Sorry for ranting... but it's just really disturbing.
[Edit]And it was not al Qaeda that did the killing aparently...Iraqi terrorits using an al Qaeda web site...
[ May 11, 2004, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, just to be sure I understand what you're saying, your contention is that killing people to send a message to the organization with which they're affiliated is wrong?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Yeah, really, I mean, hey, it's not like they took a picture of him with women's underwear on his head... that would've been really bad...
Tom, there is a huge difference between an unfortunate incident and cold-bloodedly cutting a prisoner's throat. That's why we talk about "casualties", "collateral damage", and "a massacre".
If you refuse to acknowledge that difference on the basis that "dead is dead", I suppose that's your lookout.
[ May 11, 2004, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote: So, just to be sure I understand what you're saying, your contention is that killing people to send a message to the organization with which they're affiliated is wrong?
I'm a tad confused by your question too... A group killing people to send a message to their own group is wrong? This must be rhetorical but I don't get your point. These are terrorists who murdered an innocent person in a horrible, painful, violating way. I say we kill the killers.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
As far as I can tell, al Qaeda's only role was to provide web hosting.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom, there is a huge difference between an unfortunate incident and cold-bloodedly cutting a prisoner's throat."
Oh, absolutely. So what's the ratio, exactly? Is it seven innocent deaths to one deliberate murder? Twenty to one? At what point does our desire for vengeance exceed the demands for justice?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
You're right Rich...
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: Tom, there is a huge difference between an unfortunate incident and cold-bloodedly cutting a prisoner's throat. That's why we talk about "casualties", "collateral damage", and "a massacre".
In the case of prisoners, there's more involved than an "unfortunate incident," including rapes, beatings and murders, according to reports.
There's also supposed to be a huge difference between trained military and terrorists.
"Collateral damage"= "we bombed the hell out of the neighborhood so as not to risk injury to our troops."
I'm not defending terrorists at all. In fact, one of the things that displeases me about the administration is that they got distracted from anti-terrorist activities. Instead, they got us into a situation that has increased regional sympathy for terrorists and enhanced their recruiting.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
On the ABC NEWS message board, where people are talking about this -- there are some people demanding that the media show THIS video in its entirety as much as they showed the prisoner abuse photos.
I can't believe people really want this video to be shown -- think about the poor guy's family -- if it was shown over and over, that would just be horrible...
And it says he wasn't military, and wasn't working a civilian job -- so why was he over there?
Farmgirl
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:These are terrorists who murdered an innocent person in a horrible, painful, violating way. I say we kill the killers.
That was their excuse, though.
I invade your country and kill your husbands, wives, and children. You blow up my soldiers in response, and drag my civilians through the streets. I attack your city and rape your people in response. You kill my people in response. I kill your people in response. And so on...
This is an effective progression, isn't it? Definitely the sort of thing that will mean an end to terrorism and a better life for Iraq...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
We can see an example of the successful application of this model in Israel today.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote: Berg was not a soldier or a civilian employee of the Pentagon, the State Department said.
I want to stress he was not a civilian employee of the pentagon. He was a regular civilian employee.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
I think this puts the torture of prisoners in a different light, though, doesn't it?
It also proves that the military was right to try to keep the pictures/abuse/investigation under wraps, "to protect American lives."
Potentially innocent man is leashed and led around naked vs. verifiably innocent man has his head hacked off.
hmm
Pouring cold water on people, humilliating them in admittedly horrible ways, still doesn't really seem to balance this, Tom.
It will only make it easier for people to justify killing a lot more suspected terrorists, I think. I know it made me angry.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:And it says he wasn't military, and wasn't working a civilian job -- so why was he over there?
That's a weird little story in and of itself, Farmgirl. Looks like he was hunting for business opportunities.
quote:Berg's mother, Suzanne Berg, said her son was in Iraq as an independent businessman to help rebuild communication antennas. Berg, who owned Prometheus Methods Tower Service Inc., had been missing since April 9, she said.
''He had this idea that he could help rebuild the infrastructure,'' she said. *** Berg was in Baghdad from late December to Feb. 1 and returned to Iraq in March. He didn't find any work and planned again to return home on March 30, but his daily communications home stopped on March 24. He later told his parents he was jailed by Iraqi officials at a checkpoint in Mosul.
''He was arrested and held without due process,'' his father, Michael Berg, told the Daily Local News of West Chester. ''By the time he got out, the whole area was inflamed with violence.''
On March 31, the FBI interviewed Berg's parents in West Chester. Jerri Williams, a spokeswoman for the Philadelphia FBI office, told The Philadelphia Inquirer the agency had been ''asked to interview the parents regarding Mr. Berg's purpose in Iraq.''
On April 5, the Bergs filed a lawsuit in federal court in Philadelphia, contending that their son was being held illegally by the U.S. military. The next day Berg was released. He told his parents he hadn't been mistreated.
The Bergs last heard from their son April 9, when he said he would come home by way of Jordan, Turkey or Kuwait. But by then, hostilities in Iraq had escalated.
Suzanne Berg the family had been trying for weeks to learn where her son was but that federal officials had not been helpful.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
He was helping rebuild the nation, something many people ironically insist that we aren't doing or spend time complaining about the "unprecedented level of private contractors involved in this war..."
Edit to clarify: I bet dollars to donuts he shows up on the monetary and body numbers that people put together when they are talking about the private industry involved in this war. The point is probably not worth belaboring, though.
[ May 11, 2004, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Alexa,
yeah -- thanks.
