Not just about intel anymore
According to an article in the The New York Times today, the Pentagon is trying to increase the role of the military in intelligence-collection operations.
"Not so strange," you might say. "After all, the President has just signed a bill significantly reducing the Pentagon's oversight over intelligence. Rummy's just looking to muscle back into the intel racket."
Indeed.
But this passage gave me pause:
"Right now, we're looking at providing Special Operations forces some of the flexibility the C.I.A. has had for years," said a Defense Department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plan has not yet been approved.
Flexibility? What might that mean?
Remember water boarding?
From Newsweek's June 21 Issue
"There was a spike in a lot of intel that we were picking up in terms of more attacks" on America, said Gen. James Hill, chief of the U.S. Southern Command. "We weren't getting anything out of [Mohamed al Qatani]" using standard techniques outlined in Army Field Manual 34-52. So CIA and military-intel interrogators came up with new tactics based on the sorts of methods that U.S. Special Forces are specifically trained to resist, a Defense source says.
Is the Pentagon now trying to give Special Forces the power to use those methods? -- What the CIA does with interrogation subjects is barely legal, if at all.
From MSNBC:
Counterterrorism officials reportedly said that the methods used by the CIA are so harsh that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has warned its agents not to participate in the interrogations of high-level detainees — the techniques employed by the CIA would be prohibited in criminal cases and could compromise FBI agents in future cases.
Right now, the Pentagon is describing the proposal as mostly about "commencing combat operations chiefly to obtain intelligence."
From the Times:
Until now, intelligence operations run by the Pentagon have focused primarily on gathering information about enemy forces. But the overarching proposal being drafted in the Pentagon, which encompasses General Boykin's efforts, would focus military intelligence operations increasingly on counterterrorism and counterproliferation, areas in which the C.I.A. has played the leading role.
The "overarching proposal" -- But if Special Forces got those other powers, Rummy would no longer have to worry about the illegal abuse of prisoners.
Most of it wouldn't be illegal anymore.
And if you think members of the Special Forces don't do prisons, you'd be wrong.
From the New Yorker:
Last June [2003], Janis Karpinski, an Army reserve brigadier general, was named commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade and put in charge of military prisons in Iraq. General Karpinski, the only female commander in the war zone, was an experienced operations and intelligence officer who had served with the Special Forces and in the 1991 Gulf War, but she had never run a prison system.
Is this about a power-struggle between the CIA and the Pentagon?
Sure.
But that's not the whole story. If we're not careful, the Pentagon is going to sneak legalized torture into the military. And right under our noses.
my feed
28 Comments:
Apparently, you dont seem to want to admit the danger our enemies pose to our way of life, and our children's future security.
If we try to impose our self-righteous politically correct rules of engagement on the men we have sent into the enemy's territory, WE WILL LOSE.Is that what you want? Does your desire to see Bush fail override your desire for victory?
All those rules of civilized warfare mean nothing but a sign of cultural weakness to this religiously motivated enemy.
If you are harboring any ideas that we are going to win this war by being the only side to follow Geneva Convention Rules, you are placing an unfair burden on our soldiers.
If we have to torture a 10 year old female Iraqi to get her to point out where Daddy keeps the RPG, I whole heartily support it. If we have to publicly execute every tribal leader in the Sunni Triangle till we get a leader that is willing to work with us on providing his people Freedom and Democracy, I hope we do so without hesitation. I volunteer to be the trigger man.
These people dont fear us, because they know we wont allow ourselves to use the same effective interrogation methods they have used on each other for a millennia.
This aint some Political movement we are at war with...its a billion religiously brainwashed minds that harbor death wishes upon our children. Your desires that we can defeat these idiots without breaking our self-inflicted rules of weakness is un-realistic and only prolongs the conflict, or leaves us with no choice but committing large scale genocide or surrendering.
I wish everyone that was worried about us violating the Muslims civil / human rights would make a pilgrimage from Afghanistan to Mecca, and see how much regard they have for your rules or your life.
Yes Andrew, I figured I would throw in a strawman quote, so you could justify ignoring everything else.
