More accounts on US torture :



roadhog

New Member
Feb 13, 2005
272
0
0
Carrera said:
The point is, though, that hooding prisoners of war goes against the Geneva Convention. Hooding Iraqi prisoners and depicting them on T.V. is a breach of human rights. Thus, American troops who might be so unfortunate as to be captured themselves run the risk of abuse as a result of their own conduct.
My own view is that if you treat POW's with dignity and compassion, the risks to your own soldiers are probably minimised. We have to remember Iraqi troops were ordered to defend their own country by their government so they weren't guilty of terrorism. They had no choice but to fight so they ought to have been treated with dignity when captured.
I certainly agree that POW's must be treated with dignity and compassion, for many reasons - only one of which is that we should hope our soldiers would be treated the same (even though it has virtually never happened). I also agree that displaying hooded prisoners on T.V. for flare is not cool. It becomes difficult however, for soldiers to manage all these things with embedded reporters, etc. Virtually everything the soldiers do is capable of being on CNN or Al-Jazeera that same night, so it's difficult to leave anything off cameras to be honest. I am not arguing that POWs should have hoods all the time, but there are MANY instances where a hood is needed for proper handling (transferring, etc). It prohibits them from being aware enough of their surroundings to do perilous things (grab weapons from people, team up with their friends, bite people, know exactly where they are, etc). Hoods are perfectly rational and not inhumane in these instances.

Also, we must use a little realism here. You are right, genuine Iraqi soldiers were fighting for their government and indeed not terrorists. However, the majority of resistance was from Fedayeen and other groups that used no uniforms, purposely blended in with the population, intentionally and VERY aggressively forced women and children from their own population to be shields (and sacrificed them on many cases intentionally), etc. In short, they were a determined enemy that played by NO rules and were willing to commit the most atrocious acts against even there own people at a moments notice. Of course we must strive to uphold the highest of standards, but don't tell the young soldier charged with sorting through the chaos of that sort of fight that it is inhumane to place a hood on a man to keep him from blowing you all up while you transfer him to a confinment facility or whatever.

I think we are agreeing on most points anyway. I just sometimes think we get a little carried away with how "perfect" we expect our soldiers to be when we put them in such unbelievable cirumstances where the enemy gives NO thought to any sort of rules. We certainly must allow them the tools to do their best. I contend there is absolutely nothing wrong with hooding POWs, and in many cases disallowing it would be akin to taking away our soldiers' body armor, and we all know how much people like to play up that whole angle.
 

FredC

New Member
Oct 22, 2004
2,859
0
0
limerickman said:
Most users ever online was 1841, Yesterday at 04:40 PM.
limerickman, Scotty_Dog, dazzle96, hifi-hospital, newride, Kokoda, kaosalas, cycleman03, dice2833, ebola, simon london, Lt J.A. Moss, danielwilgocki, ilpirata, mcm, Ju2, Gwanoman, andhar, aeek, basso97, M.T., leegregory, howierart, Powerful Pete, northernsavage, Felt_Rider, Bikelux, dot, jspinney80, Officer dz/015, jhuskey, essendon93, siay, zapper, rcabpeters, musette, motorhommer, League, mikeg, andrello, moggie, WSSS, coolworx, ubernier, dome, jcjordan, rule62, bigtoewidefoot, imrr08, simon_uk, mikael17128, meehs, fit6days, Watoni, rob of the og, z22k, tayvens, castagnol, MountainPro, Tonto, Eira, jthom44, biker7, jabike, imoleno, dwatson, mickeyvoll, MCOSR
Good job that I went for an evening newspaper then to avoid all the ****.
 

zapper

Banned
Mar 11, 2004
2,495
0
0
limerickman said:
This last statement explains why we've been at loggerheads recently over the Israel question.
We would have been at "loggerheads" regardless!
 

zapper

Banned
Mar 11, 2004
2,495
0
0
limerickman said:
They're probably off, reformatting and rewriting statistical information about deaths in Iraq.
(You remember when Zapper deliberately copied and pasted a report about deaths incorrectly - couldn't have been a mistake, he altered completely the text of the original article, he cited, without thinking that we'd read the article. Must think we're all stupid, or maybe that's how censorship works these days in the USA).
Yeah right! If I copied and pasted part of a report big whoop! So I missed a few lines, it doesn't alter the truth as you claim.