I finally realized that in part of the ABCNEWS article, which is a bit longer version:
quote: Suzanne Berg, the mother of the 26-year-old Berg, of West Chester, Pa., said her son was in Iraq as an independent businessman to help rebuild communication antennas. He had been missing since April 9, she said
This is so sad for the family.
Farmgirl
edit: you guys post while I'm typing still!
[ May 11, 2004, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:It also proves that the military was right to try to keep the pictures/abuse/investigation under wraps, "to protect American lives."
Well, no. The harm done to our mission as a whole is far greater if you keep things like these under wraps. Problems like this only get worse if the government is not held accountable to them, and they DO eventually leak out if you try to hide them - as evidenced by this.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
He was killed because he was an easy target.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:It also proves that the military was right to try to keep the pictures/abuse/investigation under wraps, "to protect American lives."
Are you serious? (My sarcasm meter was decalibrated by a thread earlier today...)
[ May 11, 2004, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Richard Berg ]
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
I'm sure that trying to hide it hurt, yes, but I think this illustrates the concern that lead to trying to hide it. That's all I'm saying.
Once it happened, there really wasn't anything that could be done to protect people from the backlash. Still, I understand their reasons for trying, even though it was foolish to do so.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
I was only half being sarcastic. See above.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Olivet, is there a calculus involved in this situation? How many people should march around naked and be forced to perform oral sex on each other in exchange for a beheading?
I'm rather uncomfortable saying, "Yeah, this is bad. But this is worse." Because whenever that sentence is uttered, it's uttered as justification.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Beheading and oral sex in the same sentence give me the willies....
hehehe... sorry... Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:Beheading and oral sex in the same sentence give me the willies....
Actually, I think your accidental juxtaposition is even worse.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:He was helping rebuild the nation, something many people ironically insist that we aren't doing or spend time complaining about the "unprecedented level of private contractors involved in this war..."
Edit to clarify: I bet dollars to donuts he shows up on the monetary and body numbers that people put together when they are talking about the private industry involved in this war. The point is probably not worth belaboring, though.
Jim-Me, there isn't anything to suggest he was going to help "rebuild the nation" for free.
I don't mean to villainize him - but I don't think it's right to suggest that businesses over there are engaging in "nation-building" as acts of charity. The wages being paid to just American truck drivers are extremely high - but they have to be to get Americans to want to work in the area. We can all see why now if we didn't before.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
The really, REALLY weird thing is, if the prisoners had just been outright executed, nobody would be as upset as they are. That's kinda scary.
I don't think you can make a mathamatical equation for lives. Just doesn't work that way.
This does prove, however, that we do not have the will that they do. It can only get worse from here. If we saty there, it will get worse. If we leave, it will only make us seem weak, and the terrorism will follow us home again.
I hate the f***ing world today.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
What we need is a general renaissance of Stoic ideals; bad things are going to happen, and we either devolve in an attempt to not "look weak", or we decide to accept and understand the horrible situation we are facing, and in spite of that to stand by our ideals, because they are what makes us strong.
But this incident is just sick.
-Bok
EDIT: Olivetta, there is a plausible third way; contritely go (as contritely as a nation state can be) to the international community earnestly, and ask for their help. Make this something the world community has vested interest in. We were doing well with Afghanistan and the more nebulous WoT prior ro our current engagement.
[ May 11, 2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
This is only the beginning of how Iraq will turn into a PR nightmare for the US just like Vietnam.
I think a lot of people think the June 30th turnover means troops will come home, I don't think the public understands that just the opposite will be true: that not only will the troops stay, but more will be deployed and the ones there will be there longer. As body bags keep coming back to America hopefully it will teach us that this neocon-inspired imperially-lite war cost us far too much.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Tom, I think that can be a statement of fact without being a justification.
I think we can, by induction, safely say that all sane people would prefer to be menaced with apparently deadly force (to pick one of the abuses the Iraqis suffered) to being systematically beheaded by, apparently, a knife of some sort (as opposed to the relatively swift stroke of an ax opr a guillotine). We can for purposes of this discussion, uses Slash's definition of insane and thereby, leave the man who wanted to eat his own flesh and be killed for sexual play out of this discussion.
That doesn't justify anything.
But I think what you mean is that you are worried that this incident does what it did for Telperion-- renews the resolve and willingness to fight because our enemies are, indeed, demonstrably, by their own propoganda, significantly more evil in their treatment of prisoners than we are. The fact that this type of thing hasn't happened on as large a scale as our maltreatment can be explained by, perhaps, their decreased opportunities with prisoners, having by and large failed in combat.
I, for one, am not discouraged or dismayed by that reaction.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Sndrake,
He saw a need. He went to try and fill it. He expected, I hope, the danger. He certainly hoped to be recompensed for facing it. I don't see the problem or the relevance of this, especially as you state that you aren't trying to vilify the guy. If that's not your intent, than why bring it up?
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
BOK! Thank you. I guess I just really needed to hear that there might be hope. I don't want my babies getting blown up because of all this.
It's like... it's like this boy I know, who was singled out downtown and beaten just because he was really, really white. His blond hair stood out in the knot of his friends he was walking with, and some older boys beat him for it. He just symbolized some idea to them, and who he was didn't matter.
I just don't want to live in a world like that.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Hear hear Bok and Olivetta!
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Rich, do you really think the neocons would ever do that? They are all about American Empire Lite.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
No, of course not. (The author of that essay is not exactly a neocon.) Hence "fantastic" = "possible in a fantasy world"
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
There's always hope they would try to salvage the war and get out though.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But I think what you mean is that you are worried that this incident does what it did for Telperion-- renews the resolve and willingness to fight because our enemies are, indeed, demonstrably, by their own propoganda, significantly more evil in their treatment of prisoners than we are."