I see it is working as intended.
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
--Just something that came to mind.
All those rules of civilized warfare mean nothing but a sign of cultural weakness to this religiously motivated enemy.
--And not following them is a sign of barbarity that alienates allies, stifles diplomacy, and keeps us from winning hearts and minds. Torture is not going to change the minds of those who have already decided to attack us. But conducting an occupation with a human-rights record that is beyond reproach will show that we mean what we say when we tell them we come to help them.
Victory at the expense of fundamental human rights is no victory. There is no glory without honor.
Following the rules of "civilized warfare" (ha!) will not cause us to lose.
Your argument that since our enemies are not adhering to the Geneva Conventions, we must throw them out the window in order to win, just doesn't hold water.
We can win, and do it right, because in the end the two are one in the same.
If we kill all the terrorists at the cost of our reputation as a country which respects human rights (not to mention the rule of law), then what have we won?
A: A whole lotta martyrs for Iraqi kids to idolize, and in whose footsteps they will yearn to follow.
You can see what I mean hereKILLING ALL THE TERRORISTS IS NOT THE OBJECTIVE.
Because it is impossible. And because, while threatening us all with physical harm, terrorism does not pose an "existential threat to our civilization".
But it does pose a threat to the systems and methods of protecting the values and liberties that we hold dear. Not directly, but indirectly -- by causing us to become so frightened that we willingly give up those liberties and sacrifice those values.
And finally, there's the very simple argument that when tortured, a human will often say anything to make the torture stop. In such circumstances, your 10 year old may tell us that daddy is hiding the RPG in the potato cellar -- but only because she thinks that's what you want to hear. Perhaps she really doesn't know where he keeps it.
If he has one at all.
Too high a cost for our credibility.
What a waste.
Forgot to add that period after the hyperlink.
Damn.
Well Gus, if you dont seem to have any problem with your liberal buddy personally attacking me on your threads, I guess I will defend myself in kind.
You are an extremist, and just like the extremists on the other side, your argument is based on hate..
.
No, your just a weenie. My argument is based on logic. Your argument is based on transposing our cultural values onto a society where they have no value.
You have more in common with Al Qaeda than almost any American..
.
Maybe so, but you have more in common with a worthless UN, that stand aside and lets genocide happen in Rwanda and the Sudan, because responding with force is against the rules. If you were in charge of my countries security we would be fucked.
You just keep harboring asinine thoughts that peace with these religiously brainwashed idiots can be negotiated, and when you see that mushroom cloud over the long beach port, come runnin to one of us barbarians to see if we can protect you from the real world.
Cant you go in and edit your own comments here Gus.
You're right Red.
Andrew, the rule is attack the politics, not the person. Let's keep things civil. I appreciate Red's honesty. Words like extremist and weenie are allowed. Calling each other terrorists is not. Red's arguments are assailable enough, no need for us to resort to inflamatory comments.
Red has quite a bit in common with us. For example, he's a football fan, like you and me. And, (in my opinion, surprisingly for a Texas man) he is also a hockey fan. That gives him serious points in my book.
Far as I can tell, he works hard (although he has an awful lot of time for posting on his blog!), and wants the best for his family. That gives him some more things in common with you and me.
He's also fairly libertarian when it comes to issues like gay rights and church and state-- something Al Qaida would never abide.
But, as you can see, he of course can defend himself.
Unfortunately, I can't (or don't know how to) revise my comments. There's no edit function. The only way for me to correct mistakes is to delete the comment and write it again (or go through the ritual of copying and pasting from the blog and adding the tags again).
-- Too much work for a comment.
As is obvious, the blog is in a constant state of renovation. I'm now convinced that I need a new comments system, and I will add one, but that will have to wait until after the holidays.
Gustav flies to Detroit tomorrow. Fog in Warsaw may hamper plans, but I am absolutely determined to watch at least some college football this year. It's bad enough that I'll miss the Rose Bowl (Go Blue).
Oh man, Thats the best thing about having your own blog dude. Almost every one of my comments at my blog has been revised several times, when I later think of refinements.