So go back to "ask jeeves" or perhaps don your "cone of knowledge".. :rolleyes: The face remains Roberts is a left wing as they come as well as most of those who conducted this farce...To make assume that there were 100k deaths while only canvasing 998 families in 33 neighborhoods across the country is flawed!

Iraq Body Count: 14-16,000
Brookings Inst: 10-27,000
UK foreign secretary: >10,000
People's Kifah >37,000
Lancet: >100,000 ????

Like I said before...pure rubbish!
 

fightdapower

New Member
Jun 21, 2004
5
0
0
42
Carrera said:
We have to remember Iraqi troops were ordered to defend their own country by their government so they weren't guilty of terrorism.

Terrorism? Define terrorism again, sorry I'm just a bit slow? And which government would be guilty of terrorism again, the 'coalition of the willing' went to war on false premises as I last know of.

I know its off the topic slightly but that word gets used soo often and whoever its thrown at these days basically has poo on them that they can not wash off- so to speak.

I mean I just can not see how Iraq is part of the war on terrorism? a war on a 'tactic' mind you.
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
It also raises some tricky questions. If all the media coverage I hear is true, would it be justified to remove Robert Mugabe from Zimbawe?
I know there is a justified case for black people to reclaim their land, but if the media is to be believed, black people in Zimbabwe are fed up with a regime they claim is crippling their country.
So, if you have a case where people are being terrorised under human rights violations, would it be right for the U.N. to go in and kick Mugabe out?
In this case the people might be quite glad to hold free elections.
Any thoughts?


fightdapower said:
Terrorism? Define terrorism again, sorry I'm just a bit slow? And which government would be guilty of terrorism again, the 'coalition of the willing' went to war on false premises as I last know of.

I know its off the topic slightly but that word gets used soo often and whoever its thrown at these days basically has poo on them that they can not wash off- so to speak.

I mean I just can not see how Iraq is part of the war on terrorism? a war on a 'tactic' mind you.
 

darkboong

New Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,556
0
0
A bit of a diversion coming up.

roadhog said:
I certainly agree that POW's must be treated with dignity and compassion, for many reasons

Damn straight.

roadhog said:
Also, we must use a little realism here. You are right, genuine Iraqi soldiers were fighting for their government and indeed not terrorists. However, the majority of resistance was from Fedayeen and other groups that used no uniforms, purposely blended in with the population, intentionally and VERY aggressively forced women and children from their own population to be shields (and sacrificed them on many cases intentionally), etc. In short, they

Got any decent sources for that, or are you simply speculating on the basis of patchy and downright biased "embedded" reporting ?

roadhog said:
were a determined enemy that played by NO rules and were willing to commit the most atrocious acts against even there own people at a moments notice.

That's a rather naive judgement. There are multiple enemies, some of whom really don't give a damn, but many who do give a damn. Until folks understand that there is little to no hope of bringing the situation under control.

roadhog said:
I think we are agreeing on most points anyway. I just sometimes think we get a little carried away with how "perfect" we expect our soldiers to be when we put them in such unbelievable cirumstances where the enemy gives NO thought to any sort of rules. We certainly must allow them the tools to do

Again, that doesn't ring true from what I've seen and heard about the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It may be instructive to look at how the French Resistance operated and the post-war backlash against collaborators.

Cheers,
darkboong
 

davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
roadhog said:
I think we are agreeing on most points anyway. I just sometimes think we get a little carried away with how "perfect" we expect our soldiers to be when we put them in such unbelievable cirumstances where the enemy gives NO thought to any sort of rules. We certainly must allow them the tools to do their best. I contend there is absolutely nothing wrong with hooding POWs, and in many cases disallowing it would be akin to taking away our soldiers' body armor, and we all know how much people like to play up that whole angle.
It should read "Bush/Perle/Cheney (Halliburton/KBR) put them" NOT "we put them". I am not complicit in this ill-planned, foreign entanglement :mad: Casualty count to date:1544 Americans.
http://icasualties.org/oif/
 

roadhog

New Member
Feb 13, 2005
272
0
0
darkboong said:
A bit of a diversion coming up.