No. I am worried that this incident, by giving us an even worse example of atrocity, will encourage us to ignore the fact that our own actions are empirically evil -- that, by simply being LESS evil, we will conclude that we are actually good.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I think we can, by induction, safely say that all sane people would prefer to be menaced with apparently deadly force (to pick one of the abuses the Iraqis suffered) to being systematically beheaded by, apparently, a knife of some sort (as opposed to the relatively swift stroke of an ax opr a guillotine).
I'm not so sure this is true, but maybe the exceptions are just that, exceptions. I do know a non-negligible amount of people who profess that they would rather be killed than raped, but maybe that's all talk. _________________________________________________
This is all too bad, but to put this in perspective, aren't there Iraqi innocents dying everyday? And they didn't even hop on a plane or collect a check, they just live there. I don't know if we get to get hopping mad, and much less surprised, when one of our own passes.
I've never been itching to see the next round of prison video, probably including a rape or a murder, and if it's going to spawn more atrocity as opposed to wake Americans up to our own mistakes, I don't mind if the Pentagon puts the lid on them. The acts of all terrorists are abhorrent, it doesn't matter whose side they are on.
[ May 11, 2004, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Olivetta, I won't give up on this crazy species if you don't, okay? Glad I could brighten your outlook on humanity a little. Goodness knows it needs some decent marketing right about now.
-Bok
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Where is the outcry among the supporters of the opposition against this? Where is the investigation by the opposition leadership trying to discover how this came to happen?
I am appalled by the treatment of prisoners in coalition custody, and want it to be put right. Thank God we live in a free society and can see that it is put right. Nobody ever said a free society stays free of its own accord, though. We have to constantly take responsibility ourselves for that freedom, and be willing to stand up for it, speak out for it, and oppose those who would deprive us of it.
I don't see the forces opposed to the U.S. in Iraq as standing for any such thing, though. They don't seem to want freedom or justice or fair play and equal opportunity. They seem to want more strongarmism and tyranny, this time with them on top.
I pray for peace and stability in that country. We must not let those who are filled with hate, those who would destroy everything people are giving their hearts and lives to build, dismay us or steal our resolve.
There are orcs on both sides of every war. We are not spotless good guys. But we are one hell of a lot better than the bad guys. And we have a system that allows the orcs among us to be found and punished, to be discouraged from their orc ways, and trained to better behavior. I would not live anywhere besides a free society. I want to extend to all Iraqis that same privilege.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:They don't seem to want freedom or justice or fair play and equal opportunity. They seem to want more strongarmism and tyranny, this time with them on top.
This is what usually goes unmentioned to such popular responses as, "But we're invading their country, what do you expect?"
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I am appalled by the treatment of prisoners in coalition custody, and want it to be put right. Thank God we live in a free society and can see that it is put right.
I don't know if these things can just be "put right." It's a pretty American way of thinking if we say, "The US is sorry about sodomizing you and your cellmate bleeding to death, how about we cut you a check."
If we saw it coming, and yes the atrocities were forseeable, then you can't just cut a check, you can't even say that it's never going to happen again. You can't buy or apologize your way to putting it right. It's like trying to cut air, swallow a brick, walk into MacDonald's and trying to buy one french fry, or pay for a car in tulips.
[ May 12, 2004, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:They don't seem to want freedom or justice or fair play and equal opportunity. They seem to want more strongarmism and tyranny, this time with them on top.
It's a war. They want to win. So do we, if we wanted fair play, we'd hand out tanks to even up the score.
______________
We don't know who the all bad guys are. We just don't. We know the really bad guys and the really good guys. The terrorists and firefighters, respectively, but the there is a whole lot of people in between, shifting and straddling the line, and just flat look different than we thought they would.
[ May 12, 2004, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Can we look at the real Score?
TEN THOUSAND IRAQI'S ARE DEAD
How many do we have the right to kill?
If Alqueda killed 3500 of us, how many Iraqi's does that give us the "right" to kill?
How much more/less brutal is killing someone from 10,000 feet in the air with a bomb, than a beheading?
MY POINT IS...
...as a CHRISTIAN, I am AGAINST WAR.
WAR IS BY ALL MEANS a LAST alternative.
... and we have mountains of evidence that George W. Bush and his Cabninet planned the Invasion of Iraq pre-sept 11th, and then used sept 11th as a justification for their plans.
This BUSH war is our own version of the Isreal/Palestine hell, a never-ending cycle of violence.
quote: But we are one hell of a lot better than the bad guys.
Does anyone remember James Byrd the gentleman who was killed for being black and then dragged around behind a truck a few years ago?
2 days ago, some one knocked ovewr his headstone and then wrote a bunch of anti-black people graffitii all over it.
I do realize that Americans feel they are "a hell of a lot better" than everyone else in the world, what I don't see is the proof.
<T>
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I'll tell you why. Because it is against the law to lynch people in the U.S., and because that law is now enforced. Because during the 50s and 60s the NAACP mounted a legal challenge to injust laws in the U.S., to Jim Crow laws which made one segment of our population legally second class citizens, because they took their challenge to the Supreme Court of the land, and won those cases. Then thousands of Americans stood up in direct action campaigns and brought that new legal framework into reality. They precipitated a crisis of the law, a situation in which local authorities were contravening the law of the land, and so federal authorities came in to enforce that law.
