"Win the peace"...

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Undecided, May 5, 2004.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    But will it win the peace?
    Sivits first up the river for Abu Ghraib - one year prison sentence

    Jeremy Sivits, convicted in his court-martial of various charges related to prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, wept as he apologized to the Iraqi people today before being sentenced to a year in prison:


    Is it enough to win the peace?

    I don't think so.

    The real test will be whether or not Americans suddenly buck a longstanding trend and decide that light prison sentences are good enough.

    • BBC News. "US soldier jailed for Iraqi abuse." May 19, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3727289.stm
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Take It To The Top
    Abizaid: chain of command to be investigated - "And that includes me."

    Saying, "This system is broken," and calling the breakdown at Abu Ghraib a "doctrinal problem," General John Abazaid attempted to explain to the Senate Armed Services Committee issues about how the abuse at the Iraqi prison came about.

    Also testifying before the committee, Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez told senators that it was over two months before he learned of the International Committee of the Red Cross' report submitted to his command on November 6, 2003. The report is considered the earliest formal evidence of extreme malfeasance at the prison.

    • General Sanchez has ordered the ICRC reports to be shown to senior commanders upon receipt.
    • Neither officer had seen an earlier ICRC report detailing around 50 abuses at Camp Cropper, at the Baghdad International Airport.
    • General Abizaid acknowledged"systemic problems" contributing to prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, and told senators that both he and General Sanchez accept responsibility for the breakdown.
    • Additionally, Abizaid sought to shield his reputation and those around him: "I don't believe that culture of abuse existed in my command . . . I believe that we have isolated incidents that have taken place."
    • Both generals acknowledged warning signs that there were problems growing at Abu Ghraib, but not indicating the abusive behavior.

    The New York Times reports:


    As this situation progresses, as the American people learn to what degree the possibilities of and persuasions toward such behavior as the world is now witness to at Abu Ghraib under American occupation, this may become one of those things upon which Americans collectively stake certain issues of conscience. Hopefully so; when the sleeping giant rouses itself to thinking about such things, it usually does the right thing.

    • Schmitt, Eric. "2 Generals Outline Lag in Notification on Abuse Reports." New York Times, May 20, 2004. See http://nytimes.com/2004/05/20/international/middleeast/20ABUS.html
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Undecided Banned Banned

    Yuck! It's the allies again:

    Yes what happened to that ever valiant and large "coalition of the wiling"? The "strong" alliance of nation’s committed to democracy, and good will? Nations like Afghanistan...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Yes the inevitable demise of the coalition seems apparent. The Spanish, Hondurans, Poles, Australians, Hungarians, Ukrainians, etc. seem to wavering, or have just left. Fed up with the endless cycle of violence, and threat of terrorist attacks. America would have to actually increase her troop commitments to Iraq to fill the vacuum left over by these newly awoken states. Yes the mission in Iraq is “accomplished” alright, if that meant alienating your allies, then mission accomplished indeed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Lest we forget...
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Undecided Banned Banned

    Yet another hot potato:

    Yet Donald Rumsfeld stays in power? How much damage is left in the American psyche? ego?democracy? The mission in Iraq is a failed adventure if the situation does not change, and fast.

    *Note* that they finally admitted the role of Israel in all this.
  8. Undecided Banned Banned

    Eric S. Margolis is a internationally recongized and syndicated columnist. He has met with international leaders and has a deep knowledge of history and international politics. I have seen him debate on a show called "diplomatic immunity" here in Canada on the public TV station, TVO. He gives us ten reasons why the US will most likely fail in Iraq:

    Well I have been saying essentially the same thing all along. The US is not an imperial power in the sense that she can't do it right. America is not founded on the principle of expansion and freeing the whole world. America fought the British against imperialism, and when a state contradicts it’s own reason d’etre something is disastrously wrong. Classical Conservatives and Liberals alike in the US abhor the US invasion of Iraq. They both realize that this is not America, she doesn’t do this, and Iraq proves it. In imperialism there are two options:

    > co-opt the population
    > brutalize the population

    The US can do neither, she can't co-opt because the Arab population doesn't want to work with the US. The US is the most hated element in the Arab world, apart from Israel. The US really doesn't have the stomach to brutalize Iraq, her population won’t accept it, nor will the international community. So what the US is left with is a mish-mash of bad policy and 135,000 misguided, and disenfranchised men. This is truly America's second "great nothing", and the strain is beginning to show.
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    There is also the argument that th US cannot co-opt the population because they don't really understand what they're working with.

