Ah, you mean that is similar to what parents told their children in the American Zone of Germany, namely not to go out alone because ...?
yeah, kinda like that, only different you know.
Them we should post "Out of Bonds"-signs outsite ... e.g. Kongo.
The NYTimes seems to think it's worth repeating. Perhaps those with the most angst over seeing the US as the bully to the world could focus their time and talent on righting the wrongs elsewhere.
I won't hold my breath
JustWonders wrote: Perhaps those with the most angst over seeing the US as the bully to the world could focus their time and talent on righting the wrongs elsewhere.
I won't hold my breath
Quote:Fifty countries are represented among the 1,000 civilian employees¹ and 10,800 soldiers².
¹Argentina, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, France, Guinea, Jordan, Mali, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey
²: Algeria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, France, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Jordan, Kenya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay and Zambia
Special Representative of the Secretary-General and Chief of Mission:
William Lacy Swing (United States)
Not to forget:
Fatalities: 33 military personnel
8 military observers
2 international civilian
1 local civilian
44 total
DontTreadOnMe wrote:o'bill. i truly think that you are mistaken with your view on revel and cyclo, and possibly even the et al
from what i'm taking away from most of their comments it this;
if you purport to be the moral arbiter of a situation, you must hold your actions up to a higher standard, and scrutiny, than those that you are judging and/or punishing.
if you do things in that way, it is easy to see why the abu gharaib events needed to be addressed in the harshest terms. i say that in full acknowledgement that nothing that i've heard about happening there comes close to what our enemies do. but we are supposed to be the good guys. when one of our own does this crap, it undermines the stated mission. that, does the soldiers in iraq no good. and it does our country a disservice.
The anti-American pre-disposition I speak of isn't an isolated impression on the subject at hand. It wasn't born of the last couple days of this thread, and won't dissipate upon having a post or two's meaning more clearly defined. I'm not suggesting anyone here hates America. I'm on this soapbox because I'm sick and tired of the "Blame America First" club's constant America bashing. I'm not suggesting anyone doesn't have the right to their opinion. I'm not even suggesting Americans don't deserve much of the criticism we receive and more.
Of course we should try and put our best foot forward in hopes of winning the hearts and minds of those we aim to liberate, for our own sake as well as theirs. THAT is obvious enough to go without say. Indeed, who disagrees? THAT isn't the impression given off by consistently assuming the worst about America in every partial news-blurb...
Criminals are being tried for violations at Abu Ghraib, even as we speak. I've heard no credible person suggest that shouldn't be the case. Those who choose to reference these crimes, over and over, as if they were representative of the United State's intentions are guilty of unabashed America-bashing. They deride the 99%+ of U.S. soldiers and Americans in general who are every bit as disgusted by human rights abuses as they are.
American people, like all people are good and bad. If you want to judge them as a group, judge them by the actions of the vast majority... not the isolated few. Those who
constantly revert back to the deplorable actions of the isolated few to characterize the many are guilty of, you guessed it; anti-American bias. This tendency is uniformly frowned upon as it relates to pretty much every other group of people... but somehow, for some reason, some don't think America deserves the same courtesy.
I'm suggesting that there has to be some equilibrium. There is nobility in holding
yourself up to higher standards than your enemy. WE DO. As you pointed out, our abuses at Abu Ghraib are not comparable to the abuses of our predecessors at Abu Ghraib
but that isn't the biggest distinction. That we are now taking steps to punish the guilty, and correct the atmosphere in hopes of
reducing the number of offenses IS. I can't tell you how repulsed I am by the America-basher's constant use of this offense as a summary-characterization of our actions. Expectations that there be no offenses of this kind go beyond idealism, pretty much all the way to idiocy. War is hell. When hundreds of thousands of individuals are engaged in a violent conflict, some of them are going to break the rules. Abuses of this kind will take place regardless of who the combatants are. When our soldiers do, it is a reflection of this simple truth, not the United States of America. How an individual chooses to portray it in relation to the U.S.; is a reflection of his or her own predisposition towards the United States of America. Entirely too often for my taste, said predisposition reflects an ANTI-AMERICAN BIAS...