Many times, people carrying out perfectly legal actions like groups of blacks and whites riding the bus together and sitting together in the "white only" waiting rooms that existed contrary to the federal interstate commerce laws, were beat up by crowds of thugs. When the local police finally arrived on the scene an hour or two later after turning their head to the thugs, they would often arrest the people who had been legally riding the bus, or sitting at the lunch counter, rather than those who were illegally beating them up.
There was a crisis in which it wasn't at all clear that the law was really the law in our country. There was the possibility that it would all fall apart into chaos. This was within my lifetime.
But the center held. People did ugly things here then too. Bombs killed innocents. Four little girls died in church one morning, right downtown. Finally the overwhelming tide of people were sickened by the thugs and bombers. Finally the federal government reluctantly and with much care, sent federal marshalls to enforce the law where local police would not.
Finally, the day was won by people who obey the rule of law. So two necessary requirements were met. One, our system was better, because the constitution of the United States says you can't act that way here, and two, the people of the U.S. finally decided they believe in our system, in the rule of law, and have no truck with bombers and murderers.
Because of our great system, because of the legal protections of a free society, we are able to fight and win legal battles here to protect people's freedom. The civil rights movement set a precedent. People of all ethnicities and backgrounds work together today without giving it a second thought. I and a friend who immigrated from India and a friend who immigrated from China can sit down and talk about world events, and say "we have a responsibility..." "no no no we don't... " but the "we" is never questioned. We are us. We are a we. All Americans.
[ May 12, 2004, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
The U.S. is trying to make it possible for the people of Iraq to have that too. The other side is not. That is the difference between us.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
How noble must our ends be before they justify our means?
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
But what are "our" means? How can that count anything but legal actions carried out by our legally empowered representatives in the country, operating under the officially sanctioned rules of engagement?
If some go outside of this, how can that be considered to be "us"?
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I am quite relieved to hear Iraqi public opinion is against this killing. It's not hopeless. Stability and the rule of law can again come to be, despite all appearances to the contrary. I will not lose faith.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
We have killed a surprising number of Iraqi civilians for them to not be considered part of "them." By the same logic, it only seems fair for the miscreants in question to be considered part of "us."
That this would not be the case in an ideal world only points out how far from ideal the world actually is.
You don't get to pick and choose who "we" are, Anne Kate. We are the people who represent us, even if they misrepresent our ideals to varying degrees.
[ May 12, 2004, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So we're allowed to sweep under the rug anything bad that happens, even as a direct result of ignoring reports of torture, for instance, so long as it wasn't officially done?
edit: in response to two posts ago of ak's.
[ May 12, 2004, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Not at all. It's our responsibility to see that things are put right, of course, the same as at home.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
But we share no responsibility at all?
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Of course we have a responsibility. We have to stay and see that things are put right. We have to help to form and support a legitimate government, to rebuild the infrastructure, to see a healthy economy rise again and thrive, to help heal the damage that decades of brutality and tyranny have caused. That will not be an easy or quick task to accomplish. Yet we must have determination and faith to see it through.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Responsibility is one thing, but is it our RIGHT to chooose to force innocent and not-so-innocent Iraqis to suffer in order to make Iraq what we consider to be "right"? It's easy for the party who bears the smaller part of the burden to talk about what must be sacrificed - but it's the Iraqis who are losing thousands of lives, being tortured, and living in near anarchy because we destroyed their government.
[ May 12, 2004, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
We didn't destroy "their" government. We destroyed a regime that committed systematic abuses on a scale far beyond anything we've done, including civillian battle casualties.
Now, that doesn't excuse or lessen the crimes committed by our forces. But please drop this "their government" nonesense.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Of course, we have also failed to adequately put in place a new government, in particular we have put minimal effort into supporting mid-level management types, a category that has been targeted by enemies of the US.
Our follow through sucked, and its resulted in a state of chaos that's unconscionable.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I agree.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
And last night, somewhere in the world, an impressionable young man saw the video and has spent the last 24 hours thinking about how that's how you beat America.
And in America last night, a few million impressionable young people saw the video and were shocked. They spent the last 24 hours thinking about who should win the next American Idol.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:We didn't destroy "their" government. We destroyed a regime that committed systematic abuses on a scale far beyond anything we've done, including civillian battle casualties.
Well, we may have thought their government was bad, but it was still their government and we still destroyed it. And we have put little better in its place.
[ May 12, 2004, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
how long do you think it takes to put in a new government?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It wasn't "theirs." It was Sadaam's and his thugs. That's the critical difference.
Dagonee
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Sopwith, that depends on who you ask. Anywhere from a month and a half to one year, with an option. __________________________ I just heard a reporter on the ground in Iraq say that the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi civilians are disgusted with the beheading. It sounds about as popular over there as the prison abuse mess is over here. That's good news. __________________________
I'm still confused on how we are going to have a government that isn't corrupt or militaristic. With the billions of dollars in oil that flow through that country, and the astounding corruption in the oil industry--so much so that the US recognizes a different set of accounting procedures for oil companies, where you can write off bribes, for example-- midwifing a healthy democracy is going to be really tricky, unless We redefine what is corrupt and what is above board. _______________________
For the record, it's never been an issue of which govenmental system will be better, it's an issue of if the standard of living, for the living, will so far improve that it warranted all of the killing, innocents and not, we are going to do to get it. And more importantly, how can we be so sure of the answer to the first question that we were right to scorn further world-wide discussion and planning before the invasion.
What kind of commitment to humble democracy comes from such brazen, unabashed unilateral action?
