THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

About the torture pix: Much hand wringing about a very old procedure.

I feel we all suspected that such procedures were being employed by both sides of any conflict since, well, the year one.

However, to employ the old chestnut that the U.S's interrogation techniques are far more humane then that of Saddam's does not morally fly. But neither does the Arab world media's (Al Jazeera, et al) indignation at such torture. If one listens to the Arab media it would seem that it is not the torture of Iraq's citizens that matters so much as the change of management in such places as Abu Ghraib prison. The message from the Arab world is that they would much prefer Arab to Western "screws" or jailors.

But then we find something much more distasteful: a Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, who seems to aspire to innocence through ignorance. He is one of us, one that is supposed to be more informed and more civilized than the so called "dead enders" that have been subjected to the pictured torture (questions arise as to the actual guilt of those so labeled and jailed, but that is another subject). The Secretary, like ourselves, should be held to a higher standard. In Iraq both the military victory and the torture are both products of his watch, he is responsible. Yet, when questioned by NBC's Matt Lauer as to his response to Gen. Antonio Taguba's report (regarding goings on in the facility in question) that landed on the Secretary's desk back in March, Secretary Rumsfeld whines:



So it seems that Mr. Rumsfeld is not the only member of this administration that has an adversity to commissioned reports that may contain unwanted information. But in fairness, perhaps it was only the thickness of the report that deterred its intended consumer.

Will anybody in this administration ever take responsibility? All those reasons for going to war, WMD, have vaporized but Mr. "Slam Dunk" George Tenet still roams the hallowed halls of the CIA. Somebody in this government has outed Ambassador Wilson's wife as a CIA operative but despite the best efforts and intentions of our President no one has been held accountable. This dispute regarding torture pix finds the President of the U.S. publicly apologizing to the King of Jordan and yet this same executive can find absolutely no mistake that he or his administration could possibly share with the American people as regards his entire tenure as President.

I have, in the past, pointed to and complimented President Bush's resolution that he brings to certain matters such as Iraq. Resolution, however, is only half the battle. Blair and Churchill were resolute, but so were Hitler and Stalin. The goal matters, but the means employed are important also. Warm and fuzzy statements these;

The upshot of all this hot air of mine is simply this:

If we consider our Western civilization as superior to that seen in the Middle East (as I do) this necessarily implies a difference between the two cultures. By definition this means that our civilization has not only more personal and moral freedom but the responsibility that comes with it. It is human culture that has allowed us to bootstrap our way up and away from chimpanzees. As humans, we have made our own freewill. Our cognizance and culture have supplied the mechanism that allows us to strive towards a free will "worth wanting". But, just as there are those individuals in our society that are less able to be assigned this personal responsibility, so should we consider those in the Middle East as less morally responsible for their past actions. This may sound condescending towards Middle Easterners but my point is directed towards us westerners and the paternalistic responsibility that we have taken on regarding this area of the globe.

Given the above philosophical fluff and stated goal of our western culture of raising the consciousness of Middle Easterners, we must seriously question both the motives of the present U.S. administration and their ability (Sec. Powell aside) to rise to this occasion and its opportunities. We can call for the resignation of various members of this administration only after we have given serious thought as to more qualified and not merely different entities. In November we Americans will have to decide whether our leader has chosen well or poorly. Such elections are always about the incumbents past performance but in addition we, as citizens, must also choose wisely.

Respectfully,

JM

JM, I must disagree with your thesis. It has been proven at both Stanford and Yale universities that normal, intelligent people can be cruel when they "think" they are the controllers. They will follow most instructions against another human that is both cruel and sadistic. The idea that we are more civilized in the US than elsewhere have been shown to be wrong.

Quite so, Mr. Morrison. Republicans among us by and large realize there's a difference between adversity and aversion, FYI.

What's this about "Mein Kampf"? It's for sale at my local bookstore - which also sells an audio tape of it. Public libraries have it too. Censorship only serves to draw attention to whatever it is someone tried to say before he was banned.

Live free or die!

Resolution and resolve aren't identical either. If that was a tract in support of Mr. Kerry - all is forgiven <G>

In his testament Hitler gave the copyright of "Mein Kampf" to the state of Bavaria. The copyright will end on 31.12.2015. The government of Bavaria, in agreement with the Federal Government of Germany, does not allow any copying or printing of the book in Germany, and opposes it also in other countries. (The book is still being printed in other countries however.) Owning and buying the book is legal. Trading in old copies is legal as well, unless it is done in such a fashion as to promote hatred or war, which is generally illegal. Most German libraries carry heavily commented and excerpted versions of Mein Kampf. (source: Wikipedia et al).
Any Nazi propaganda (etc) is prohibited by the German Criminal Code ... and in a couple of other European (not EU-related!) states, too.