I cant tell you how many times I wished I could have retracted my "initial response" at the Command Post.
And I seem to be a much better speller when I have editing privileges. ;-)
But you have just made a blogging mistake in my opinion by siding with one of your commentators in an argument between commentators. These are your threads, and you are the king here, but over-policing the threads is what caused the Command Post to go from an average of over a hundred comments per thread to an average of zero comments per thread. Nobody likes to be censured. Thats why I let my threads police themselves. It might offend a commenter to be attacked on my threads, but at least I didn't limit their options to express themselves.
You will also notice that only 2 of the top 25 trafficked blogs allow comments. Because they either don't care what their readers think, or they don't want to constantly police their threads.
.
.
.
I am an even rarer bird in that I actually played youth ice hockey in Dallas in the 70s, way before Hockey was cool in Texas. My coach was Moe L'Abbe who played for the former CHL Dallas Blackhawks.
Man, I am glad some of you folks aren't in charge of United States security. Let me give you an example of something that just happened Saturday night. An employee of mine and his wife were driving past 'bar row' on Main Street, when he saw one of our customers (recognized his convertible), a friend of mine, getting the piss beat out of him by four guys while he was trapped in his car, with the top down. He told his wife to stop the car. She didn't want him to get involved and said everything she could to stop him from getting involved. He jumped out of the car and started running across the street, taking his coat off and yelling at the attackers. They looked up and saw him, an African American giant, that stands about 6'7", and a physique that would allow him to play tackle for about any pro football team, and took off running. My friend in the car only knew that the beating had stopped, backed his car out and took off. My employee told me about it Monday morning, so I called my friend to see what had happened. My friend, by the way is a pacifist. Doesn't cause any trouble, period. He said he was blindsided while sitting in the car, and the 4 men beat on him, telling him that he didn't know who he was messin' with.??????
I don't know what the word limit is here, so I'm going to post this and then continue.
NoParty
NoParty (cont.)
Let's put this into perspective. My friend was being attacked by 4 men, whom he'd done nothing to provoke. They were beating him for reasons out of his control. Being a pacifist, he not only couldn't fight back, he wouldn't. He told me he thought they were going to kill him, and that's how my employee described the beating he witnessed. These 4 cowards were beating a nice person and just having a gay old time...until someone that intimidated them came along and had the balls to try to help someone that was in terrible trouble. Since they were nothing but frikin' cowards, they ran at the sight of him. What have we learned here? If you don't fight back, when attacked, you will probably die, unless someone that will fight comes to your aid. If someone doesn't have the balls to stand up to cowards, or wants to just 'look the other way', cowards will continue to do what they do. I know my employee, and if they hadn't run away and instead wanted to try to fight him, rather than mess with that, he would have shot all 4 of them dead, and just dealt with the outcome. Lucky for him, and them, they ran. Unluckily, they didn't learn anything. If they had stayed and fought, there wouldn't be any future problem from these thugs. If you want to survive in this world, you had better be able to intimidate your aggressors by them knowing you will bring down the wrath of hell on them. If you've got to go to a knife fight, TAKE A GUN. Losing is not an option.
Now, are you guys going to sit around and talk about how my employee should have been more sensitive to the 4 coward's feelings? Or how bad he is for involving himself in someone else's business? Or dog him for potentially being ready to do WHATEVER NECESSARY to save an innocent victim? Just curious.
NoParty
BTW, my friend came by the office today. He looked like hamburger and said he looked good now, compared to how he looked Sunday. He was extremely grateful. He brought a bottle of Crown for my employee and couldn't thank him enough.
What does this tell us? It's ok to be a pacifist, but shut the f**k up and be grateful when someone that isn't, takes care of your heavy work. Thanking them, is the proper thing to do. So, instead of dogging the US, George Bush, and Don Rumsfield, with every word you type, why don't you just thank them and dog the mf'rs that cut innocent people's heads off for your viewing pleasure on TV and blow up innocent people that are just guilty of wanting to be free?
NoParty
Hey! NP! Glad you came, you're on my turf now.
