Then you quote dead men out of context in holy benediction.

Can you explain this? In what way are they out of context?

I think those quotes fully support my position and I think their authors would agree. Can you point out any which you think I have used out of context and where the author would disagree?

Please also note that they are mostly by people who are amply admired by Americans for their achievements.

For instance, when the American judges at Nuremberg said

...the waging of aggressive war is essentially an evil thing ... to initiate a war of aggression ... is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

(a notion I heartily agree with) how does that not apply to the present war in Iraq?

If you want to discuss any of those quotes and why you believe they are taken out of context I will be happy to oblige.

It would be more useful if you could articulate your thoughts rather than just attacking me personally.

 

I still say nuke it all and let your god alah or whatever sort it out.

I do not need to point out the immorality and the stupidity of this as I believe it is evident to all but a few zealots but I hope you realise that that just supports the argument that America needs to be incapacitated, by whatever means necessary, before they do something worse than they have already done. It is an argument in favor of getting nukes to defend your own country from an America who thinks like you.

 

If there is a country in the MENA region which has a repressive fundamentalist regime which denies basic human rights to its citizens and which had funded extremists abroad that is Saudi Arabia and yet it is on the list of America's best friends.

You know, finding instances of American crimes is like shooting fish in a barrel.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/102407.html

Determined to gain the upper hand in Iraq and Afghanistan, George W. Bush has turned large portions of the two countries into near free-fire zones where any resistance, even in populated areas, is met with aggressive tactics that often kill civilians.

Though more attention has been focused on trigger-happy Blackwater “security contractors,” Bush’s military strategy has employed its own indiscriminate firepower – from loose "rules of engagement" for U.S. troops, to helicopter gun ships firing on crowds, to jet air strikes, to missiles launched from Predator drones.

For instance, the U.S. military acknowledged on Oct. 23 that an American helicopter killed 11 people, including women and children, after someone allegedly shot at the helicopter as it flew over the village of Mukaisheefa, north of Baghdad.

Iraqi police and witnesses said 16 people died, apparently as some rushed to help a wounded man, the New York Times reported. The helicopter gunners presumed the wounded man to be an insurgent and thus opened fire on the locals who came to his aid, according to witnesses.

“The locals went to check if he was dead and gathered around him,” said Mohanad Hamid Muhsin, a 14-year-old who was shot in the leg. “But the helicopter opened fire again and killed some of the locals and wounded others.”

When Iraqis carried the wounded into houses to administer first aid, the helicopter fired on the houses, killing and wounding more people, said Muhsin, who added that the dead included two of his brothers and a sister.

A local police official said the 16 dead included six women and three children, while 14 other Iraqis were wounded.

The incident followed on the heels of an Oct. 21 gun battle in which 49 people died when U.S. forces attacked alleged Shiite militiamen in Sadr City, a crowded slum in eastern Baghdad. Local authorities said the dead included innocent bystanders. [NYT, Oct. 24, 2007]
...

Yeah, how to make friends and influence people!
If this is not "disregard for human life" I don't know what is.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK21Ak01.html
Nov 21, 2007
Fallujah under a different siege

Three years after a devastating United States-led siege of the city, residents of Fallujah continue to struggle with a shattered economy, infrastructure and lack of mobility.

The city that was routed in November 2004 is still suffering the worst humanitarian conditions under a siege that continues. Although military actions are down to the minimum inside the city, local and US authorities do not seem to be thinking of ending the agonies of the over 400,000 residents of Fallujah.
...
the embattled city is still completely closed and surrounded by military checkpoints to make it look like an isolated island. Those who are not genuine residents of the city are not granted the biometric identification badge from the US Marines, and are thus not allowed to enter the city.

Since the November 2004 US-led attack on the city, named Operation Phantom Fury, which left approximately 70% of the city destroyed, the US military has required residents to undergo retina scans and finger-printing to gain a bar-code for identification.
. . .
Since the November 2004 siege, entire neighborhoods remain totally destroyed, and with no water or electricity. Most of the businesses in Fallujah remain closed.

Hmmm. . . this reminds me of something. . . Oh, yes!

 

Really don't know how to argue on a proffesional level. This is way beyond anything I can deal with.

Anyway, 'total disregard for human life' comes up frequently. Why are fooling around with ground troops. We could have completely destroyed everything in a few months if that were true, like in the first gulf war with daddy-Bush.

You seem to be the historian, how many wars in the past never revealed an attrosity commit from both sides. What was the longest period of peace in the middle east? Was America to blame 200 years ago? 500? 1000? Would the fighting stop, if America pulled out of the entire region?

