| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
The mistreatment of some Iraqi prisoners is wrong, and President Bush is dealing with it appropriately.
War isn’t pretty. We can do better.
But it is essential when we’re faced with an enemy that’s trying to kill us. The Islamofascists want to nuke us. We have to deal with it.
Let’s review :
...Roll the tape backward from the USS Cole in 2000, through the bombing of the U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998 and the Khobar Towers in 1996, the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the destruction of the American Embassy and annex in Beirut in 1983, the mass murder of 241 U.S. Marine peacekeepers asleep in their Lebanese barracks that same year, and assorted kidnappings and gruesome murders of American citizens and diplomats (including TWA Flight 800, Pan Am 103, William R. Higgins, Leon Klinghoffer, Robert Dean Stethem and CIA operative William Francis Buckley), until we arrive at the Iranian hostage-taking of November 1979: That debacle is where we first saw the strange brew of Islamic fascism, autocracy and Middle East state terrorism—and failed to grasp its menace, condemn it and go to war against it.
I mean, come on. We have to deal with Islamofascism, and it won’t go away by itself. Those guys are going to just keep on killing Americans until we make them stop.
Yes, there is a cost to be paid in lives—a relatively small number, by the standards of past wars, such as World War II, in which 50 million people died. But people are going to die either way. If we leave the terrorists alone they’re not going to leave us alone—they’re going to keep finding and killing Americans, as they have been doing since 1979. How many times more people died just on 9/11, than have died in the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq combined?
So let’s take a moment and review the fantastic achievements of the War on Terror to date:
... George W. Bush [...] has, in a mere 2 1/2 years, reversed the perilous course of a quarter-century. Since Sept. 11, he has removed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, begun to challenge the Middle East through support for consensual government, isolated Yasser Arafat, pressured the Europeans on everything from anti-Semitism to their largesse to Hamas, removed American troops from Saudi Arabia, shut down fascistic Islamic “charities,” scattered al Qaeda, turned Pakistan from a de facto foe to a scrutinized neutral, rounded up terrorists in the United States, pressured Libya, Iran and Pakistan to come clean on clandestine nuclear cheating, so far avoided another Sept. 11—and promises that he is not nearly done yet. If the Spanish example presages further terrorist attacks on European democracies at election time, at least Mr. Bush has made it clear that America—alone if need be—will neither appease nor ignore such killers but in fact finish the terrible war that they started.
#1> The Islamofascists want to nuke us.
They haven't found any nuclear weapons in Iraq. Israeli, Turkey and the United States are the only countries known to have nuclear weapons in the Middle East.
> We have to deal with Islamofascism, and it won't go away by itself.
USA's organised violence provokes others into violence.
Remember for most of the 1980's the USA gave crucial American military intelligence, hardware and strategic advice to Saddam Hussein:
http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/b/bd/Rumsfeld-hussein.jpg
Vik, your country trained Osama bin Ladin. Which are you, ignorant or hypocritical?
#3Winston,
>> > The Islamofascists want to nuke us.
>
> They haven't found any nuclear weapons in Iraq.
Plenty of WMD have been found in the MidEast, in Libya and Jordan, as you must know.
> USA's organised violence provokes others into violence.
So in your opinion we should let the terrorists kill us. However, your argument is unsound. Read the exact same article I linked to in the post on which you are commenting:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004952
> Plenty of WMD have been found in the MidEast, in Libya and Jordan, as you must know.
Also USA has been using radioactive, chemically toxic depleted uranium weapons, as well as child maiming cluster bombs in Afganistan and Iraq. (If we had found these weapons in Iraq, we'd call them WMDs).
> So in your opinion we should let the terrorists kill us. However, your argument is unsound.
Timothy McVeigh was an American domestic terrorist convicted and sentenced to die for his part in the April 19, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, which killed 168 people. McVeigh was from Buffalo, New York.
So in your opinion we should have dropped depleted uranium and cluster bombs over Buffalo, overthrown the local policeforce and government, and installed a provisional government until the liberated people of Buffalo had a chance to recover and reelect a new major?
I wouldn't want them to invade Buffalo either. I would want there to be a proper investigation, and the person or persons responsible held accountable in a court of law, where their guilt be judged on the evidence uncovered. I wouldn't call the people in Buffalo, Buffascists. I would be shocked if they sent the army into Junction City, Kansas, just because McVeigh happened to live there for a while.
McVeigh was a decorated veteran of the United States Army. By your logic does that mean we should treat all veterans of the US army as terrorists out to kill us?
The majority of the 9/11 attackers are alledged to be from Saudi Arabia. Why isn't the US government concentrating its efforts into investigating who is responsible, capturing them and putting them on trial? Why are we attacking nations in the region around Saudi Arabia that don't pose a threat to mainland America?
One obvious reason is these nations sit on top the largest proven oil reserves on the planet, and the US wants control:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html
#5Winston,
> Also USA has been using radioactive, chemically toxic depleted uranium weapons, as well as child maiming cluster bombs in Afganistan and Iraq. (If we had found these weapons in Iraq, we'd call them WMDs).