First of all, don't worry, no character limit (as far as I can tell, and Red can tell you that I've tested the boundaries). This is just the standard blogger comment setup, although I'll switch to something more new-fangled over the holidays. After starting blogging in just September, this hobby has become so addictive that I'll probably be forced to start spending money on it.
For your first post here, it's a great one. I think this is the first time EVER where I don't disagree with a thing you've said NP. But I don't know where your conclusions are coming from. I think the example you give is a great demonstration of my point.
I'm no pacifist, and being against torture doesn't make me one. It makes me a decent human being (no offense).
I'm glad your employee did what he did. And I agree that force (or the threat of it) is sometimes (or often) needed to back up diplomacy, and also to make sure the rules are followed.
So let's take your example one step further.
With bombs dropping on civilians, and pictures circulating of army officers siccing dogs on defenseless Iraqis, -- as defenseless as your friend/customer was -- it is the US which looks like the four cowards(Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi?) beating the crap out of the pacifist to the rest of the world.
They would love to get their hands on that convertible, just like the US would love to get their hands on that oil. See where I'm goin' with this?
The cowards keep making inflamatory remarks like: "you don't know who your messin' with." Sounds familiar. I bet some of them also said "bring it on" and "you can run but you can't hide."
It's fun beating up on defenseless folks, especially when you get to say cool cowboy shit like that.
Unfortunately for the Iraqis, no big black guy is gonna come save the day. The UN is the best hope they've got, and they're pacifists! Maybe we should outfit the UN with a real army, so that they can flex their muscles and intimidate those cowardly countries who don't want to respect human rights.
Of course, I don't believe that the UN should start a war with the US, but you see what I mean. To the rest of the world (and to me!), torturing, abusing human rights, skirting the Geneva conventions -- these things don't make us the hero, they make us the villain.
I believe that GWB and co., as well as our troops have the best intentions. I believe that Iraq MUST be made democratic and secure.
But I'm from the states. I'm much easier to convince than you r average world citizen. You know what the world thinks when they see those pictures? They see Spanish Inquisition, Russian Czars, Oppression in Tibet, Nazis.
Cowards, every one. I don't like my country being included in that group.
Which is why I think it's good that soldiers aren't allowed to torture.
And Rummy wants to make it allowed. That's breaking the rules.
Think your employee could take on a 72-year-old?
Gus says:So let's take your example one step further.
*Okydoky.
Gus says: With bombs dropping on civilians,
*Our 'WELL TARGETED BOMBS' don't compare with flying jumbo jets full of passengers into skyscrapers, the Pentagon, or the White House....
Gus says: and pictures circulating of army officers siccing dogs on defenseless Iraqis,
*Dogs barking at'Innocent' Iraqis??? ohhhhh! And pictures of INNOCENT folks getting their heads cut off with a dull knife while they gurgled in terror and car suicide bombs targeted ONLY at innocent women and children. If we were ANYTHING like THEM, this war would have been over in 48 hours and we could be back to watching 'Andy of Mayberry', instead of the beheadings.
Gus says: -- as defenseless as your friend/customer was -- it is the US which looks like the four cowards(Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi?) beating the crap out of the pacifist to the rest of the world.
*I call BS. How can you manipulate the FACTS to make us cleaning up Islamic fundamentalism at it's roots, to being cowards? Cowards are the ones that NOW hide from us and wear masks as they cut some kid's father's head off with a dull knife in Technacolor for YOUR viewing pleasure. The same ones that recruit grade school kids to wear bombs and convince them to kill themselves and as many innocents as they can, for the handsome sum of $10. The same ones that target for death, peace loving brothers and sisters that only wish to help lift their country out of a 3,000 year old clogged up toilet.
Gus says: They would love to get their hands on that convertible, just like the US would love to get their hands on that oil. See where I'm goin' with this?
*They weren't after his T-Bird. They wanted to kill him for reasons unknown to him. (we have a theory, but it's too long to go into. The point being, the guy did nothing to deserve it or provoke it). You goddabeshittinme. Are you one of those "it's all about the oil" conspiracy freaks? I thought most of them moved on to other theories when they were PROVEN WRONG. Get over it man. We aren't taking their oil.