Walter Hinteler wrote:OCCOM BILL seems to have reached a position, most of us - if any - will ever get:
Judge at the Highest Court of American and International Morality.
Whatever Walter. OCCOM BILL is no guiltier of this than anyone else here, including you.
Pretty much the catalyst for political debate in general, isn't it?
McTag wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote:That being said; there are lots of liberals on and off A2K who's sentiments appear anti-American rarely-to-never. Nimh and Soz come to mind immediately. C.I., McTag and you, on the other hand consistently assume the worst about America and generally only begrudgingly admit anything good about it.
I think any world power only acts out of pure self-interest, and it is very misleading to attribute "human" motives for what it does, such as benevolence, hatred, or any number of other things.
Not true. Some world powers are reflective of, and have to answer to, their constituencies. Can arrogance not be expected of Americans or French? Can tolerance not be expected of Canadians or Dutch?
McTag wrote: From my standpoint now, I look on this current administration as your author Al Franken does when he wrote "Dude, Where's My Country?" in that I do not recognise the former USA in today's version. I consider this invasion as a crime, and America to be very mis-led.
I consider this an insult. Neither I, nor the majority of my countrymen recognize Al Franken as our spokesperson. We elected George Bush for that job. I respect you for marching for your beliefs, but don't let A2K's liberal slant fool you: Neither I nor the majority of my countrymen agree with your reasons for doing it. We re-elected George Bush despite, and in part
because, of you (and your ilk's) assumption that we were foolishly mislead. While you are recognizing everyone's right to dissent, you damn well better recognize the majority's right to agree with Bush's actions. While we are certainly less likely to be offended when you attack Bush & Co., instead of Americans in general, such attacks nonetheless are on us. "How can 300,000,000 people be so stupid?" is not a headline likely to win
our hearts and minds, you know? I wonder if any other alpha's benevolence was ever taken for granted so often or easily as ours, let alone denied.
You and Revel pretending that comparing alphas to alphas is irrelevant is akin to employees comparing what
they would do if they were in charge, to the person who actually had the wherewithall to be in charge. You can't judge a CEO without comparing him to other CEOs. Stating that Jane from Human Resources or ANY other would-be leader might be better is what's irrelevant. Now, once you reconcile yourself to this simple truth you have little choice but to admit that the United States is head and shoulders above any and all of history's alpha's in terms of benevolence. So distasteful is such an admission to you to that you've gone to great lengths to avoid it. Even in your catch up round when you cited the question, you still avoided the answer.
McTag wrote: Assuming America were the big stick and some other country were doing the "heart and minds", and supervising the rebuilding of the country, which must include education, social provision, legal system, administration as well as infrastructure of roads, sewerage, telecomms, utilities, hosptals, houses, and all other things...no little task...I pick Norway, for dependability, Ireland, for keeping a sense of humour and proportion when all about you others were losing theirs, or Britain, which has experience in the region.
What's so different? America is carrying Teddy Roosevelt's big stick
relatively quietly (all things considered), "Britain" is providing their expertise
so what's left? Oh ya, nobody else is stepping up to the plate, so the US and some of her allies INCLUDING IRAQ (
) are rebuilding the country; including schools, social provisions, a new legal system, administration as well as infrastructure of roads, sewerage, telecoms, utilities, hospitals, houses, and all manner of other things. Where are those pesky Irish and Norwegians anyway? :wink:
revel wrote: Bill, I did not play dumb as you put it. I was attempting to tell you why your point was not a valid one even if what you claimed was true with all my many posts in response to yours. I suppose I should of clarified my silly little line about my scratching my head to make myself better understood.
I'm about done giving you the benefit of the doubt, whether you're
playing or not.
revel wrote: I was not confused about your point, I was confused of why you would use that point when it didn't apply to the question at hand. I simply don't see what difference it makes how good we are when it comes to judging our actions.
Are you playing there?
revel wrote:I consider our actions of going into Iraq in itself to be something that should in a just world be addressed and those that did it should be held accountable. If by saying that you believe me to anti american, so be it.