Are the insurgents all Iraqi civilians. Do suicide bombers only target Americans, and never blow up women and children? It's tough to compare this war to any other war. The insurgents use civilians as their shield. They don't have troops, tanks, or aircraft, there is no way to keep the civialians seperate. The whole mess is unfortunate.

If the insurgents had access to nuclear bombs, would they be using them in car bombs? Or would they be concerned about civilian casualties, or the contamination to follow?

 

Really don't know how to argue on a proffesional level.

I really hope you are not calling me a lawyer or something because then, you know, I could *really* be offended

This is way beyond anything I can deal with.

Maybe the facts just do not support your position. There is nothing wrong with changing position after becoming informed but there is a lot of stupidity in insisting in defending a position when everything points at it being wrong.

Anyway, 'total disregard for human life' comes up frequently. Why are fooling around with ground troops. We could have completely destroyed everything in a few months if that were true, like in the first gulf war with daddy-Bush.

"daddy Bush", as you call him, was a much superior statesman to the present fool. He understood the need for international support and many other things this fool has no clue about. He stopped when he did because he knew what he was doing.

You seem to be the historian,

Nope, engineer. Just read the news and a bit of history, that's all.

how many wars in the past never revealed an attrosity commit from both sides.

Which is a great argument against starting wars, isn't it? But The fool in chief convinced America that the war would be clean and brief and American troops would be received with flowers and open arms. It didn't quite work out that way did it?

In any case, America did not torture German prisoners during WWII and it adhered to the Geneva conventions. And those *were* dire circumstances unlike today when Americans are scared of shadows. And, you know, that is one reason America had a moral stature in the following decades. All that has been lost due to the stupidity of this president and those who follow him. Guantanamo is a stain on America and many American politicians have called for its closing. It is absurd to think you can fight eveil by doing evil and what America is doing today is evil.

What was the longest period of peace in the middle east? Was America to blame 200 years ago? 500? 1000? Would the fighting stop, if America pulled out of the entire region?

What has this got to do with anything? Who has blamed America for what happened centuries ago? ah, it must be the old straw man.

Are the insurgents all Iraqi civilians. Do suicide bombers only target Americans, and never blow up women and children? It's tough to compare this war to any other war. The insurgents use civilians as their shield. They don't have troops, tanks, or aircraft, there is no way to keep the civialians seperate. The whole mess is unfortunate.

It is a mess created entirely by the USA. That is a fact.

If the insurgents had access to nuclear bombs, would they be using them in car bombs? Or would they be concerned about civilian casualties, or the contamination to follow?

Maybe you are just confused or maybe you are trying to cloud the issue. Again, what has this got to do with *anything*?

You know even allied troops from other countries have criticised American tactics in Iraq. Heck, retired American generals are critical. The British government is critical and have said the heavy-handed American tactics just made the job more difficultfor them. The Spanish troops refused to follow American orders to fire on civilians on grounds that it amounted to war crimes. And, remember, these were allied troops in combat.

As they say, even if you do not believe you are drunk, when everybody is telling you that you are drunk, you better go and have a lie down.

 

The writing was on the wall and the British and the Spanish warned America of the consequences but the Americans arrogantly went ahead anyway. It does not help when the chimp in chief uses phrases which seem taken from a bad movie. What is happening today is a direct result of all this.

posted by Juan Cole at 5/11/2004

US Ordered Spanish to Bring in Muqtada 'Dead or Alive'
Spanish Command predicted "Large-Scale Military Response"

It appears that at first the Coalition Provisional Authority and the US military command approached the poor Spanish about carrying out the arrest of Muqtada. The Spanish were in charge of Kufa and Najaf, where Muqtada is based.

The [...] Spanish military must have been absolutely astounded and disgusted by the Texan demand that they deliver Muqtada to the US "dead or alive." And, they immediately refused. Obviously, if the Spanish had taken the US bait and carried out the arrest, their forces would have faced the full fury of the Sadrists, who are capable of quite a lot of fury. This whole episode strikes me as shameful and cowardly on the Americans' part. It seems obvious that Bush, who must have made the decision to launch the largely unprovoked attack on Muqtada, was hoping to make the Spanish the fall guys. (Two pieces of evidence point to Bush: 1)We now know he was the one who ordered that "heads must roll" at Fallujah, so these major military campaigns are his idea; and, 2) the phraseology "take him dead or alive" is distinctively his.)

The Spanish response? "Fool me once, shame ... shame on ... you." Long, uncomfortable pause. "Fool me — can't get fooled again!"

The Spanish commanders also appear to have worried about the possibility of being implicated in American war crimes. They insisted, as of April 13, that the situation around Najaf was no longer covered by UN Security Council resolutions 1483 and 1511, which they felt authorized their participation in peace-keeping operations in Iraq, but did not cover military aggression of the sort the US was pursuing against the Sadrists.