Gus says: The cowards keep making inflamatory remarks like: "you don't know who your messin' with." Sounds familiar. I bet some of them also said "bring it on" and "you can run but you can't hide."
*No, that would be my employee YELLING that, coming to my friend's aid.
Gus says: It's fun beating up on defenseless folks, especially when you get to say cool cowboy shit like that.
*Maybe you think so Gus. I don't usually associate with folks like that. What do you suppose the mf'rs were saying as they flew those jumbo jets into the Twin Towers? Maybe "Yaaaaahhhhh Hooooooooo!" Whatta ya think?
Gus says: Unfortunately for the Iraqis, no big black guy is gonna come save the day.
*No, actually a smaller fellow. He lives in the White House.....and about 150,000 guys just like him.
Gus says: The UN is the best hope they've got, and they're pacifists!
*Yes, the UN is the best hope they've got.....if 'they' is the terrorists. Maybe all those people in the mass graves were impressed by the UN all the way up to the bullet exploding the back of their heads or as they took their last breath of dirt and sand after being buried alive. I don't know...whatta ya think?
Gus says: Maybe we should outfit the UN with a real army, so that they can flex their muscles and intimidate those cowardly countries who don't want to respect human rights.
The UN can't even police themselves, much less areas where there is VIOLENCE happening. I'm sure the liberals would love for us to turn our military over to the UN. They'd like to turn our country over to the UN.
Gus says: Of course, I don't believe that the UN should start a war with the US, but you see what I mean. To the rest of the world (and to me!), torturing, abusing human rights, skirting the Geneva conventions -- these things don't make us the hero, they make us the villain.
*No, we will never be the VILLAN. That position is held firmly by the Islamic fundamentalists and has been for decades....in fact, you could say thousands of years. We are the 'fixit men'. We're going to fix this while all the cowards can wring their hands and talk about what savages WE are. Many of whom will only be alive or able to voice their opinion because of us.
Gus says: I believe that GWB and co., as well as our troops have the best intentions. I believe that Iraq MUST be made democratic and secure.
*Gawd damn. I didn't think we'd agree on anything.
Gus says: But I'm from the states. I'm much easier to convince than you r average world citizen. You know what the world thinks when they see those pictures? They see Spanish Inquisition, Russian Czars, Oppression in Tibet, Nazis.
*Which pictures do you refer to? Masked men with dull knives cutting off innocent people's heads or the pictures of our troops burned alive, drug through the streets and then hung from a bridge for your viewing intertainment? Or are you talking about the pictures of the guy that was just prior trying to kill our troops, with a pair of panties over his head? Or the same guy with a restrained dog barking at him? Or the picture of the troop sharing candy with the young Iraqi boy? Or the picture of the troop with his leg and arm blown off, simply because he was man enough to stand up for defenseless people and say "ENOUGH!"? Which pictures?
Gus says: Cowards, every one. I don't like my country being included in that group.
*If you're referring to the US, you need to get a better understanding of the word 'coward'. You also need to get a better perspective on reality.
Gus says: Which is why I think it's good that soldiers aren't allowed to torture.
*Hmmmmm. Maybe you better talk to our soldiers that were REALLY tortured.
Gus says: And Rummy wants to make it allowed. That's breaking the rules.
*You don't know what you're talking about. You should spend more time supporting your country, than trying to undermine it. Period.
Gus says: Think your employee could take on a 72-year-old?
*I didn't think you were that old, Gus.
NoParty
Andrew said...
Nice little story NoParty.
I just wonder, who are the thugs and who are the innocent in Iraq?
*Let's see...This is a difficult question...Hmmmm...I guess the thugs would be the masked ones cutting heads off on tv with a dull knife. Maybe the ones that recruit children to blow themselves up or the ones intentionally blowing up innocent women and children, and the ones that kill anyone wishing to help their fellow man live in freedom. That would leave the innocent ones being the ones that want to live in freedom and peace and the ones that are giving their lives to help those innocent people to live in freedom and peace.
Andrew says: This is a rich man's war being faught by the poor.