I've been exceedingly clear why I think your sentiments (not
you) to be anti-American.
That isn't it.
revel wrote:I consider the abuses that were allowed to happen to be something that needs to addressed by people that do not have an inherit conflict of interest. If by saying that you believe me to be anti-american, so be it.
Nope. You missed again. Try putting that out of your mind while considering
my separate but related point and it may be easier to see. You don't have to agree to understand, ya know.
revel wrote:If there are other people in other countries or countries themselves who commit worse offenses it still does not excuse our own. Why is that so hard to understand?
No one is having trouble understanding this, Revel. That's not conducive to ANYBODY's point. If that's all you've gotten from this exchange, it is an utter waste of both of our time to continue it. Look back again to Cycloptichorn's response
and see what a difference
TRYING to understand makes.
revel wrote:John 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
WTF? I give up.
OBill's quote, "Criminals are being tried for violations at Abu Ghraib, even as we speak." The primary problem with this kind of statement is the fact that it's human nature to violate others when given the opportunity. The high command of the US army should have known that there always exists potential for this kind of thing to happen in a war zone. That doesn't relieve the US of any responsibility when it happens. What is wrong is the fact that only lower ranking soldiers are being punished.
Bill Wrote:
Quote:OCCOM BILL wrote:
It seems to be a common thing for A2K liberals to set the bar for United States far above where it's ever been set for anyone else, and then turn around and be hyper-critical when we fail to reach the unprecedented plateau. Quite simply, that's not fair. Your continued refusal to examine our performance against any comparable competition further exemplifies your anti-American bias.
Man, you can't take a day off on this thread without being 10 pages behind! All this discussion is a good thing.
I don't think it's just the liberals on A2K that have placed the 'imaginary bar' so high, I believe we have placed it that high ourselves by attempting what is basically a brand-new and quite unique foreign policy.
We are much better than other nations who have invaded and become occupiers of smaller nations; but the comparison to a bunch of facist and communist, aggresive, expansionist regimes will undoubtedly leave the US looking rosy in comparison, as we simply aren't one of those.
I believe that arabs everywhere are looking at our actions when they are trying to decide whether or not democracy will work for them.
That is the real issue, yaknow: not defeating the insurgents, but convincing the Iraqi people that democracy will work and is a good thing, and by extension Iran and Syria, etc.. If the thing works, it could be a tipping point for the whole region.
So I see why we went to Iraq, even though the fact they had to use the WMD lie to drum up support has tarnished the whole thing somewhat. But for us to succeed, we have to be on our super-best behaviour; we are being judged by a jury of angry Muslims, and it's going to be hard to win them over with anything less than a spotless case.
That being said, we have a few strikes against us already, with Abu Grhaib and the latest Fallujah assault basically doing nothing more than displacing 200k people from their homes. We need to play the last few cards in our hand well, or the whole thing is going to fold up on us.
As for the coming elections, we've really been put inbetween a rock and a hard place; it seems as if Bush is determined to go on with the elections, and the insurgents are determined to break up the elections. This seems a recepie for violence for this cook, and how much violence will it take before people start calling bullshit on the whole thing? That would be disatrous. You could swell the insurgent's ranks by a 100k overnight. We must tread extremely lightly over the next month...
I was saddened (but not shocked) to read this today:
Quote:Iraqi voter registration site attacked
Mortars kill 1 civilian, wound 8 others north of Baghdad
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/18/iraq.main/index.html
Cycloptichorn
The soldiers involved are being punished and if they are the lower ranking ones, then it is appropriate that only the lower ranking soldiers are punished. If your employee steals a customer's wallet, you may feel you need to issue an apology (the administration did that) and that you need to make restitution to the victim (the administration did that), but do you think you should go to jail along with your employee?
cicerone imposter wrote:OBill's quote, "Criminals are being tried for violations at Abu Ghraib, even as we speak." The primary problem with this kind of statement is the fact that it's human nature to violate others when given the opportunity. The high command of the US army should have known that there always exists potential for this kind of thing to happen in a war zone. That doesn't relieve the US of any responsibility when it happens. What is wrong is the fact that only lower ranking soldiers are being punished.