This anecdote sheds further light on the haste with which Prime Minister Zapatero has withdrawn Spanish troops from Iraq. The knowledge that the US tried to arrange for the Spanish to take the fall for going after Muqtada must have convinced him that he should get out quick before the US dragged his country into deadly confrontation. The Spanish, having been in Najaf and Kufa for eight months, and, unlike the Americans, having actually made a study of the local situation, knew very well that going after Muqtada would stir up a hornet's nest, and perhaps plunge the south into a "large-scale military conflict" or at least a continuing low-grade guerrilla conflict, with themselves on the front lines.

The revelations also cast the Americans in an even poorer light as ignorant and arrogant incompetents. They were clearly completely unprepared for the insurgency throughout the South mounted by Muqtada's followers beginning April 4, the day after they came after his aides. It is one thing to be unprepared for a major military confrontation. It is another to be unprepared for it after you were warned about it by your close ally who was in charge of the affected area!

Paul Bremer in his memoirs blamed Britain and Spain for his own fiasco.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1683812,00.html

Mr Bremer, a career diplomat, also attacks the US's allies, including Britain, for being "weak-kneed" and getting "cold feet" over plans to arrest the militant Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
[...]
Mr Bremer rounds on Spanish forces for failing to support US troops under fire in Najaf. "They are sitting in tanks around the compound and doing nothing," he wrote, quoting from notes he made at the time. "It's a perfect outrage - I call it the 'coalition of the not-at-all-willing'."

posted by Juan Cole @ 3/24/2005

Spanish newspaper El Pais is reporting the disputes between Spanish military commanders in Najaf and US officers. The Spanish officers were appalled that Gen. Rick Sanchez wanted them to call in bombing strikes on civilian targets (a frequent US tactic in urban warfare in Iraq), and refused, sending in commandos to a hospital instead. Likewise, the Spanish declined to move against the Sadr Movement for fear of massive turbulence, so the US sent in special ops forces to arrest an aide to Muqtada al-Sadr anyway. (It is just unimaginable that the US would endanger the 1200 Spanish troops in Najaf in this high-handed way. It has been alleged to me by someone who should know that Dan Senor played a key role in this move). As the Spanish predicted, the sudden and still unexplained US assault on the Sadrists produced a massive uprising that threw the South into turmoil for two months. The Spanish by that time were fed up and the new Zapatero government determined to withdraw the Spanish military. Given how high-handedly the US treated them, you cannot blame Madrid for wanting no further part of the increasing Iraq quagmire. What comes across most strongly in this report is a general European officer-class repugnance at heavy-handed US military tactics, including especially the use of aerial bombing on civilian targets where guerrillas were present.

Commanders bicker in Iraq

By ROLAND FLAMINI, UPI
WASHINGTON, March 22, 2005

When U.S. Army Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez visited Spain's military contingent at Najaf during a battle with Iraqi Shiite guerrillas he reproached the Spanish commanders for not using the F-16 fighter planes, "questioned various other military decisions made during the fighting, and even called in into question the Spanish commitment to the combat." So said the newspaper El Pais Tuesday in a detailed account of sharp differences between the U.S. and Spanish commanders over tactics, strategy and objectives.
[...]
Earlier in the occupation, some British military figures have gone out of their way to draw attention to nervous "trigger happy" U.S. soldiers.
[...]
El Pais also describes another clash of wills over the Najaf hospital where guerrilla snipers had take up positions. U.S. military personnel in the area wanted to call in American air cover to bomb the hospital. Col Asarta rejected the idea because it would put civilian patients and staff at risk -- and it was the biggest hospital in Najaf. In the end the colonel decided to send in a team of El Salvador commandos who, says El Pais, "secured the hospital floor by floor.

 

In any case I'll be happy to provide as many cites as are needed.

You cite the acts of Australian private security and other firms. Then you cite a few isolated errors. From these you conclude American soldiers are responsible for all the "evil" in the Middle East.

Where is your proof of alleged "total disregard for human life" by American troops?

I happen to know many of these American soldiers personally. They do not fit your gory cookie-cutter. Their faces are not in the dimly lit photos you hold up while screaming "murderer."

If you want to decry policy, American or otherwise, fine. If you want to decry war in general, fine. If you want to decry the loss of innocent life, fine.

If you want to accuse American troops of having "total disregard for human life," then you'd damn well better have something more concrete.

Shout from your little soap-box all you like. I'll even read it. But stop trying to weave big lies from small truths. People might mistake you for an American politician. Or a lawyer.

 

You cite the acts of Australian private security and other firms.

Blackwater is American and, in any case, these mercenaries are acting under payment, orders and shield of the American government which makes the American government and American people responsible.