The US hasn't said it's purpose in Iraq is to rid the world of WMDs. It's to rid the world of WMD's that are in the possession of terrorists and those who support them.
> McVeigh was a decorated veteran of the United States Army. By your logic does that mean we should treat all veterans of the US army as terrorists out to kill us?
I have said nothing of the kind.
Oh, I'm sorry - I think I have to read this again. It seems I've misunderstood something.
You start talking about the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners, and then proceed to tell us how cool Bush is.
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but that makes your whole philosophy look like "Yeah, we're bad, but they started it!"
Nice.
I keep hoping Bush will wake up one day and start thinking about WHY "Islamofascists" are so anti-american. We cry EVERY time an American soldier is killed in battle for doing his JOB (not everyone's there out of some sort of "patriotic duty"), and we either rejoice or don't give a damn about Iraqi soldiers killed (or tortured, raped, humiliated...) in battle for doing their JOB (and who may or may not be there out of "patriotic duty").
Wake UP! It's PEOPLE we're dealing with. Human beings who deserve the same treatment that we expect from them. People who believe in their cause just as much as the Americans do, just seen from a different standpoint. Saying "War isn't pretty. We can do better." is the worst cop-out imaginable. War is UNACCEPTABLE by ANY standards, because it involves killing. Not to mention the destruction of a people and their plummeting into poverty.
Arabs destroyed the World Trade Center - according to Bush this demands REVENGE. Well, the Americans have gone into Iraq now and basically left millions without electricity or access to water, they're jobless and hungry, all for the sake of removing ONE MAN from power. Seen by Bush's standards, this demands a revenge much more powerful.
Vik,
I think you missed the boat on this one. The US has to be held to a higher standard and this kind of abuse makes us look like MEGA hypocrites. And if the "Islamofacists" wanted to nuke has and have these nukes, why haven't they already?
I do have one question. If you are going to violate the Geneva Convention, why would you take pictures?
I really hope that the higher ranking military officials don't hide behind the soldiers who commited these acts. I'm already hearing that everyone is saying these were just rogue soldiers who were disobeying orders to leave the prisoners alone. Yeah, right. I'm not suggestion Bush or even Rumsfeld should be held 100% responsible because I doubt they even knew when it was occuring but I would bet ANYTHING that higher ranking military officers knew what was going on.
> I do have one question. If you are going to violate the Geneva Convention, why would you take pictures?
My question exactly. I'm thinking that the total IQ of these soldiers together is about 25.
> I'm not suggestion Bush or even Rumsfeld should be held 100% responsible because I doubt they even knew when it was occuring
Not an excuse. It's their JOB to know this sort of thing and to assure that the Geneva Convention is upheld. Rumsfeld especially (even he says so). And I'm sorry, but I've heard too many politicians using the "But they started it!" argument to feel comfortable with this whole situation. Why does everyone keep mentioning "isolated cases" when even ONE such case is way too many? This isn't isolated anymore either. It's an international scandal. It demands more than a simple "Oops, sorry". Someone needs to take responsibility, and soon.
No, I agree Spyke that Rumsfeld and Bush should have known but I really don't think they did. If something like that happened at my company, you better believe more than just the peon who committed the act is going to lose his job. Because every manager is responsible for his/her crew. Even more so in the military in wartime.
I'm not suggesting these soldiers were "ordered" to commit these acts but I am suggesting that their commanding officers didn't discourage or do anything about it after the fact. This makes them just as guilty though.
Also, I thought the invasion of Iraq wasn't a reltaliatory mission for 9/11 but a mission to free the oppressed people of Iraq and overthrow a dictator who had WMDs? Now that bad things are happening, politicians (like Spyke said) are claiming this is what these people get since they slammed our planes into our buildings.
Michael,
>The US has to be held to a higher standard
I agree. My point is to keep it in perspective.
Spyke,
>You start talking about the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners, and then proceed to tell us how cool Bush is.
>
>Pardon me if I'm wrong, but that makes your whole philosophy look like "Yeah, we're bad, but they started it!"
Not at all. I'm just saying, let's keep it in perspective.
> I'm just saying, let's keep it in perspective.
What kind of a response is THAT?
> What kind of a response is THAT?
A calm and reasonable one. From Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perspective):
perspective P Pronunciation Key (pr-spktv)
...The ability to perceive things in their actual interrelations or comparative importance: tried to keep my perspective throughout the crisis.
> A calm and reasonable one.
Yes, of COURSE. Killing between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS (from http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html) to get rid of ONE man really puts things in perspective.
#15> Yes, of COURSE. Killing between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS (from http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html) to get rid of ONE man really puts things in perspective.
Hussein was killing tens of thousands of Iraqis a month. We have saved hundreds of thousands of Iraqis by getting rid of him. That's what I'm talking about when I say, let's keep things in perspective.
Now that we saved 'em, lets kill 'em all off. Painfully, too. Or, if we can't kill them ALL, let's make sure they suffer. Nasty bastahds deserve it.
Makes sense to me. Hurrah for Bush!
Now that's the proper perspective.