    Additionally, and perhaps this is something others around here have noticed--it's something acknowledged in various forms throughout segments of society--about the way Americans operate. For most of the 1980s and into the 1990s, Americans believed that anything could be bought. Even the Clinton administration fostered this notion to the point that the economy grew unnaturally. We see what it gets us, on the one hand, but nobody ever makes the leap to such a simple concept as "loyalty cannot be bought, only rented." Horsepucky! says the American entrepeneur. Anything can be bought!

    Like I said ... Americans generally don't understand what they're dealing with this time out.
  10. Undecided Banned Banned

    The economist gave a rather "optimistic" view of the war in Iraq:

    My I have to commend the economist for its more then accurate portrayal of the disaster in Iraq. American generals, retired generals, the Intel. Community all seem to be in agreement, this is a truest sense of the word, a quagmire. With 9/10 of Iraq's seeing the Americans as occupiers not "liberators", with the country on the brink of disintegration, with no one ready to take over the reigns of this "ghetto paradise", with the president of the US taking a well deserved beating not only from the polls but from his bike, with even more prison photos to come out, even videos. The cards look like they are being set, who’s bluffing now America? Now the question remains, how will America leave “nothing” this time round?
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    See, this is what it gets me to not pay attention to the daily grind. I mean, I get sick of it like the next guy, but still:

    Thanks for bringing the link, Undecided. I had decided to try to ignore the story for a couple days, but ... pork and alcohol? Some tend to think of the American as a rapist culture, anyway, but pork and alcohol--that is going to cost us.

    Nice going, boys and girls.

    • The Economist Global Agenda. "Handing off power - but to whom?" May 21, 2004. See http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2701949
  12. Undecided Banned Banned

    The conundrum of the "Transfer of Power"

    Wha! Did I hear that? That "coalition" troops would require acquiescence from the "sovereign" interim gov't in Iraq? I already see the seeds of discontent in Iraq stemming from this decision, who really has "sovereignty" in the country? Let's put this in a scenario situation, Al-Sadr has an uprising in Najaf, and the interim gov't refuses the US entry into the city, even though US commanders state that they have Al-Sadr where they want him; who will have the upper hand? Consider if the US were to invade Najaf in direct violation of the "sovereignty" of Iraq's gov't, then who in Iraq is going to have any confidence in an obviously ineffectual puppet regime? This is a very dangerous situation that could spell the end of the US regime in Iraq.
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Coming Soon: A more permanent link to Howard Kurtz's Media Notes for May 25, 2004.

    I am very hard-pressed to add to that. However ....

    This is only going to get worse for a while. And if things continue to play out as they have, Abu Ghraib well ought to be the straw that breaks the Bush junta. The election itself; Enron and Veep Dick; "God is on our side!" and "God told me to bomb Iraq" ad nauseam; hard questions about 9/11; Nigerian yellowcake; the ever-elusive WMD's; a lack of postwar planning and intentional breaches of the Geneva Conventions ... we haven't even come down to the breadth of tax cuts or "No Child Left Behind," or any of the standard political disinformation that ought to irritate the electorate. I mean ... what does it take?

    Right now, I think a resounding, "You're fired!" come November will tell Bush and, subsequently, the world, that Americans are, at some redeeming level, thinking clearly. The 2004 election may become, for parts of the international community, a national referendum on American foreign policy. And what we decide may be a primary factor in whether or not the United States can win any peace for the foreseeable future.
  14. Undecided Banned Banned

    Very disturbing news from the Chalabi case:

    Imagine, just imagine how much ineptitude it took to create this monster? How the US actually helped Iran by getting rid of her biggest enemy, Saddam Hussein. Iran most likely knowing full well that a Shi'a gov't would be "elected" in Iraq, which would essentially become an ally of unimaginable proportions. This administration is an intellectual, cognitive, and logical disaster. If this doesn’t change the balance in this election, or maybe even impeachment of the president, I have lost all hope for the US. How low can this administration and its cronyistic tendencies go?

    Other Chalabi websites:
    Last edited: May 26, 2004
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Just a couple more links on how to win the peace.

    (1) Associated Press. "2,000 pages may be missing from prisoner report." May 23, 2004. See http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2587902
    (2) Agence France Presse. "Rumsfeld bans camera phones in Iraq." May 23, 2004. See http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1114150.htm

  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Article Source: Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/
    Article Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61941-2004May27.html
    Article Title: Lead Editorial - "The Homicide Cases"
    Article Date: May 28, 2004

    This is what happens when we set standards according to the lowest common denominator. Some might point to Saddam Hussein, al Zarqawi, or others easily identifiable for their savagery and say, "But we're not them."

    But that doesn't actually matter. It's a poor excuse at best flailing in the face of inexcusable acts. We are the United States of America. We stand before the world and proclaim a better message than this. And while it all sounds nice for the advertising value, apparently it's not good enough to make real.