Call it censorship - but I can travel when I like to e.g. Cuba :wink:

Ican states

"Saddam was a sponsor of terrorist groups in that Saddam did finance and funnel weapons and ordinance to Terrorist groups."

Yes so has the US in many many isntences in the past century armed, financed and supported terrorist groups, the contra is just one example.

"Saddam was a sponsor of Osama (see evidence posted above in this forum)."

There is even more concrete proof of US support for osama

"While Osama did declare Saddam a heretic, he took zero action to depose Saddam or kill other Baathists."

Nor did the US after the first gulfwar although he was declared a war criminal (aggression is a war crime)

"Saddam did not want the US to learn that he was a sponsor of Osama, because he realized that the US would for that reason attempt to remove Saddam. "

So you really think so? The us destroyed him for even more vauge reasons, after all why is the US in iraq?

"Bush was fearful that Saddam would finance and funnel, weapons and ordinance to Terrorist groups."

Is that why the US is going into war against iran and syria?

"Bush was fearful that Saddam would finance and funnel chemical and biological toxins to terrorist groups, and, when Saddam eventually developed them, finance and funnel nuclear weapons to terrorist groups."

Get real.....

"Bush pleaded with the leaders of other nations through the UN and outside the UN to join the US in removing Saddam."

But failed to fallow due course as is the norm in international affairs, such as waiting for a UN resolution

"Bush formed a coalition of nations to remove Saddam that succeeded in removing Saddam."

What a coalition! a hundred troops from here and a hundred from there, the only substantial presence is from the US and the UK, the rest just didn't want to offend the US

"Bush told us all multiple times that evolving Iraq into a republic that would not contribute to the terrorism of anyone, would require a significant amount of time, effort and lives."

That price is up to the American's (thank god). I personally would have hated to sacrifice my life for those dolts in washington, good thing that my country isn't involved.

"Bush believes that evolving Iraq into a republic that will not contribute to the terrorism of anyone is a moral and ehtical imperative for the civilized nations of the world."

I wonder if that is his position concerning other countries and causes effecting terrorism or if it is just a fancy tagline.

"Bush believes containment of Saddam would have proved no more effective than containment of Ho Chi Minh."

Yeap, we know that the US didn't contain ho chi minh, instead it fought vallantly, losing over 50.000 of its own and killing and maiming how many vietnamese?

yilmaz, Quit wasting your time with "blind" people. They couldn't/wouldn't see the asinine arguments being articulated by those that can only see "one side" without acknowledging the "crimes against humanity" of the US.

True! Also true, those terrorist groups the US supported in the past were not at the time terrorizing or threatening to terrorize the US.

The US has done good and the US has done bad. On balance, it has done far more good than bad. In the 20th Century in particular, the US did far more good than bad. In this 21st Century the US must work to do far better. So should Turkey et al.

The US isn't scheduled to be perfect until 2776. But, yes, it is way behind schedule.





Saddam didn't cover all his sponsorships. So, for that same reason: the US was afraid that Saddam would sponsor terrorist groups in addition to Osama's al Qaeda to work far worse havoc on the US than done thus far. Nothing vague about that is there?



Iran and Syria have already gone into war against Iraq and the US. I hope you are correct and the US has finally started to return the favor.



Bush figured correctly that the US would have had to wait until France and Russia were the victims of equivalent or worse terrorist actions like 911, before they would have been willing to not veto a UN resolution to go after one or more terrorist sponsors, in particular Saddam (in whom they were significantly invested). By the time the French and Russian opposition ended, if ever it was to end, the US would probably have been the victim of multiple 911s.

NOW HEAR THIS: THE US WILL DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST TERRORISTS BY WHATEVER MEANS IT DECIDES ARE APPROPRIATE WHETHER THE UN OR ANYONE ELSE AGREES OR NOT.

I hope.

I hope the Turkey people feel the same way about themselves.




Your country is involved and has been attacked by terrorists.





I don't know how many thousands of Vietnamese the US killed or maimed. I do know that Ho Chi Minh and company killed millions of South Vietnames after the US pulled out. Think about it!

Involved in invasion of iraq? I don't think so. And no the US hasn't started a war on iran and syria, I was being a bit sarcastic..... anyway and how the fact remains that as defined by the US army manual the unites states government is the biggest terrorist organization and the strongest terrorist state, think about that.