Damn straight.



Got any decent sources for that, or are you simply speculating on the basis of patchy and downright biased "embedded" reporting ?
darkboong
Yes. I was there. I saw it, and there is no disputing it. While you are certainly not obligated to believe me, I will choose to believe myself. ;) I'll spare you the details. :eek: Keep in mind my comments pertain to the original invasion and the ensuing month or so. Many things have changed since then.

darkboong said:
That's a rather naive judgement. There are multiple enemies, some of whom really don't give a damn, but many who do give a damn. Until folks understand that there is little to no hope of bringing the situation under control.
darkboong
Again, my comments concern the beginning of this conflict. And no, they are not naive and are quite informed. You are correct that there are numerous enemies now, each of which should be treated differently. It is a very complex fight right now. You can be sure our boys on the ground know that. The enemy situation changed drastically in even the 13 months I was there. Entirely different situations. Initially, the Fedayeen Sadaam and other rag tag friends that may have joined them formed the majority of the heavy resistance since the majority of the regular Iraq Army disbanded or abandoned their posts before makiong contact (certainly not true in every case, but enough)...and my comments are absolutely an accurate portrayal of the Fedayeen Sadaam groups at that time.

darkboong said:
Again, that doesn't ring true from what I've seen and heard about the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It may be instructive to look at how the French Resistance operated and the post-war backlash against collaborators.
darkboong
Not sure what doesn't ring true to you so not sure how to answer...
 

roadhog

New Member
Feb 13, 2005
272
0
0
davidmc said:
It should read "Bush/Perle/Cheney (Halliburton/KBR) put them" NOT "we put them". I am not complicit in this ill-planned, foreign entanglement :mad: Casualty count to date:1544 Americans.
http://icasualties.org/oif/
point taken. :rolleyes: however, that comment of mine could apply to many modern conflicts in which we (as a nation) have found ourselves in the last decade or so, not just in Iraq.
 

davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
roadhog said:
point taken. :rolleyes: however, that comment of mine could apply to many modern conflicts in which we (as a nation) have found ourselves in the last decade or so, not just in Iraq.
You were correct in that our gov'ts actions can be construed as being a decision made by our entire nation but what i'm saying is that our actions only represent the majority of the politicians voting in favor of this...I don't even know what to call it. I don't want to call it nation-building because Republicans have villified that term although thats what they are now claiming is their goal in this, I will refer to it as a "matter". I wish them (Iraqi people) the best but that does not detract from the fact that Bush had the war planned prior to his taking office to avenge the attempt taken on his Daddy's life. Its sad that servicemen are being used as pawns (although when has this not been the case-the poor fighting so the rich can maintain their standard of living that have become accustomed to) to clean up messes made by current admin. officials 20 yrs ago. Wolfowitz/Perle/Rumsfeld. I was not a supporter of SH, my beef w/ the admin is their insistence on rushing to war. If it was an economic necessity-paying for the constant overflights-thats one thing but it would seem that is not the case since bush has cut taxes & intends to keep it that way :confused: Additionally, it would seem that the admin is hypocritical when their sole veteran is/was shut-out by others in the admin. (Cheney/Wolfowitz) & he took the only recourse-resign (Powell). That is my understanding. For what its worth, I served 86-90 in two different theatres. Apoligize for the "wordiness".
 