Then you cite a few isolated errors.

Please! My citations show these are not errors but the deliberate policies of the American government. Blackwater people have been involved in a series of random, indiscriminate killings and they have been given immunity from any prosecution. This is an insult to the conscience of any decent person. And this is official American policy.

From these you conclude American soldiers are responsible for all the "evil" in the Middle East.

I never said that. I would appreciate it if you made your own arguments and let me make mine as best I can.

Where is your proof of alleged "total disregard for human life" by American troops?

I think my previous citations show pretty clearly that this war is being conducted by the American government with pretty much absolute disregard for Iraqi human life. Your mileage may vary.

I happen to know many of these American soldiers personally. They do not fit your gory cookie-cutter. Their faces are not in the dimly lit photos you hold up while screaming "murderer."

I never said anything about your friends. I don't know them and I can't say anything about them. I am convinced many American veterans are victims of the policies of their own country. The government manipulates its people into believing they are defending themselves rather than attacking and manipulates the feelings of their young people so they will go and fight a war believing they are doing something honorable when, in fact, they are part of a crime. This is true of many American soldiers today just like it was true of many German soldiers during WWII. That does not change the fact that they are being party to a crime even if they are not personally responsible and the government who started the war is ultimately responsible. American veterans pay a heavy price in terms of mental illness, homelessness and general abandon from their own government. They are very much victims too. That does not change the fact that this war is a crime and that those like Lt. Ehren Watada who refused to serve are heroes for doing the right thing. Those who say they care so much about American soldiers should have opposed this criminal war to begin with.

Soldiers come in all types, just like anyone else, but is is too easy for a young, scared kid to overreact and when he sees there are no control or consequences to abuse his power and commit crimes. This is not special about anyone, this is human nature. In Iraq this has been very specially rampant because the US government allowed it. Torture and disregard for human life *are* American policy in Iraq.

If you want to decry policy, American or otherwise, fine. If you want to decry war in general, fine. If you want to decry the loss of innocent life, fine.

That's exactly what I am doing.

If you want to accuse American troops of having "total disregard for human life," then you'd damn well better have something more concrete.

As I have said, the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the US government and of the people who elected it and who support it.

Shout from your little soap-box all you like. I'll even read it.

I appreciate that. I really do.

But stop trying to weave big lies from small truths.

What are the "big lies"? Can you be specific?

People might mistake you for an American politician. Or a lawyer.

Well, I really wouldn't want that.

 

GS3, what do you believe would have been the appropriate response to the 9-11 attacks? We never had something like this happen before, we are use to people walking around with bombs strapped to thier chests. What should we have done differently? Over 3500 american civilians died that day, pretty sure that's more then on even the worst of days in Iraq. What does your country do when they get attacked?

I'm sorry, but I'm not much of a pacifist. I don't believe in just sitting there hoping it doesn't happen again, or at least anytime soon. Perhaps Iraq had nothing to do with terrorist, and Sadam was the best reason we could find to install a huge ground force in the area. Quote some praise for Sadam's genocide ventures in the northern region, or how he 'tested' chemical weapons. Probable woulnd have made the top 10 list of bad dictators, but he was guilty of all the things you blame the Americans for in this war.

 

GS3, what do you believe would have been the appropriate response to the 9-11 attacks? We never had something like this happen before, we are use to people walking around with bombs strapped to thier chests. What should we have done differently? Over 3500 american civilians died that day, pretty sure that's more then on even the worst of days in Iraq. What does your country do when they get attacked?

I'm sorry, but I'm not much of a pacifist. I don't believe in just sitting there hoping it doesn't happen again, or at least anytime soon. Perhaps Iraq had nothing to do with terrorist, and Sadam was the best reason we could find to install a huge ground force in the area. Quote some praise for Sadam's genocide ventures in the northern region, or how he 'tested' chemical weapons. Probable woulnd have made the top 10 list of bad dictators, but he was guilty of all the things you blame the Americans for in this war.

Again, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11? The answer is NOTHING! Can you get that into your head? Because if the answer to a serious problem is going out and attacking random countries then i don't know what to say.

This mindset just shows the irrationality of it all. We got attacked and we are going to go out and kill a hundred toimes as many. We don't care that they had nothing to do with anything, we want blood! The American government has done a good job of this and it shows.

Now, with that mindset, can you understand that every Iraqi and every middle-easterner would want death for all Americans?

 

The world is very wary of America and for good reason. America has gone insane, like a rabid dog, and you do not know what they might do next. The world is holding its collective breath and will breathe a sigh of relief in January 2009 no matter who is the next president. Because it cannot possibly get worse. This man is just delusional and the world is hoping we will get to january 2009 without another major stupidity.