Yes, we must compare "the devils we know" with "the devils we don't know" as well. Let's be sure and carefully examine the past performance of those we think may be more qualified.

I truly hope we can do better than the Bush Administration. But thus far the Democrats seem determined to limit our choice to Bush or worse.

No, I wasn't referring to Turkey's involvment in Iraq, if any. I was referring to Turkey also being a victim of terrorists.



Interesting. Please explain.

We're big! We're strong! But terrorist? No, I don't think so! Self-defense against terrorism, is not terrorism! Self-defense can be effective or ineffective; it can be neat or sloppy; it can be rational or irrational; it cannot be terrorist.

LOL Walter - suspect the real reason we're not supposed to travel to Cuba is that if Fidel Castro slips on a banana peel and blames it on yet another "assassination attempt" it's better to be able to prove none of us was in that country at the time <G>

If you were a non-combatant family sheltering, terrified, in Fallujah while the attackers pounded your town, this argument would be trite, specious and meaningless.

"A terrorist is a man with a bomb but no air force".

A terrorist is a man with a bomb but no air force, or with an airliner but no bomb.



To you, maybe.

We might say, stop sheltering terrorists in Fallujah because as long as you do that you are a combatant family.

You might say, if I don't shelter terrorists the terrorists will kill me.

We might say, kill the terrorists first.

You might say my house is not sheltering terrorists but it's getting pounded any way.

We might say, you've got three choices:
Exterminate terrorists;
Get out of Town;
Shelter terrorists.

You might say, I risk dying in each case.

We might say, so do we.

"We" should read, what we signed, e.g. the Genava Coventions and what they say about non-combatants.

But as testified by King George's own government, the knowledge of the Geneva Conventions is unknown in the parts of US-Forces

Walter, You can bet your bottom dollar that all in the military and those on contract with the military are going to know about the Geneva Convention in short order. That's going to be swift with no delay. Bringing the superiors in charge of the crimes is another matter.

The Geneva Convention applies to war between states that signed that convention; it does not apply to war between a state acting in self-defense that signed that convention and those stateless terrorists who did not sign that convention and who do not comply with that convention while acting to kill all members of that state "wherever you may find them".

Stripping terrorist prisoners, putting sacks over their heads, and photographing them in various disgusting positions is not a war crime comparable to murder or assault. It is a crime justifying dismissal of all perpetrators of that crime and their incarceration.

CURIOUS

The time (assuming its standard time) stamped on all posts to this forum implies that the the able2know time base is somewhere along the E60 degree line of longitude. That line, for example passes through Russia, Iran, slightly east of the Arabian Peninsula, and the Antarctic.

Of course, it could be a cover for the W120 degree line of longitude that passes through western North America and the Antarctic.

Who cares, you might ask. I for one; that's one who cares!

This was sent by a friend.
*********
Subject: WHAT ARE WE DOING THERE?


ITS TIME TO RE-EVALUATE OUR INVOLVEMENT!

Every day there are news reports and TV photos about more death and destruction. Why are we still there?

We occupied this land by force, but it causes us nothing but trouble. Why are we still there?

Many of our children go there and never return. Why are we still there?

Their government is unstable with ineffective leadership. Why are we still there?

Many of these people are uncivilized and lawless. Why are we still there?

The place is subject to natural disasters from which we are supposed to bail them out. Why are we still there?

There are more than 1,000 religious sects we truly do not understand. Why are we still there?

Their culture is unfathomable to most ordinary Americans. Why are we still there?

We can't even secure the borders. Why are we still there?

They are billions of dollars in debt, and it will cost billions more to rebuild. Why are we still there?

It is becoming clearer all the time...

WE MUST PULL OUT OF CALIFORNIA

Sometimes we get two for the price of one.
******
The moral of the story.....

The teacher gave her fifth grade class an assignment:
Get their parents to tell them a story with a moral at the end of it. The next day the kids came back and began to tell their stories.

"Johnny do you have a story to share?"
Yes, ma'am. My daddy told a story about my Aunt Donna. She was a pilot in Desert Storm and her plane got hit. She had to bail out over enemy territory and all she had was a small flask of whiskey, a pistol and a survival knife.She drank the whiskey on the way down so it wouldn't break and then her parachute landed her right in the middle of twenty enemy troops. She shot fifteen of them with the gun until she ran out of bullets, killed four more with the knife! , till the blade broke, and then she killed the last Iraqi with her bare hands..

Good Heaven, "said the horrified teacher. What kind of moral did you learn from this horrible story ???

"Stay the hell away from Aunt Donna when she's drinking."