_________________________________________
quote: We have to stay and see that things are put right. We have to help to form and support a legitimate government, to rebuild the infrastructure, to see a healthy economy rise again and thrive, to help heal the damage that decades of brutality and tyranny have caused.
I'm just not sure that even if we do all of this, which I think we are obliged to do, you can ever just put right.
This idea of "putting right" is beyond me. If I'm a modestly successful family man who had figured out how to eek by under Saddam's rule and raise family in a largely stable environment, how can you "put right" the wife and kids I lost by an errant bomb. It's a facile notion to a complex problem. You can't just undo the damage of killing a man's family by laying down internet cable.
It reminds me of that scene in Great Expectations where Joe tries to apologize for the way Pip's sister treats Pip by piling more food on Pip's plate. _____________________________
If the Saudi Arabia wanted to "put right" the actions of the 19 some-odd Saudis who hijacked a plane and sent the plane into the Twin Towers. What would it take? A memorial and a baseball park? I can imagine a relative of victim saying, "Well, my son died, but I guess it's okay because the memorial is nice and I have season tickets to the Met's new stadium."
You can't just "put right" the acts of thoughtful violence. You can't do it by punishment. You can't do it by bribes. Maybe I'm speaking too boldly, you can't punish the "evil-doer" and offer me a bribe after the fact for raping my sister, and expect everything to be "put right."
[ May 12, 2004, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:It wasn't "theirs." It was Sadaam's and his thugs. That's the critical difference.
Perhaps in the way my government could be called Bush's and his thugs'. But it's still my government, and the Iraqi government was still the Iraqis' government.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I'm still confused on how we are going to have a government that isn't corrupt or militaristic. With the billions of dollars in oil that flow through that country, and the astounding corruption in the oil industry--so much so that the US recognizes a different set of accounting procedures for oil companies, where you can write off bribes, for example-- midwifing a healthy democracy is going to be nearly tricky, unless We may just have to redefine what is corrupt and what is above-board.
I also think it's likely that, even if we do achieve a democracy, it will be a highly anti-American one and one that strongly supports Islamic extremism. After all, in democracies, the most popular officials get power. And in Iraq right now, it seems that the most popular Iraqi officials are the religious leaders in starkest opposition to America.
My suspicion is that our government will be more inclined to force pro-Americanism and anti-extremism on the Iraqi people if they can, rather than true democracy - if we are forced to choose between them.
[ May 12, 2004, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tom,
quote:So, just to be sure I understand what you're saying, your contention is that killing people to send a message to the organization with which they're affiliated is wrong?
In and of itself, yes, that is wrong. What seperates Coalition forces from 'insurgent' forces is largely that we're targetting militant enemies and attempting to avoid civilian casualties. They are targetting civilians, Coalition soldiers, and each other-and maximizing civilian casualties.
quote:At what point does our desire for vengeance exceed the demands for justice?
A good question, too-rarely considered. I don't think vengeance is always wrong (or, at least, I don't think it always leads to bad outcomes), but basing response solely on that would be wrong. But violent response to this does not equal vengeance.
quote:We can see an example of the successful application of this model in Israel today.
Yes, well given that there are two real-world solutions-Israel's national death or a continuous bloodletting with Israel still alive-I think your point is incomplete. There is, of course, the (for now) pie-in-the-sky hope for peace.
quote:No. I am worried that this incident, by giving us an even worse example of atrocity, will encourage us to ignore the fact that our own actions are empirically evil -- that, by simply being LESS evil, we will conclude that we are actually good.
On that we agree. I am probably less worried about it than you are, though. And I am hesitant about things like 'empirical evil'.
---------
Ssndrake,
quote:"Collateral damage"= "we bombed the hell out of the neighborhood so as not to risk injury to our troops."
I'm not defending terrorists at all. In fact, one of the things that displeases me about the administration is that they got distracted from anti-terrorist activities. Instead, they got us into a situation that has increased regional sympathy for terrorists and enhanced their recruiting.
But of course you are, because even though you aren't saying they are right or justified, you are saying, "Well, they do have a point." That's a defense, to be sure a valid one, but still a defense.
Your definition of 'collateral damage' is by no means complete or the most commonly used. And their 'distraction' was to topple a regime publicly friendly to terrorism? Whenever people talk about 'no links to terrorism' in Iraq, that little reward to suicide bomber families bit kinda gets left off...
quote:I don't mean to villainize him - but I don't think it's right to suggest that businesses over there are engaging in "nation-building" as acts of charity. The wages being paid to just American truck drivers are extremely high - but they have to be to get Americans to want to work in the area. We can all see why now if we didn't before.
Of course not. They're doing a good thing and in the process, making some pretty good money. So your 'non-villainizing' is exhibited by mentioning the latter and minimizing the former. Again, it's not villainizing him, but it's still a defense of sorts.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:This is only the beginning of how Iraq will turn into a PR nightmare for the US just like Vietnam.
An example of a war lost by the public if there ever was one. Find me another war in which the military lost not one single major battle, but lost the war, and I'll cede the point. Fortunately, though, the result of the American public and government weakness in that situation wasn't too bad, aside from the wasted dead on both sides.
-----
quote:I don't know if we get to get hopping mad, and much less surprised, when one of our own passes.
Cold-blooded murders are quite different, even though at the end someone is dead.
quote:The acts of all terrorists are abhorrent, it doesn't matter whose side they are on.
