The George W. Bush Poll

That's highly naive... by saying that our humanity, our respect for human life and human suffering need not apply because they are barbarians only lowers us to their level.

That's a subtle point that I don't think you understand... if we reciprocate and torture them because they would have done the same, aren't we making ourselves look like barbiarians (only with bigger guns) to our enemies?

 

They're intelligent, but that says nothing about their character...

The whole culture that they have of loyalty to your leader first, and then your country and the people second really bothers me...

and because of that, there is this bravado... like they can do anything they want, bend the rules, breake the rules... and someone will cover their nice person because they are fiercely loyal... oy.

 

That's dangerous territory there... you're basically saying that the ideals that we pride ourselves on don't apply because we're better than these people...

We're no better than they are if we think that way...

Plus, we're only providing fuel to the fire... every time there's a controversy regarding this administration's handling of torture, we're only pissing off otherwise moderate Muslims to embrace radical ideas and join the insurgency...

 

That's pretty much the view that the SS took when dealing with the Russians that were unlucky enough to be captured by them. The dehumanization of the enemy is the most common tactic employed by propoganda to encourage soldiers to kill. It's been used throughout history.

 

Thank you, LaughingMan. Finally, someone expresses the possibility that America is only creating another generation of enemies, instead of killing them off. This is going to sound like an outrageously naive sacrilege, but what would happen if we fed, clothed, and housed them instead? It would be cheaper, and we'd have fewer enemies and less terrorism.

 

Isn't that what we have been doing at abu ghaihab(?) and Guantanimo?

 

Seriously, in the long-term I think the only way is to win their hearts and minds, and I'm not sure we are doing that. In the short-term we HAVE to stay the course and prevail at all costs!

 

The best way to end this is to stop dictating to them how they shall be governed. There is a lot of mistrust in the Middle East towards the West because of Western dominiance in the regional politics during the 19th, 20th, and now 21st centuries. All politics is local. If we leave them alone they'll leave us alone. The best (and only way) to accomplish this is to remove our strategic dependence on the region. Will democracy flourish? No. However, lasting freedom is something that can only come from within. It can't be delivery from the outside. Imagine if the French had invaded the American colonies to "liberate" us. The American Revolution would not have happened. There would have been a tremendous amount of resistance if that had happened. The French only came to our aid after Ben Franklin pleaded with them for over a year and Benedict Arnold won the smashing victory at Saratoga. Only then did the French get involved... but I digress.

 

I hate Osama don't get me wrong, but who cares about the rats at the WTC+Pentagon? They would kill any one of us without a second thought. They got treaded like they should have been. If Osama did authoirze it GREAT best decision he ever made.

 

The big question Tripp is would we have won our independence without them? And if so at what additional cost in terms of loss of life and time. If the King of England would have had poison gas and other modern weapons of war at his disposal would the colonies had still prevailed? In the Iraq situation, would Saddam have let a rebellion get a good foothold or used 'any' means necessary to squelch it?

 

Your trust that every single one of the inmates at abu-ghirab is a vicious animal who has already maimed and tortured others is blind.

I'll tell you a little story with enough parallels that you should see how it is relevant:
I was an Israeli paratrooper during the Invasion of Lebanon in the 1990's. After being part of the strike forces that first entered the cities of Tsur and Zidon, my unit was assigned to provide backup security to a prison where captured PLO terrorists were being held for interrogation. Without going into details (since by and large I do not know them) I will say that torture was used by the Israeli shin-bet.

Now, here is the part you should pay attention to: among the prisoners were physicians from scandinavia, as well as PLO functionaries who were no more a terrorist than I was.

When the abuses became public after the physicians were released, the IDF and Israeli government went on record as saying they never happened.

 

My advice to you is to read "The Art of War".

As to the higher standards.... In this case the standards are an absolute must because they support our strategic goals in the region. Our goal, according to wolfowitz/Rumsfeld doctrine that is the engine that is driving this war, is to create a democracy in the Middle East because that will have a snowball affect creating more prosperity and moderation in the region. Torture and brutal treatment of prisoners does not help us accomplish our supposed strategic goals. Instead, these practices are driven by the need to develop short-term tactical intelligence. Remember, tactical success does not guarantee operational or strategic success. There are many good examples of that throughout history. Our experience during the Vietnam conflict is a prime example of this. We won almost every tactical engagement of the war, often overwhelming so. Yet, in the end none of this helped to achieve our strategic goals. On the other hand, the TET offensive in 1968 was a tactical failure for the NVA/VC. None the less, it proved to be a very important strategic victory.

In that light, which I would hardly call pinky-liberal, higher standards of conduct/ethics are essential to our success in Iraq.

And yes Michael Moore is an idiot. I'd hardly say that the liberal element is the issue. Right now they're an essential balance to the facist wing of the GOP. When you're ready to enlist lemme know and I'll hook you up with an honest recruiter. :lol:

 

That is very well said tripp.

I'll add, again from experience, that when citizens become animals toward "the enemy", they return home as animals.

 

You have a problem directing your anger and your outrage about 9/11...

the vast majority of the Muslims that live day to day in Iraq, before and after 9/11, before and after the Iraq invasion had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, had nothing to do with 9/11, and were just trying to live their lives as people. They're muslims, but most of them are reasonable...

But when we start marching into their country, blasting stuff to sh*t, rounding up their neighbors and family members, and then desecrating their religion... well... even the most level headed Muslim would get a bad impression of us... and some of them would go as far as to openly rebel against us.

The more we act like we don't give a damn about their "feelings" , their "culture"... the more they (the average moderate Muslim who is by all accounts just trying to live his life) stop acting reasonable.

I'm personally glad that the US military doesn't think like you do, Squid... sensitivity training on Muslim culture was taught to many of our troops over there before being shipped out... And the troops know that they're there to help the Iraqis, not blow them all to hell. otherwise the situation over there would be an order of magnitude worse.

This is why i think the war on terror is so dangerous... it causes people like you to conclude that we should just nuke them all and let God figure it out... Let me ask you this... if all of them, man woman and child, deserve to die, why don't we nuke them to hell? You make it seem like any line we draw in the sand with regard to morality is liberal garbage... so what keeps us from dropping a couple of tactical nukes on Afghanistan and Iraq?

 

tripp, you da man.

 

Yes, we would likely have prevailed. Actually, King George III didn't need poisonous gas or helicopters. He just needed aggressive generals. Howe and Carleton were way to cautionous at precisely the wrong times. It's amazing that the rebellion succeeded at all, frankly. By the time the French were really involved on land we were already holding our own. Their biggest contribution was tying up the Royal Navy in the carribean and elsewhere.

The poison gas issue in modern Irag is a different issue. Obviously Hussein had no qualms about using mustard gas on the Kurds. On the other hand, with the help of the no fly zone the Kurd were able to establish their own autonomous region. The Iraqi army was not able to crush their well organized resistance without air support. The Shite movement in the south in the days following the Iraqi army's defeat in Kuwait was not organized and was easily crushed without poison gas or air power.

So I suppose my point is that the possession of chemical weapons doesn't necessarily affect the outcome. It is only one piece of the puzzle.

 

I don't think war has ever been declared against the people of Iraq? Or did I miss something. If people are associating with known terrorists than they are fair game. I believe that the vast majority of Iraqis feel better about the situation today than they did under Saddam. Is the situation there easy, of course not, but to say that the US military is systematically targeting neighborhoods and killing innocent men, women and children is crazy. Are there innocent people being killed, yes, but there is a big difference between collateral damage and targeting.