You are correct when you state that it sickeningly does seem to be human nature to violate others. Where your logic falls off the map, is in assuming it is possible to anticipate and eliminate all forms of this abuse in advance. Even knowing what we know now, I doubt it is even
possible to eliminate this type of abuse altogether. I feel safe in the assumption that those who are responsible are being tried. The person who runs the post office isn't necessarily culpable when a postal worker goes postal. Unless you have some evidence that a responsible party, who can be evidentially linked to the crime, is not being charged, your accusation is a groundless assumption. Guess what it says about your predisposition that you don't think the mid to high level officers of the United States Military should be presumed innocent just like everyone else...
Quote:The soldiers involved are being punished and if they are the lower ranking ones, then it is appropriate that only the lower ranking soldiers are punished. If your employee steals a customer's wallet, you may feel you need to issue an apology (the administration did that) and that you need to make restitution to the victim (the administration did that), but do you think you should go to jail along with your employee?
In this case, a better analogy would be this: we're punishing a murderer by cutting off his hands.
It's the head that goes unpunished when we only go after the base soldiers, who were merely following orders.
Cycloptichorn
We are not talking about "stolen wallets." Get with the program.
I'll have to ask for some verification that the soldiers were just following orders Cyclop. All the information I've seen, including their own testimony, is that they were acting on their own.
No, we're not talking about 'stolen wallets' CI, but we're talking about accountability and culpability. You might be culpable in the theft of your customer's wallet if you failed to do a sufficient background on him when you hired him, but are you guilty as he is guilty? If soldiers violate orders and overstep their authority and break the rules/law/code or whatever, is it appropriate to court marshall the general?
Foxfyre, It's very evident you have never served in the armed forces of the US or any other army.
In Congo War, Even Peacekeepers Add to Horror
By MARC LACEY
Published: December 18, 2004
UNIA, Congo, Dec. 16 - In the corner of the tent where she says a soldier forced himself on her, Helen, a frail fifth grader with big eyes and skinny legs, remembers seeing a blue helmet.
The United Nations peacekeeper who tore off her clothes had used a cup of milk to lure her close, she said in her high-pitched voice, fidgeting as she spoke. It was her favorite drink, she said, but one her family could rarely afford. "I was so happy," she said.
After she gulped it down, the foreign soldier pulled Helen, a 12-year-old, into bed, she said. About an hour later, he gave her a dollar, put a finger to his lips and pushed her out of his tent, she said.
In this same eastern outpost, another United Nations peacekeeper, unable to communicate with a 13-year-old Swahili-speaking girl who walked past him, held up a cookie and gestured for her to draw near. As the girl, Solange, who recounted the incident with tears in her eyes the other day, reached for the cookie, the soldier reached for her. She, too, said she was raped.
The United Nations said recently that it had uncovered 150 allegations of sexual abuse committed by United Nations peacekeepers stationed in Congo, many of them here in Bunia where the population has already suffered horrendous atrocities committed by local fighters. The raping of women and girls is an all-too-common tactic in the war raging in Congo's eastern jungles involving numerous militia groups. In Bunia, a program run by Unicef has treated 2,000 victims of sexual violence in recent months. But it is not just the militia members who have been preying on the women. So, too, local women say, have some of the soldiers brought in to keep the peace.
The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, said recently that there was "clear evidence that acts of gross misconduct have taken place" in the United Nations mission in Congo, which began in early 2000 and is known by its French acronym, Monuc. Mr. Annan added, "This is a shameful thing for the United Nations to have to say, and I am absolutely outraged by it."
The number of cases may be impossible for United Nations investigators to determine precisely. Helen and Solange said in recent interviews that they had not told their stories even to their parents, never mind to United Nations officials. Rape carries a heavy stigma here, both girls made clear. They told their stories when approached by a reporter.
"I didn't tell my mother because she would beat me," said a grim-faced Solange, starring at the ground. Solange, a sixth-grade dropout, said she had no interest in visiting a health clinic or seeing one of the psychologists that Unicef has paid for to counsel the many rape victims in and around Bunia. If she seeks help, the girl said, her mother might find out.