roadhog

New Member
Feb 13, 2005
272
0
0
davidmc said:
You were correct in that our gov'ts actions can be construed as being a decision made by our entire nation but what i'm saying is that our actions only represent the majority of the politicians voting in favor of this...I don't even know what to call it. I don't want to call it nation-building because Republicans have villified that term although thats what they are now claiming is their goal in this, I will refer to it as a "matter". I wish them (Iraqi people) the best but that does not detract from the fact that Bush had the war planned prior to his taking office to avenge the attempt taken on his Daddy's life. Its sad that servicemen are being used as pawns (although when has this not been the case-the poor fighting so the rich can maintain their standard of living that have become accustomed to) to clean up messes made by current admin. officials 20 yrs ago. Wolfowitz/Perle/Rumsfeld. I was not a supporter of SH, my beef w/ the admin is their insistence on rushing to war. If it was an economic necessity-paying for the constant overflights-thats one thing but it would seem that is not the case since bush has cut taxes & intends to keep it that way :confused: Additionally, it would seem that the admin is hypocritical when their sole veteran is/was shut-out by others in the admin. (Cheney/Wolfowitz) & he took the only recourse-resign (Powell). That is my understanding. For what its worth, I served 86-90 in two different theatres. Apoligize for the "wordiness".
Let's be hypothetical for a minute.... Let's pretend that we, as a nation, went in there because we genuinely thought there was a threat and WMD's, etc. Let's pretend that we later found out we were dead wrong, etc. Now (in our hypothetical situation) the intelligence thing and everything is water under the bridge..nothing we can do to go back and change time. Then, what would you have us do? Do you think it is reasonable that we might try to find at least some good in it in the end and at least try to do a good job of "nation-building"? Or do you think we should say: "damn we messed up, let's leave this joint asap." To shift to some other goal (given that the first was apprently a mistake) of worth seems the rationa choice to me.

Now, I am annoyed as anyone else that we can't seem to admit our mistakes. But given the mistakes, I see nothing wrong with our ensuing actions. What other choice do we have?

I don't declare myself of any party, but more often than not find myself agreeing with a more conservative line of thought (and rarely agreeing with you ;)). I will admit to you that I failed to vote for either pres. candidate in the last election. I am embarrassed to say so, but I simply couldn't get myself to vote for either one. I certainly was not a Kerry fan, but I feel strongly that the world judged Bush long ago (right or wrong), that nothing will change that judgment, and that I think people grossly underestimate how important world opinion is. We can hardly afford to go it alone on anything but the most vital of issues if necessary. As it turns out, my state is heavily in one camp so it doesn't make much difference.

Statements similar to yours from above : "Bush had the war planned prior to his taking office to avenge the attempt taken on his Daddy's life." are a big red flag to me to not take too seriously what someone like you has to say because it has all become too emotional for you. You cannot pretend to be knowledgeable enough on the matter to rationally state that as fact, unless you hold some sort of position that I am not aware of (and don't throw any Farhenheit 911 type of stuff at me as facts). I also cannot pretend to be knowledgeable enough to pass judgment on the WMD intelligence thing, nor can virtually any average citizen, yet they do anyway. I simply believe in the system as a whole, and believe that we, as a system will continue to try to do the right thing, to include the situation in Iraq.
 

davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
roadhog said:
Let's be hypothetical for a minute.... Let's pretend that we, as a nation, went in there because we genuinely thought there was a threat and WMD's, etc. Let's pretend that we later found out we were dead wrong, etc. Now (in our hypothetical situation) the intelligence thing and everything is water under the bridge..nothing we can do to go back and change time. Then, what would you have us do? Do you think it is reasonable that we might try to find at least some good in it in the end and at least try to do a good job of "nation-building"? Or do you think we should say: "damn we messed up, let's leave this joint asap." To shift to some other goal (given that the first was apprently a mistake) of worth seems the rationa choice to me.

Now, I am annoyed as anyone else that we can't seem to admit our mistakes. But given the mistakes, I see nothing wrong with our ensuing actions. What other choice do we have?

I don't declare myself of any party, but more often than not find myself agreeing with a more conservative line of thought (and rarely agreeing with you ;)). I will admit to you that I failed to vote for either pres. candidate in the last election. I am embarrassed to say so, but I simply couldn't get myself to vote for either one. I certainly was not a Kerry fan, but I feel strongly that the world judged Bush long ago (right or wrong), that nothing will change that judgment, and that I think people grossly underestimate how important world opinion is. We can hardly afford to go it alone on anything but the most vital of issues if necessary. As it turns out, my state is heavily in one camp so it doesn't make much difference.