I agree. I also still think that the soldiers who committed the acts of torture (I stand by that word here) should still be tried in Iraq, by Iraqis, and punished in Iraq. For reasons both moral and practical.
quote:I don't know if these things can just be "put right." It's a pretty American way of thinking if we say, "The US is sorry about sodomizing you and your cellmate bleeding to death, how about we cut you a check."
As a matter of fact, it's a pretty human way of thinking. People and religions have been doing it for a long time now, financial reparations for wrongdoing. Not so 'American' after all.
quote:If we saw it coming, and yes the atrocities were forseeable, then you can't just cut a check, you can't even say that it's never going to happen again.
I agree, I disagree.
--------
quote:It's a war. They want to win. So do we, if we wanted fair play, we'd hand out tanks to even up the score.
Who said anything about playing fair? She was just complaining about ultimate goals and calculated means-tyranny and deliberate targetting and murder of civilians. Rather different from American style warfare.
-------
Tresopax,
quote:...because we destroyed their government.
Well, we may have thought their government was bad, but it was still their government and we still destroyed it. And we have put little better in its place.
Perhaps in the way my government could be called Bush's and his thugs'. But it's still my government, and the Iraqi government was still the Iraqis' government.
When did Sadddam Hussein's regime become the government of the Iraqi people? It must have happened after we toppled it; sure as hell it was not before we did. We didn't just 'think' it was bad, it was bad. And yes, if you go by the short-term (which we are screwing up), then yes, we've put little better in its place.
And not remotely in the same way, Tresopax. That is a ridiculous, stupid, incorrect and offensive point. Categorize for me, if you will, the similarities between Dubya and Saddam, excluding that you voted for neither.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Rakeesh (in reply to my remarks on "collateral damage):
quote:But of course you are, because even though you aren't saying they are right or justified, you are saying, "Well, they do have a point." That's a defense, to be sure a valid one, but still a defense.
Your definition of 'collateral damage' is by no means complete or the most commonly used. And their 'distraction' was to topple a regime publicly friendly to terrorism? Whenever people talk about 'no links to terrorism' in Iraq, that little reward to suicide bomber families bit kinda gets left off...
Rakeesh, the points you make in your second paragraph are a fair rejoinder. The first paragraph, though, is way off base (interpreting my statement as "they (terrorists?) do have a point."
Yes - it was a distraction from actually going after the cells that were and are hiding throughout Afghanistan and other regions. While there was support for terrorism by Saddam, there are other contenders for being more significant financial backers of terrorism in the area.
Also, in response to my comments about Richard Berg's motives for being in Iraq:
quote:Of course not. They're doing a good thing and in the process, making some pretty good money. So your 'non-villainizing' is exhibited by mentioning the latter and minimizing the former. Again, it's not villainizing him, but it's still a defense of sorts.
I don't see why people have a problem with this. Isn't emphasizing his reported wishes to help while minimizing his very real search for business opportunities also misleading?
I like to draw a distinction, because there really are people in Iraq and other distressed spots in the world who are there solely to help - relief workers and the like, who often receive little more than room and board.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
quote:Ultimate goals and calculated means-tyranny and deliberate targetting and murder of civilians. Rather different from American style warfare.
Not if your experience with American-style warfare includes being one of the innocent civilians whose house we broke into right before shaming their family and dragging them off to prison without any trial whatsoever, to be abused or tortured and photographed for the entire world to see.
Not that that is at all indicative of American warfare on the whole--and dollars to donuts these killers are well aware of that fact--but in a war to win hearts and minds, perception is the queen on the chess board.
Unfortunately the administration seems incapable of intelligently directing this all-important game piece. Which is rather odd considering how effectively they move it around here on the domestic front.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Perhaps in the way my government could be called Bush's and his thugs'. But it's still my government, and the Iraqi government was still the Iraqis' government.
No. You had a say in the process that resulted in Bush's election, even if your preferred candidate lost.
Put it this way: in our country, the Ralph Naders run for President. In old Iraq, they're dead. Citizens under Sadaam had NO recourse in who represented them and what the government policies are. Here, the opposition rallies right in front of the President's residence to express their displeasure with the way things are going.
Dagonee
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nope, a president anointed by five "justices" of the SupremeCourt wasn't elected by anyone.
And four years later, the next "President" will be "elected" by machinery that can't be checked for accuracy of vote tabulation.
[ May 12, 2004, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Dag, it is empirically correct that Iraqi's had less ownership over their government than American's have over ours. However you have to keep in mind that Iraq has a national identity--albeit a confused one (rather like us, imo)--which is a separate entity from its rulership. People are proud and they don't like being rescued. Especially if you are one of the millions of Iraqis who did NOT suffer under Hussein.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I seem to recall that Iraq was a democracy for a few decades before the US overthrew their first democratically elected government and installed Saddam Hussein in its place. Is it any wonder if the average Iraqi is suspicious of our commitment to establish democracy?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
aspectre - give it a rest. No recount using rules established before the election has found Gore to be the winner.
JK: I agree. But it's still incorrect to say it was "their" government.
Dagonee
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
And I'd like to echo aspectre's perspective that the "betterness" of American democracy has to be based on the most positive interpretations and ringing endorsements of our political system.
For one thing, we are BRAND SPANKIN' NEW to the human rights table of the world, having only a few decades under our belt in which ALL Americans have had the right to vote. And even today voter fraud and election rigging still takes place on a regular basis.
To say nothing of social inequalities that not only still exist, but are sometimes supported by the majority of the populace.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Give it a rest, there was no recount.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There were several. Did you sleep during that period and the year after, or do you just make this S*&^ up?