Helen's mother is dead, and Helen did not dare tell her father for fear of a beating. She said she knew he would blame her for going near the soldiers in the first place and might even throw her out of the house.
Helen did go on her own to a health clinic soon after the assault because she said she hurt between her legs. The health worker gave her something to drink, which she paid for with the same dollar that the soldier had given her, she said.
"I was so afraid when he took my clothes off," Helen said, fidgeting with her dirty T-shirt. "I was quiet. I didn't say anything."
The allegations leveled against United Nations personnel in Congo include sex with underage partners, sex with prostitutes and rape, an internal United Nations investigation has found. Investigators said they found evidence that United Nations peacekeepers and civilian workers paid $1 to $3 for sex or bartered sexual relations for food or promises of employment. A confidential report prepared by Prince Zeid Raad al-Hussein, Jordan's ambassador to the United Nations, and dated Nov. 8, says the exploitation "appears to be significant, widespread and ongoing."
Violators described in the investigation, which continues, appear to come from around the globe. Fifty countries are represented among the 1,000 civilian employees and 10,800 soldiers who make up the United Nations mission in Congo. Already, a French civilian has been accused of having sex with a girl, though it is unclear where that case stands, and two Tunisian peacekeepers have been sent home, where the local authorities will decide whether to punish them.
The United Nations report details allegations of sexual misconduct by peacekeepers from Nepal, Pakistan, Morocco, Tunisia, South Africa and Uruguay, and lists incidents in which some soldiers tried to obstruct investigators.
When they arrive for duty, peacekeepers are presented with the United Nations code of conduct, which forbids "any exchange of money, employment, goods or services for sex."
The home countries are responsible for punishing any of their military personnel who violate the code while taking part in a United Nations peacekeeping mission.
The United Nations, which has had previous scandals in missions in Cambodia and Bosnia, also warns the soldiers against sexual contact with girls under 18, even though the law in Congo permits sex with girls as young as 14.
Quote:I'll have to ask for some verification that the soldiers were just following orders Cyclop. All the information I've seen, including their own testimony, is that they were acting on their own.
That's for two reasons, Fox:
#1, you don't want to believe that it went all the way up, so you don't. It's a classic symptom of conservatism.
#2, soldiers are
trained to take the fall for their superiors. It's not surprising that they don't want to tell the truth; look at the amazing difference of treatment of the exposers of Abu Ghraib, and the perpetrators of the tortures, and you'll see what I mean.
But, because you want sources, here ya go:
From the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact
Quote:Two Iraqi faces that do appear in the photographs are those of dead men. There is the battered face of prisoner No. 153399, and the bloodied body of another prisoner, wrapped in cellophane and packed in ice. There is a photograph of an empty room, splattered with blood.
Myers, who was one of the military defense attorneys in the My Lai prosecutions of the nineteen-seventies, told me that his client's defense will be that he was carrying out the orders of his superiors and, in particular, the directions of military intelligence. He said, "Do you really think a group of kids from rural Virginia decided to do this on their own? Decided that the best way to embarrass Arabs and make them talk was to have them walk around nude?""This is how military intelligence (MI) wants it done."Captain Robert Shuck, Frederick's military attorney, closed his defense at the Article 32 hearing last month by saying that the Army was "attempting to have these six soldiers atone for its sins." Similarly, Gary Myers, Frederick's civilian attorney, told me that he would argue at the court-martial that culpability in the case extended far beyond his client. "I'm going to drag every involved intelligence officer and civilian contractor I can find into court," he said. "Do you really believe the Army relieved a general officer because of six soldiers? Not a chance."
Here's the million-dollar question, Fox: who do you think runs Military Intelligence?
Cycloptichorn
CI writes
Quote:Foxfyre, It's very evident you have never served in the armed forces of the US or any other army.
Nope, but most of the male members of my family have including my husband and my son. Some were officers. Some were grunts. And not one of them ever suggested that an officer should be court marshalled because some of the people under him did a court marshallable offense unless the officer failed to take appropriate action or participated in a cover up when the offense was discovered.