Statements similar to yours from above : "Bush had the war planned prior to his taking office to avenge the attempt taken on his Daddy's life." are a big red flag to me to not take too seriously what someone like you has to say because it has all become too emotional for you. You cannot pretend to be knowledgeable enough on the matter to rationally state that as fact, unless you hold some sort of position that I am not aware of (and don't throw any Farhenheit 911 type of stuff at me as facts). I also cannot pretend to be knowledgeable enough to pass judgment on the WMD intelligence thing, nor can virtually any average citizen, yet they do anyway. I simply believe in the system as a whole, and believe that we, as a system will continue to try to do the right thing, to include the situation in Iraq.
It is true that we should do all we can to get Iraq on a good footing despite the seemingly bogus reason for our invasion. I am angry because Bush is spending the taxpayers money at a rate of 2 bil/week w/a minimum of two servicemens life/day being extinguished while simultaneously cutting taxes. This, to me, is hypocrisy. I won't even go into the appearance of his building a democracy over there while simultaneously trying to tear down the wall of separation over here. As far as the election is concerned, I was not enthusiastic about kerry but actively against bush. The only reason he got anywhere in life is because of his name. Don't try to impress me by mentioning the fact that he was gov. of texas-Big whoop. He has no qualifications to speak of. On another note, I respect your opinion. We will just have to agree to disagree.
 

roadhog

New Member
Feb 13, 2005
272
0
0
davidmc said:
Don't try to impress me by mentioning the fact that he was gov. of texas-Big whoop. He has no qualifications to speak of.
I certainly wouldn't try to impress you with anyone's quals, but his qualification for the job is the fact that he was elected. Besides being over 35 and a natural born citizen, none other is required. It's up to the people to decide, and they apparently did. That is his qual...right or wrong. I could be pres. in a few years if elected, and I am CERTAINLY not qualified. Besides the fact that I have a certain distaste for all politicians in general and wouldn't be caught dead in the profession... :)
 

davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
roadhog said:
I certainly wouldn't try to impress you with anyone's quals, but his qualification for the job is the fact that he was elected. Besides being over 35 and a natural born citizen, none other is required. It's up to the people to decide, and they apparently did. That is his qual...right or wrong. I could be pres. in a few years if elected, and I am CERTAINLY not qualified. Besides the fact that I have a certain distaste for all politicians in general and wouldn't be caught dead in the profession... :)
You are correct, more often than not, for my liking :rolleyes: . Gotta give you your prop's ;) . I beleive "name recognition" & he is a ,ahem, "war president" sealed his victory not to mention Kerry having an "overly strong-willed & vocal" (rich people :rolleyes: ) spouse & Kerry being a Catholic. Those proved to be insurmountable achilles heels. I, as you (if I remember correctly), wasn't positively for either of them, Kerry just happened to be "the last man standing" who represented the Dem's. As an aside, I still respect the fact that he was "on the ground" in Nam' although I suspect that there were much better candidates but for various reasons, not to mention having their personal lives put up on "the big screen"; chose not to run.
 

roadhog

New Member
Feb 13, 2005
272
0
0
davidmc said:
You are correct, more often than not, for my liking :rolleyes: . Gotta give you your prop's ;) . I beleive "name recognition" & he is a ,ahem, "war president" sealed his victory not to mention Kerry having an "overly strong-willed & vocal" (rich people :rolleyes: ) spouse & Kerry being a Catholic. Those proved to be insurmountable achilles heels. I, as you (if I remember correctly), wasn't positively for either of them, Kerry just happened to be "the last man standing" who represented the Dem's. As an aside, I still respect the fact that he was "on the ground" in Nam' although I suspect that there were much better candidates but for various reasons, not to mention having their personal lives put up on "the big screen"; chose not to run.
That's a good point. I often wonder how many good people shy away from the business of running for serious office because of the personal life thing. It has always been an issue I'm sure, but seems exponentially more so in modern times here. I think Powell is probably one of those people. He certainly had more potential than he chose to pursue. BTW, I mentioned that I rarely agree with you, and that remains true, but I like your style anyway. There is nothing wrong with being passionate - whatever your opinions. We certainly need people to be passionate on all sides of every issue. It's also cool to keep your sense of humor. You seem to do so, others here do not.
 

davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
roadhog said:
That's a good point. I often wonder how many good people shy away from the business of running for serious office because of the personal life thing. It has always been an issue I'm sure, but seems exponentially more so in modern times here. I think Powell is probably one of those people. He certainly had more potential than he chose to pursue. BTW, I mentioned that I rarely agree with you, and that remains true, but I like your style anyway. There is nothing wrong with being passionate - whatever your opinions. We certainly need people to be passionate on all sides of every issue. It's also cool to keep your sense of humor. You seem to do so, others here do not.
I can't help it because I'm a poly/sci major w/ a possibility of going into law & I live at the center of the universe (Washington environs) I care about what happens to this country long term (fiscal policy) & maintaining the Constitution by not inserting amendments to suit "whims". The founders did a good job. I say don't tamper w/ somethin' that 'aint broken. (current amendments withstanding)
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
I think DavidMc is right on this issue.
We need to ask the question how come Bush hasn't really made a real effort to involve other nations in Iraq's reconstruction. The reason other countries have pulled troops out of the country is because Bush hasn't successfully defended human rights values, has resorted to torture as a matter of national policy and has taken control of Iraqi oil reserves. It smacks of an imperialistic agenda with a good dose of personal grudge against Hussein thrown in for good measure.
The problem is Kerry seemed to understand the threat from terrorism better than Bush. While Bush has invested so much time and money in Iraq, Al Quaida has spread its influence dramatically throughout the Middle East and even Europe. Then you have Iran - now in a far better position to develop WMD now the U.S. has isolated itself (despite the obvious fact nobody wants to see a nuclear Iran).
What Bush needed to do, in my opinion, is go figure out how a group of terrorists were able to rehearse the 9/11 attacks in the heartlands of the U.S.A. and Europe and then fly planes into skyscrapers without so much as a fighter jet having been scrambled.
True, Bush has now acted to improve homeland security but, all in all, the threat from terrorism is still alive and kicking.
The only way to sort out Iraq at this stage I guess is to give the Iraqis full sovereignty as quickly as possible and have mainly peace-keeping Arab troops involved in security.


roadhog said:
Let's be hypothetical for a minute.... Let's pretend that we, as a nation, went in there because we genuinely thought there was a threat and WMD's, etc. Let's pretend that we later found out we were dead wrong, etc. Now (in our hypothetical situation) the intelligence thing and everything is water under the bridge..nothing we can do to go back and change time. Then, what would you have us do? Do you think it is reasonable that we might try to find at least some good in it in the end and at least try to do a good job of "nation-building"? Or do you think we should say: "damn we messed up, let's leave this joint asap." To shift to some other goal (given that the first was apprently a mistake) of worth seems the rationa choice to me.

Now, I am annoyed as anyone else that we can't seem to admit our mistakes. But given the mistakes, I see nothing wrong with our ensuing actions. What other choice do we have?

I don't declare myself of any party, but more often than not find myself agreeing with a more conservative line of thought (and rarely agreeing with you ;)). I will admit to you that I failed to vote for either pres. candidate in the last election. I am embarrassed to say so, but I simply couldn't get myself to vote for either one. I certainly was not a Kerry fan, but I feel strongly that the world judged Bush long ago (right or wrong), that nothing will change that judgment, and that I think people grossly underestimate how important world opinion is. We can hardly afford to go it alone on anything but the most vital of issues if necessary. As it turns out, my state is heavily in one camp so it doesn't make much difference.

Statements similar to yours from above : "Bush had the war planned prior to his taking office to avenge the attempt taken on his Daddy's life." are a big red flag to me to not take too seriously what someone like you has to say because it has all become too emotional for you. You cannot pretend to be knowledgeable enough on the matter to rationally state that as fact, unless you hold some sort of position that I am not aware of (and don't throw any Farhenheit 911 type of stuff at me as facts). I also cannot pretend to be knowledgeable enough to pass judgment on the WMD intelligence thing, nor can virtually any average citizen, yet they do anyway. I simply believe in the system as a whole, and believe that we, as a system will continue to try to do the right thing, to include the situation in Iraq.
 