Dagonee
[ May 12, 2004, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Put it this way: in our country, the Ralph Naders run for President. In old Iraq, they're dead. Citizens under Sadaam had NO recourse in who represented them and what the government policies are. Here, the opposition rallies right in front of the President's residence to express their displeasure with the way things are going.
While Dag and I disagree on whether or not we should have invaded Iraq, we agree on this.
Quoting again from my favorite inspirational text:
Let us in the name of radical pragmatism not forget that in our system with all its repressions we can still speak out and denounce the administration, attack its policies, work to build an opposition political base. True, there is government harrassment, but there still is that relative freedom to fight. I can attack my government, try to organize to change it. --Saul D. Alinsky, in Rules for Radicals in 1971, which was a time as contentious as the one we're in right now.
[ May 12, 2004, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:No. You had a say in the process that resulted in Bush's election, even if your preferred candidate lost.
Put it this way: in our country, the Ralph Naders run for President. In old Iraq, they're dead. Citizens under Sadaam had NO recourse in who represented them and what the government policies are. Here, the opposition rallies right in front of the President's residence to express their displeasure with the way things are going.
Rallies are no recourse if they are ignored, and a say is not a say if it makes no difference. Yes, there is a difference between the amount of say I had in the Bush administration and the amount of say Iraqis had under Saddam. But it's a relative matter, not a qualitative difference.
The point remains that representing the views of all or any of the people is not a requirement for being the government of that people. When we invaded Japan after WWII, we installed their new government. Does that mean it wasn't really Japan's government? Nope. Heck, the Soviet Union forced all sorts of governments on nations. In such cases, it might mean the people didn't consent to their government, but it doesn't change the fact that it is their government, and is the entity responsibile for maintaining order and making laws. Once the people start obeying it, it becomes so.
Iraq was no anarchy under Saddam. It had a government, so Saddam must've been it. We destroyed it, plain and simple - to the delight of some and anger of others. We are responsible for that choice.
[ May 12, 2004, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
"Rallies are no recourse if they are ignored, and a say is not a say if it makes no difference."
So if you vote for a candidate and they lose the election, then you feel you have no say in government? Whether your vote is on the winning side is immaterial, it is counted. And was counted in 2000 so get over it already, please! What would you prefer? We all have to vote for one candidate in mockery of an election like dictators set up to claim being the victor in legitimate election? Living in a democracy means that people are FREE to disagree and seek change by convincing others of their viewpoint. Power comes from many people feeling and voting the same way. So if a rally for a view is ignored because it is unpopular, that is how it should be until it gains suppport.
Both actions are ways of having a say, and though they might not be popular, they matter. They provide alternatives. Choice.
"The point remains that representing the views of all or any of the people is not a requirement for being the government of that people."
Untrue in a democracy. A democracy only exists because of it's people. If they reject it, it dies. If the Japanese decided to get rid of their democracy after we set it up for them, then that would have beent heir democratic choice. If the Iraqis reject their new democracy, it will die, and we should (and hopefully will) let it. But the catch-22 is that you must instill a democratic government in order for the people to have a say whether they beleive in it and want it to contuniue to exist or not.
The same is true here in the US. If the majority of people here decided to abolish our democracy, it would perish and be replaced. What other type of government allows for it's people to abolish it if the majority of them deem it necessary?
Pal
*edited for shoddy spelling *re-edited to add: Awesome quote above, sndrake!
[ May 12, 2004, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But it's a relative matter, not a qualitative difference.
I apologize for offending, that is horseshit, Tresopax. There is a big honking difference-not just quantitative-between being 'ignored' and being executed or having to watch one's family raped and tortured.
And you can make a difference. Just because your frankly radical, ivory-tower ideas are not shared by the government does not mean your say is not a say. "Say" does not mean "the government does what I think it should".
As for what 'their' government is or is not, again you're withdrawing to the safety of academic philosophical definitions. Just because I obey something doesn't make it mine. By your reasoning on this issue, I could steal a car and it's mine until someone comes and takes it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Alexa: To put in a working government? Not all that long, actually. Remember, most of the civil services still existed in at least some form, but we didn't build on that foundation at all. We've largely retreated to a few of the larger cities (and our strongholds inside them) and are not doing much at all besides restoring certain critical infrastructures. We aren't doing much governing at all. Despite the need for it.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Xapotres:
quote:Rallies are no recourse if they are ignored, and a say is not a say if it makes no difference. Yes, there is a difference between the amount of say I had in the Bush administration and the amount of say Iraqis had under Saddam.
Right - rallies are a nice dog-and-pony show. They aren't without value, but they aren't sufficient for exerting influence.
We all know money makes a difference and Bush supporters definitely have an advantage there.
So what?
Money is not the only thing that makes the difference. And for all the money being spent on political advertising, this is still a closely divided country (in numerical terms).
When it comes to who ends up being sworn into the office of the presidency next January, voter turnout will be crucial, especially in close states.
If you want to see the current administration lose its position, then DO something - call the local campaign headquarters and see what you can do about helping to coordinate mailings or help with voter registration with whatever free time you have. Inquire with the campaign officials if they need drivers in November to help get voters to the polls.
I'm involved in some pretty nasty policy issues in which the opposition has us completely outspent and gets its voice respected in a way we have to fight for. Complaining about it doesn't help (unless it's in an op-ed or public speech). DOING something - in conjunction with others is the only thing that opens up the possibility for changing the current reality.