    I suppose that what pisses me off is that I could probably handle the press better than Bush & Co. are right now in this situation. Perhaps it's insult to injury or something; it just doesn't seem like the administration is really trying.
  17. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    They think they don't have to. With a little less conversation, ah-and a litto mo conflagration (which is inevitable), this Administration is betting that America will rally as conditioned to rally: Round the flag, and round whomever's wrapped most tighly within. Now, and for this reason, world view held by the Busheviks is compelled to hope for foreign Terrorism to strike the Homeland again and soon, and this hope is dark but very effective.

    Millions of people suspect and expect of the Busheviks to provoke another attack on the VaterLand. Whoever is the perp,("Terrists" "Busheviks", or "Bush's Terrists") the result will be the entirely the same, which both the Bushies and the Terrists understand. So considering that collective situational awareness, and democracy still have a fleeting chance right now, before the next escalation occurs- the question you've got to ask yourself is whom do you trust, punk? Do you feel lucky?
    Last edited: May 29, 2004
  18. Undecided Banned Banned

    How does the US military feel about the politicalization of the war in Iraq:

    It is something to be worried about, the US is rare among the world’s states. The US has been able to separate the military from the political for the last 228 years, and has maintained a strong democratic model as a result; also it has retained a effective military policy. But with the increased polarization of the military, and the politicalization of the war in Iraq, and American soldiers. The country’s political fortunes seem to rest on the military, and visa versa. The military will be pressured into doing things that customarily it wouldn't do, but because of political generals they will do it to save face at home. Very danerous indeed...
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    I wanted to make a note on something that disturbs me about not just Abu Ghraib but the entire War on Terror and the Pax Americana in Iraq.

    At any rate, the story so far. From the Associated Press

    Now, I need to go dumpster-diving for old news stories (again, wish me luck), but I firmly recall reading the AP wires talking about this issue when it arose last fall. Which leaves me under the impression that the Bush administration's whole strategy is to play ignorance as long as possible and then rehash old headlines as if they're news.

    As the war story goes on, it seems we're actually recycling headlines. At any rate, I'll try to dig up some old articles.

    Oh, hey ... well, it's a start; from November, 2003:

    (I'm not finding the stories I want that mention Ryder's report and the G/C in this context. Which I need to make my whole point come 'round. Damn it all to hell. I'm off Googling.)

    • Hanley, Charles J. "Prisoners describe brutality by troops." Associated Press, November 2, 2003. See http://www.notinourname.net/war/brutality-2nov03.htm
    • Jordan, Laura J. "AP: Army noted Geneva Conventions violations in Iraq prisons last fall." Associated Press, June 1, 2004. See http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-06-01-prison-abuse_x.htm
  20. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    I have to wonder why y'all choose this particular form of auto-stimulation over other more pleasureable forms.

    Then I have to wonder if it's your only viable alternative.

    Relativity and the Uncertainty Principle, together, pretty much discount the veracity of y'all's claim to certitude on any particular issue.

    Daisy-chaining, rhetorical cluster-f*cks is boring to the univested rest of us.

    Must be why diversity isn't well-evidenced around these parts.
  21. Undecided Banned Banned


    So very shocking isn’t it? This administration has yet again F***ed up again. Chalabi couldn’t have known those codes without someone high up in the chain of command told him the code. That official along with Chalabi should be held equally responsible. You don’t generally tell a foreigner your secret codes, or at least simple logic should dictate as such. But now Chalabi was smart, he told the US what the US wanted to hear. All those outrageous lies that Bush told, this administration told were not based on hard evidence. Much of the intel. the administration was from Chalabi and friends. But the US seems more and more like she was Tehran’s puppet rather then a cognitive member of the international community. Dah Well!!!
  22. Don Hakman Registered Senior Member

  23. Undecided Banned Banned

    The interim gov’t in Iraq:

    All very nice isn’t it? The question remains whether or not the Iraqi people really see any of this as relevant? As I said before in this thread, there will most likely come a moment of political and militaristic importance that cannot be understated. The reality is in Iraq is that when you have the Al Sistani urging for non-violence and a peaceful transition of power, he doesn’t care about the US. What Mr.Sistani wants is to make the Shi’a gov’t a reality, and without too much bloodshed. Al Sadr rather wants to create a Shi’a state with violence, both Sadr, and Sistani seem to be in an intricate balancing act trying to sway the Shi’a population on to their side. This new interim council has a uphill battle against it, already with the Kurdish political HQ being bombed, there are rumblings of a civil war in the background. Also note the contradictions btwn the "coalition" over the power of the interim gov't. If they don't iron these issues out now the situation will be in greater jeopardy then it is now.

Share This Page