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released Dec. 3, says Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003. But A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Change

What do Bush & Cheney say?

Bush:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Iran_still_dangerous_insists_Bush/articleshow/2595985.cms 5 Dec 2007

Iran still dangerous, insists Bush

WASHINGTON: Iran continues to be dangerous to the world, President Bush insisted on Tuesday, despite a new US intelligence report saying Teheran has frozen its nuclear weapons program.

In a 45-minute White House press conference where eight out of 12 questions were on the Iran issue, Bush used the words danger and dangerous some two dozen times in reference to Iran, signaling a continued suspicion of Teheran.

"The NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) does not do anything to change my opinion that Iran is dangerous to the world," Bush insisted, when asked if his own intelligence outfits had undermined long-held US position.

"Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon. What’s to say they couldn’t start another covert nuclear weapons program?" Bush asked another time, underscoring his deep suspicion of Iranian intent.

Cheney:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/red_handed_1.php

Cheney: We have the inescapable reality of Iran's nuclear program; a program they claim is strictly for energy purposes, but which they have worked hard to conceal; a program carried out in complete defiance of the international community and resolutions of the U.N. Security Council. Iran is pursuing technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons. The world knows this. The Security Council has twice imposed sanctions on Iran and called on the regime to cease enriching uranium. Yet the regime continues to do so, and continues to practice delay and deception in an obvious attempt to buy time.

As Michael Cohen says "if one looks at the language of the NIE, one could theoretically argue that Cheney didn't directly lie here. For example, Iran's "civilian" nuclear program continues and yes Iraq was pursuing technology that could be used to develop nukes . . . but of course wasn't." Indeed, the striking thing about this is the extent to which looking back at Cheney's statement he's tried very carefully to avoid directly contradicting the NIE while crafting phrases that are clearly designed to cause the listener to draw the precise wrong conclusion.

It's not as if Cheney read the NIE and decided he had some reason to believe it was incorrect. Rather, he read it, decided he'd better not contradict it, but also decided that bottom line conclusions about how Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program were inconvenient, and thus decided to talk around that minor point and try to get the American people confused about what's happening. Stunningly cynical and yes I'm resolving once again to never be stunned.

All designed for the unthinking masses who cannot tell apart Iraq from Iran from a hole in the ground.

 

On the one hand, GS3, you allow for variance among individuals - but on the other you lump disparate groups under one banner.

You speak of "every Iraqi and every middle-easterner" with the same nonchalance as "Americans."

Would you simply declare "humans are evil" and be done with it? Probably not. So why say "every Iraqi and every middle-easterner" or "Americans" when you mean something else?

This is, at best, ambiguous. At worst, it is Reductio ad absurdum.

You have considered the individuality of the American soldier. I ask you to consider the individuality of everyone else as well. I ask you also to speak of specific groups rather than general ones. Such will foment less confusion among hot-heads like me.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarveyH42 View Post
GS3, what do you believe would have been the appropriate response to the 9-11 attacks? We never had something like this happen before, we are use to people walking around with bombs strapped to thier chests. What should we have done differently? Over 3500 american civilians died that day, pretty sure that's more then on even the worst of days in Iraq. What does your country do when they get attacked?

I'm sorry, but I'm not much of a pacifist. I don't believe in just sitting there hoping it doesn't happen again, or at least anytime soon. Perhaps Iraq had nothing to do with terrorist, and Sadam was the best reason we could find to install a huge ground force in the area. Quote some praise for Sadam's genocide ventures in the northern region, or how he 'tested' chemical weapons. Probable woulnd have made the top 10 list of bad dictators, but he was guilty of all the things you blame the Americans for in this war.
Again, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11? The answer is NOTHING! Can you get that into your head? Because if the answer to a serious problem is going out and attacking random countries then i don't know what to say.

This mindset just shows the irrationality of it all. We got attacked and we are going to go out and kill a hundred toimes as many. We don't care that they had nothing to do with anything, we want blood! The American government has done a good job of this and it shows.

Now, with that mindset, can you understand that every Iraqi and every middle-easterner would want death for all Americans?


Nice dodge... But the question was, "GS3, what do you believe would have been the appropriate response to the 9-11 attacks?"

 

thingmaker3, you may be misunderstanding something but I am really not sure what. I will try to summarise my points which are:

The American attack and invasion of Iraq were and are illegal and immoral. This war is an evil war of imperialist conquest thinly disguised with lies. Ergo, those who support this war are supporting evil. Notice that I do not say they *are* evil. I am sure there are many nice old ladies who support this war. They are good people who do not know it but they are supporting something very evil. They are mostly just ignorant. Just like many good Muslims support evil terrorist attacks. They do not know it but they support evil. Just like I am sure many nice old ladies supported the Third Reich.