/rant
PS to Dag: The only problem with using Nader as an example in your analogy is that the Dems would be more likely to want Nader locked up than the Republicans right now. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's why I picked him. Nader in 2004! Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
this is lovely... a guy gets his head sawn off with a knife and in order to derail the topic we're back to attacking republicans as wealthy, selfish punks who bought the election and are trying to step all over our hard-won freedom(stereotypes anyone?)
You guys are not making yourselves look good here.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Nader in 2004!
Karl Rove's favorite bumper sticker. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
"you guys"?
aspectre's the only one going off on that, and he's well known as being a political troll.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
My point, Fugu, is the amazing derailment this thread has taken. It was started in outrage at the deeds of yesterday and has become yet another referendum on the president.
When you grab every availible stick to beat something with, you say more about yourself than the person you are trying to discredit.
[ May 12, 2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
[EDIT: Not Dagonee, Jim-Me], y'know, when conservatives occassional derail a thread in this way, I don't hear too many people attack the reputation of people doing so.
Yes, the thread got derailed, but the fact that it got derailed in this way is rather par for the course at Hatrack, I don't think it reflects much on anyone's reputation.
Sorry, I hear/read this complaint frequent enough that I had to say something. Ignore at your leisure.
-Bok
[ May 12, 2004, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Jim-Me, how could this not become a discussion about the president, given that he almost single-handedly dragged us into this in the first place?
Do you really think that this man would have had his head sawn off with a knife if Bush hadn't decided that, for whatever reason, we needed to go to war in Iraq?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well if Clinton hadn't gotten blown by Monica, I would have voted for Gore so it's Hillary's fault for not providing that service that Bush is now president etc.
Though I think not finishing this war the first time was a more direct link. Getting back to the topic:
quote:I do know a non-negligible amount of people who profess that they would rather be killed than raped, but maybe that's all talk.
I don't know if you live in America, but this is kind of an antiquated notion. Or maybe I'm mixing it up with Grandma telling her daughters it would be better to be dead than defiled.
Though in Iraq, the perception may be different. In the case of the prisoners of Abu Ghraib. Maybe. No way all of those prisoners were zealots who would happily die for the faith.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Um.
This is an election year. And since it's Bush's first term in office, the election is almost exclusively a refferendum on the incumbent. It should be no surprise that threads covering matters of state eventually devolve into how-the-topic-relates-to-the-President-and-why-you-should-or-should-not-support-him.
And really, "why do you have to take every opportunity to be critical of Bush?!" is a very weak response to criticisms of Bush.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
To quote some dead Roman procurator, "What I have written, I have written."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I criticize the President a lot because there's a lot to criticize about him, plain and simple. There isn't much to talk about on the idea that its a very bad thing for terrorists to cut off people's heads.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I assume you mean some Roman proconsul.
And if you're quoting one of them for reasons people shouldn't spend large quantities of time criticizing politicians, you're quoting the wrong person . Romans were incredibly political animals. Incredibly factional.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
First of all, the troll saying that there is no difference between living in the US, and disagreing with the President, and living in Iraq three years ago, and disagreeing with Hussein is nuts.
I disagreed with the President three years ago. I am alive to vote against him this year.
However, the biggest difference is Law. The President, whether getting illicit sex from his assistant, or selling drugs to get funds for the Contra's, must obey the law as much as the next person.
(This means they can only break it where they are certain not to get caught)
Hussein and his followers were the law. They wanted someone dead, bang, he got to kill them. The Ba'athist, his clansmen, and to a lesser extent, his fellow Sunni's were above the law.
What we are supposed to be doing is going into Iraq and saying, "No one is above the law."
Unfortunately, the tact we are taking is to do so while being above the law ourselves.
Those who have suffered the volitale law under Hussein are expecting better. And since we are not providing it, they are looking for others who say they can, whether those are fundamentalist clerics or radical terrorists.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I would say that it wasn't their government... I mean it was theirs as in they lived in the nation with that government.. but they didn't OWN or control that government. There was no representation.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I stand corrected... typing in haste and all that...
and I was only quoting because I found it ironic.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Dan, the people who are responsible for commiting our abuses are being found out and held to the fire.
Hopefully the people commiting the atrocities like what we witnessed yesterday will continue to be treated with similar tenacity.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Though in Iraq, the perception may be different. In the case of the prisoners of Abu Ghraib. Maybe. No way all of those prisoners were zealots who would happily die for the faith.
...or dignity, or any of those words that no small amount of Americans signed up for the military to pick up. We don't need all the prisoners to be zealots who would happily die for faith, just one.
[ May 12, 2004, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Be fair - I derailed the thread as much as anybody. The 2000 election is an obvious counter to my contention that there is a qualitative difference between the U.S. and former Iraqi governments. Not a valid counter, but obvious.
Dagonee
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
I personally find it somewhat irritating the way the President- not this particular President, but Presidents in general- get the credit, or the blame, for whatever happens to be coming down the pike. The President is neither dictator nor omnipotent, people. Everything bad that happens is not his fault; everything good that happens was not his doing.
The economy, for example, is almost totally out of the President's control. To that extent that he *does* have any influence, it is shared by Congress, the Fed, and a gaggle of unelected Federal officials sitting in cubicles in really ugly Downton D.C. buildings. The same thing goes for the war or anything else. The President makes a good target because he is obviously the most powerful man in the system, but that does not mean he has all the power or even a majority of it.
Truman may have said that, "The buck stops here!", and it was classy, but not entirely true. The buck is divided to the point where you can get ha'pennies out of it.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
Thank you. I guess I just really needed to hear that there might be hope. I don't want my babies getting blown up because of all this.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)