roadhog

New Member
Feb 13, 2005
272
0
0
Carrera said:
I think DavidMc is right on this issue.
We need to ask the question how come Bush hasn't really made a real effort to involve other nations in Iraq's reconstruction. The reason other countries have pulled troops out of the country is because Bush hasn't successfully defended human rights values, has resorted to torture as a matter of national policy and has taken control of Iraqi oil reserves.
I disagree. There are many reasons people have pulled out and I believe it has little to do with what you claim. We have quite an impressive military structure, and even we are straining to keep up this long term thing (in conjunction with all our other long term committments). Many nations are simply not able to, especially when their populous is against it. I don't think the prison atrocities committed by a relative few despicable Americans and Brits are a big factor here. I think there have been major efforts to involve more, and the reason we don't hear much about it is because our administration is probably embarrassed to make public what the response is from most nations. Don't get me wrong, I can certainly understand the stance of many nations who are not participating. When we chose to go it alone we needed to be prepared to go the whole way alone. I've said before here that our major problem on this front is that for at least 14 years, our (US) military capability does not match our foreign policy. That has been a problem for several administrations now. We simply don't have enough manpower. Because of this, I am QUITE certain that many intense negotiations have gone on behind closed doors for more support from elsewhere. I just think we don't hear about it all because we don't want to publicize our situation in that respect.

Carrera said:
What Bush needed to do, in my opinion, is go figure out how a group of terrorists were able to rehearse the 9/11 attacks in the heartlands of the U.S.A. and Europe and then fly planes into skyscrapers without so much as a fighter jet having been scrambled.
True, Bush has now acted to improve homeland security but, all in all, the threat from terrorism is still alive and kicking.
You don't think this is happening? It is still alive and kicking because it's a serious, capable, and determined foe! You don't think there have been changes? You don't think millions of dollars and herculean efforts have been expended here?

Carrera said:
The only way to sort out Iraq at this stage I guess is to give the Iraqis full sovereignty as quickly as possible and have mainly peace-keeping Arab troops involved in security.
No arguments here...Isn't this what the evil administration's (not my term)stance is too? What do you think we're trying to do over there? That is absolutely our first priority.
 

davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
Carrera said:
I think DavidMc is right on this issue.
We need to ask the question how come Bush hasn't really made a real effort to involve other nations in Iraq's reconstruction. The reason other countries have pulled troops out of the country is because Bush hasn't successfully defended human rights values, has resorted to torture as a matter of national policy and has taken control of Iraqi oil reserves. It smacks of an imperialistic agenda with a good dose of personal grudge against Hussein thrown in for good measure.
The problem is Kerry seemed to understand the threat from terrorism better than Bush. While Bush has invested so much time and money in Iraq, Al Quaida has spread its influence dramatically throughout the Middle East and even Europe. Then you have Iran - now in a far better position to develop WMD now the U.S. has isolated itself (despite the obvious fact nobody wants to see a nuclear Iran).
What Bush needed to do, in my opinion, is go figure out how a group of terrorists were able to rehearse the 9/11 attacks in the heartlands of the U.S.A. and Europe and then fly planes into skyscrapers without so much as a fighter jet having been scrambled.
True, Bush has now acted to improve homeland security but, all in all, the threat from terrorism is still alive and kicking.
The only way to sort out Iraq at this stage I guess is to give the Iraqis full sovereignty as quickly as possible and have mainly peace-keeping Arab troops involved in security.
Didn't Bush decide that he was going to offer reconstruction contracts to entities who were a part of the "Coalition of the Willing" exclusively, meaning pretty much, Halliburton/KBR (Cheney's "freinds" :rolleyes: ) . It does make sense but NOT in a "no-bid" framework :mad: . Agree w/ you on the "Hussein Grudge" match scenario. As Iran is concerned, yes bush has stretched our troops to the point of the def. dept. instituting it's stop loss program. now recruitment #'s are at a min. of a 10 yr. low & we are mired in a country which doesn't want us there. Soldiers are losing buisinesses at home & their kids are growing up in their abscence. Was just listening to the oral arguments in court inre: stop-loss & it's legality. The def. dept's. attorney stated that there is no set date of release in the recruitment contract. I don't know how it is now, I got out in 1990 so the paperwork has probably gone through one or two revisions but I suspect mine said that I was responsible for serving 4 yrs. which I did. The military is smarting from this no doubt & it irks me because military actions are supposed to be used only in the last resort & it would seem to me that Bush has used them to settle a personal score & get his name in the books as being a "war pres" :rolleyes: Well he's a war pres alright but, I bet he didn't plan on eviscerating the military in the process.
 

Similar threads