American individuals are not directly responsible for this immorality. Some support it and some oppose it. The American people as a people *are* responsible for what is being done in their name.

They are responsible for the evil being done to the Iraqi people and they are responsible for the damage being done to their own soldiers who are being killed, maimed and abandoned after they have served.

The fact that the individual American soldiers may be victims too in nothing diminishes the fact that the war is immoral and that they are tools used in the commission of a crime.

It is also a fact that many individual soldiers have commited crimes and that their government has looked the other way or let them off with a slap on the wrist which makes the American government and people responsible for those acts.

I have never lumped "every Iraqi and every middle-easterner" together except to illustrate the absurdity of doing just that. That is what many Americans have done: "someone from that part of the world killed some Americans and by golly we are going to kill a hundred fold and we don't care if they had nothing to do with it".

America has shown that it is ready to throw the Constitution and everything it stands for out the window in exchange for a little feeling of safety. It has gone absolutely crazy.

When in crisis the first rule is "don't make things worse" but America has made everything worse.

After 9/11 America had the support of the world. People who didn't even like America were holding candle light vigils. And America blew it all in a fit of arrogance and an attack of testosterone. Blood had to run and heads had to roll. It did not matter whose. To hell with "discretion is the better part of valor".

What America needed was information. Friends in the back alleys of the kasbahs. But in a fit of arrogance America decided to make this a conventional war because it knows it is unbeatable in a conventional war. The old adage that when the only tool you have is a hammer all the problems look like nails. But when the game is of chess killing your opponent does not count as winning.

America has managed to make more enemies and to have even its friends distance themselves in disgust. And it has betrayed the very principles which made people around the world look up to it. Now it is just another country which kidnaps, tortures, kills and shows no respect for human rights or human life or just plain common decency.

I have always criticised violations of human rights when they came from other countries and I am not going to make an exception for America. Either you do or you don't support human rights and America right now does not. I am not of those who say "it is wrong if others do it but it is right if we do it". No, wrong is wrong. It is wrong when Castro does it and it is wrong when America does it.

America has decided to break with what I would call the civilised world. It has no respect for other countries. It breaks international treaties whenever it suits them and it starts wars whenever it suits them. It is a rogue country by any definition of the word. (Again, my judgment is of America as a country and as a people and not a reflection on any individual. None of my American friends support any of this.)

 

Nice dodge... But the question was, "GS3, what do you believe would have been the appropriate response to the 9-11 attacks?"

No, that was not your question. Your question was framed quite differently.

GS3, what do you believe would have been the appropriate response to the 9-11 attacks? We never had something like this happen before, we are use to people walking around with bombs strapped to thier chests. What should we have done differently? Over 3500 american civilians died that day, pretty sure that's more then on even the worst of days in Iraq. What does your country do when they get attacked?

I'm sorry, but I'm not much of a pacifist. I don't believe in just sitting there hoping it doesn't happen again, or at least anytime soon. Perhaps Iraq had nothing to do with terrorist, and Sadam was the best reason we could find to install a huge ground force in the area. Quote some praise for Sadam's genocide ventures in the northern region, or how he 'tested' chemical weapons. Probable woulnd have made the top 10 list of bad dictators, but he was guilty of all the things you blame the Americans for in this war.

That is not a question. That is trying to justify the war with arguments which I do not accept for a second.

But if you think violence, wars and killing people are OK when it suits you then all I can say to you when Americans are killed is to suck it up as it is just part of your rules of engagement. If it is OK for America to kill when it suits their ends then it is OK for others too. Those are your rules, not mine.

In any case, it looks quite certain that America will not prevail in Iraq and that it will finally have to leave like it left that other ill-conceived war of aggression which it waged in Vietnam. After it is all over what will America have gained? Nothing but the destruction of an important part of its own identity.

In summary your non-question implies that *something* had to be done and that killing Muslims was the only thing that could satisfy the thirst for blood of the American people. I do not accept that premise.

 

I will try to summarise my points

I thank you for those clarifications.[/quote]

I have never lumped "every Iraqi and every middle-easterner" together except to illustrate the absurdity of doing just that.

So you do not, then, perceive "that every Iraqi and every middle-easterner would want death for all Americans?" You were just using that statement as an example of absurdity?

That is what many Americans have done: "someone from that part of the world killed some Americans and by golly we are going to kill a hundred fold and we don't care if they had nothing to do with it".

And is this also merely an example? You do not actually believe that any significant number of Americans actually think this way? I sure don't believe they do!

America has shown that it is ready to throw the Constitution and everything it stands for out the window in exchange for a little feeling of safety. It has gone absolutely crazy.

