombing of job seekers, detainees released from custody, who haven't your Jihadist bombed, raped, tortured, and murdered.
Newsvine - Officials: Suicide bombing in Iraq kills 25
A suicide bomber blew himself up Sunday in the midst of a celebration to welcome home an Iraqi detainee released from US custody, killing at least 25 people ...
www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/08/24/1781056-offici... - 46k
Shiite pilgrims killed in Iraq suicide blast - CNN...
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A suicide bomber attacked Shiite pilgrims Thursday evening as they ... for AQI and its car-bombing networks," the U.S. military said. ...
www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/0