I don't think you and I are following the same news stories. I see no rush by the people to abandon the Constitution. I see constant questioning of leadership's actions by our people, and by opposition within said leadership. I also see condemnation of those who would choose safety over freedom. George W is no more able to sway public opinion in such fashion than he is to conjure up hurricanes.

Nor do I think the problems in the Middle East will vanish when he leaves office. I do indeed think the impending Presidential race will be interesting... in the Chinese sense of the word.

 

No, that was not your question. Your question was framed quite differently.

That is not a question. That is trying to justify the war with arguments which I do not accept for a second.

But if you think violence, wars and killing people are OK when it suits you then all I can say to you when Americans are killed is to suck it up as it is just part of your rules of engagement. If it is OK for America to kill when it suits their ends then it is OK for others too. Those are your rules, not mine.

In any case, it looks quite certain that America will not prevail in Iraq and that it will finally have to leave like it left that other ill-conceived war of aggression which it waged in Vietnam. After it is all over what will America have gained? Nothing but the destruction of an important part of its own identity.

In summary your non-question implies that *something* had to be done and that killing Muslims was the only thing that could satisfy the thirst for blood of the American people. I do not accept that premise.

third times the charm...

What would have been the appropriate 'civilized' response to the 9-11 attack?

I really am curious to know your thoughts on this. You've already stated many times that our response was wrong, illegal, evil, ignorant, and so on.

I'll agree that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 or terrorists, though some of the terrorist likely passed through fleeing afganistan.

I've listened and tolerated your negetive opinion of my country, and myself. Not everyone needs to share my views, but it's more then excessive. America does a lot of good things around the world. We do step up and give aid when disaster strikes. Doesn't really seem to fit the 'evil and uncaring' image you've got stuck in your head.

But really, you have a strong opinion about how wrongly America has handled the terrorist attacks. Do you have a better solution. How would you convince the terrorist to leave you country alone?

 

So you do not, then, perceive "that every Iraqi and every middle-easterner would want death for all Americans?" You were just using that statement as an example of absurdity?

My point is that it is just as absurd for a Muslim to want to kill ramdom Americans in revenge as it is for an American to want to kill random Muslims in revenge. And yet both those things happen but, what is worse, the American cannot undertand why the Muslim would feel that way and the Muslim cannot understand why the American would feel that way. Go figure.

And is this also merely an example? You do not actually believe that any significant number of Americans actually think this way? I sure don't believe they do!

A significant number of Americans do think that way which is explained by many factors among which are general human stupidity and government manipulation. As the song goes, people believe whatever they want to believe and disregard the rest, including all evidence and facts. It is a fact that there is still a very substantial number of Americans who support the policies of this government and who would continue to support the government if it did worse things. They are just as fanatical as the fanatics America says it is fighting on the other side of the world.

I don't think you and I are following the same news stories. I see no rush by the people to abandon the Constitution.

Hmmm, torture has been redefined in such a tortured way that it no longer includes torture. Habeas Corpus has been redefined so that the words in the Constitution no longer mean what they say in plain English. Due process of law and a speedy trial are things of the past having been replaced when convenient by kangaroo courts or just plain being sequestered in Guantanamo or other secret prisons. The government keeps secret lists of people and spies on them without judicial warrant. And this is just the visible peak of the iceberg and no one knows what else may be going on. And the American people, as a people and through their elected representatives are going along with this lest their patriotism be questioned.

I see constant questioning of leadership's actions by our people, and by opposition within said leadership. I also see condemnation of those who would choose safety over freedom. George W is no more able to sway public opinion in such fashion than he is to conjure up hurricanes.

Individuals and organizations are questioning many things but the fact is that the people as a whole are going along with all those things I have mentioned and which ten years ago no one could have imagined would be happening in America. Those were things which happened, you know, in communist countries.

Nor do I think the problems in the Middle East will vanish when he leaves office.

Of course not. This course of action has worsened things to the point where it will take generations and a lot of goodwill on both sides to heal. You cannot do to a country what America has done to Iraq and expect them to forgive and forget in short order.

I do indeed think the impending Presidential race will be interesting... in the Chinese sense of the word.

I think it will be less interesting than you think. No matter who are the candidates and who wins the presidency it is a fact that NO candidate is going to tell the American people the truth which is (1) What we did was wrong, (2) we screwed up and (3) we now need to apologise to the world and stop being the world bully. The American people do not want to hear sush a defeatist message and will not hear it. No, America will not leave Iraq until it is kicked out of Iraq kicking and screaming. America does not have the guts to accept the truth until the truth is shoved down its throat. America prefers to have its soldiers continue dying and killing than to accept the fact that it cannot prevail in Iraq. America will postpone the day of reckoning as long as it can. America does not have the strength to accept reality, it does not have the guts to accept its defeat in Iraq. America will drag the misery on and on until it can drag on no longer.

The American people, again, as a people, still believe they have a right to rule other countries. So, it matters little who wins. America will leave Iraq forced by outside circumstances and by getting tired of the daily bad news, not because any president will have the guts to face the situation squarely in the eye and will tell the American people the truth they don't want to hear. The American people can't handle the truth and will elect whoever lies to them better.

The only improvement over the current president is that this guy is clearly delusional and out of touch and is truly dangerous. I believe *anyone* who arrives at the White House in January 2009 will be an improvement over this guy. No one can be this out of touch with reality.

 

I have always criticised violations of human rights when they came from other countries

May I read those? Can you link to any archive or such where you spoke out on atrocities in Korea in the 80's and 90's? I would also be interested in your words regarding Qusay Hussein's use of mustard gas and plastic shredders on his prisoners. Or your thoughts on small children being tortured to coerce information from their parents. Which forum or blog are those criticisms of yours posted on?

 

third times the charm...

What would have been the appropriate 'civilized' response to the 9-11 attack?

I really am curious to know your thoughts on this. You've already stated many times that our response was wrong, illegal, evil, ignorant, and so on.

I'll agree that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 or terrorists, though some of the terrorist likely passed through fleeing afganistan.

I've listened and tolerated your negetive opinion of my country, and myself. Not everyone needs to share my views, but it's more then excessive. America does a lot of good things around the world. We do step up and give aid when disaster strikes. Doesn't really seem to fit the 'evil and uncaring' image you've got stuck in your head.

But really, you have a strong opinion about how wrongly America has handled the terrorist attacks. Do you have a better solution. How would you convince the terrorist to leave you country alone?

I could go into how I would hadle things and, in fact, I have already said something about this is my earlier posts but I do not wish to go into that because it would sidetrack this discussion. My point here is that it is *never* acceptable to start a war of aggression, that it is *never* acceptable to torture people or to deny them their basic Human Rights. Never. Any response to be considered *must* respect these principles which America is not not respecting.

Some European countries like the UK, Germany and Spain have suffered from terrorists for decades and yet they have had the strength to stick to their principles which the US has lacked. They have not suspended constitutional guarantees for prisoners, they have not resorted to torture, they have not started wars (well, except for Blair and Aznar's support for Bush and they were protested by their own people).

When individuals in the government have resorted to illegal means of fighting terrorism they have been prosecuted for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grupos_Antiterroristas_de_Liberación

Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberación (GAL, Antiterrorist Liberation Groups) were death squads illegally set up by officials within the Spanish government to fight ETA. They were active from 1983 until 1987, under PSOE's cabinets. It was proven in a judicial trial that they were financed and backed by key officials within the Spanish Interior Ministry. The Spanish daily El Mundo played a key role revealing the plot with its series on the matter.
[...]
The GAL was one of the main issues of the campaign for the elections of 1996 in which Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) was defeated by José María Aznar's People's Party (PP) for the first time.
[...]
The convicted members of GAL's leadership are:

José Barrionuevo Peña, Homeland minister in PSOE's cabinets from 1982-88.
Rafael Vera, director for the Security of the State.
Ricardo García Damborenea, secretary general of PSE-PSOE in Biscay.
Francisco Álvarez, Antiterrorist Fight Czar.
Miguel Planchuelo, chief for the Police Information Brigade of Bilbao.
José Amedo Fouce, police chief.
Julián Sancristóbal, gobernador civil (delegate of the Spanish government) in Biscay.
General (then Colonel) Emilio Rodríguez Galindo, chief of the Guardia Civil headquarters at Intxaurrondo

People who do those things are criminals themselves and belong in prison. The Spanish people voted the government out of office for abusing their power, even if the intended ends were good. You cannot save principles by renouncing them. It is a long standing principle of Christianity and of western civilization that the ends, no matter how noble or how worthy, do not justify the means. Noble ends can never justify immoral means. Never.

When dealing with terrorists, like with any other criminals, a system of justice means you go after the guilty, you give them a fair trial and they are punished according to their guilt. That is what should be done. Punishing innocent people in innocent countries is not acceptable. It is barbaric. And again, it is only making things worse.

I really do not get this mentality that "something has to be done". If the doctor tells you you have cancer and says the best thing to do is leave it alone do you go out and shoot the neighbor's dog because it is serious and "something has to be done". What do you gain by shooting the neighbor's dog except making an enemy out of someone who could have helped you? Because that is pretty much what America is doing in the MENA region. Unnecessarily making enemies out of countries who could be friends or, at least, not enemies. Pretty stupid if you ask me.