*What kind of 'Evergreen College Bullshit' is that? Do you smoke a lot of pot or spend much time in peace marches?
Andrew says: Just like in our country's revolution from the British, the rich are orchestrating a war, fanning the sparks of pride in our country's lower classes and sending them off to fight in order to maintain the status quo and thereby increase the wealth of the rich.
*Wow. You are one oxygen starved, conspiracy paranoid, little terrorist appeaser.
Andrew says: No, I am not much of a patriot.
*Not very intelligent, either. No offense.
Andrew says: As for censuring your blog, Gus, I will refrain from calling people terrorists no matter how terroristically they speak, and I don't mind being called a weenie. hehe
* hehe? Definitely a weenie.
Andrew says: As for Dave B's comment, it looks like we have a moderate in our midst!
*That must be pretty rare around here.
Had a nice visit, Gus. I'll see ya at RT's.
NoParty
OK, I can see this is going to be an ideological war of attrition with all you long winded combatants, but I will be brief.
Weenie said:"I stand by my assertion that this is a war to benefit the rich."
Thats why you lost the election. Most people can examine the facts without being blinded by their own political propaganda. Can you provide me with some evidence that the profits from Iraqi oil are going into Texas, or are you just talkin out your ass because you like the way it smells. I seem to recall that Iraq oil profits are going into their infrastructure instead of Saddam's swiss bank account for the first time in decades. The Terrorist are targeting the oil pipelines, not to keep money out of Texas, but to keep the Iraqi people from benefiting from the proceeds. Your right when you say its about the oil but its our enemies that are stealing from the Iraqi people not OUR fine president.
Weenie said: "This is a rich man's war being fought by the poor. Just like in our country's revolution from the British, the rich are orchestrating a war, fanning the sparks of pride in our country's lower classes and sending them off to fight in order to maintain the status quo and thereby increase the wealth of the rich."
What are you suggesting, that these fine men that have volunteered to defend your weenie butt are a bunch of idiots for doing so. That some evil republican has brainwashed them into being patriotic when you refuse to be. That another reason you lost. Most Americans are not as hateful and disrespectful to our servicemen as you. They are over there dying to bring freedom and democracy to a society that has been oppressed and you claim they are there to "Maintain the Status quo". Brilliant observation of the facts there dude. Reality must scare you.
Weenie admitted: "No, I am not much of a patriot."
Well here we find something to agree on. But no doubt you enjoy the fruits of freedom that some stupid patriot from the past who had someone fanning the sparks of pride in our country's lower classes and sending them off to fight in order to maintain the freedom you abuse now. What have we done to deserve our freedom?
Gus, if we got to revert to civil war here to allow ourselves to do what its going to take to assure our security in the future, I will take my Wingman over yours any day. If you know what I mean.
Bogey at 11 o'clock, RT. :)
ANDREW SAYS: If anything I think people from my point of view respect members of our military more than people on your side.
*Andrew, Andrew, Andrew....This is way too easy. That comment, if it weren't such a serious subject, would be laughable. What have you done for the troops since the beginning of the war? BESIDES trying to undermine every element of their mission and their leaders?
ANDREW SAYS, "They are over there getting killed and injured for poor reasons and we want that to end! (Posts on your site make me think you too sometimes want it to end.)
*'Poor reasons' to the guy that can't see past his nose. If by now, you still can't see the extreme importance of our mission in Iraq and the rest of the WoT, I honestly don't think there is any hope for a sudden influx of comprehension. RT might like for the war to end alright, but in a different way than you and the rest of your flock.
ANDREW SAYS, "They are brave, they have a tough job and I respect them and their families.
But I don't think what they are doing now is protecting me. This occupation has more to do with imperialism than our safety.
*I refer back to not being able to see past the end of your nose.
ANDREW SAYS, "And yes, our soldiers are volunteers, but very many of them are forced to join out of economic neccesity. Your side likes to talk about the great opportunity in this country, but for the poor and uneducated the opportunities can be very limited. The military looks like an attractive opportunity to someone with few choices.
*You make it sound like you consider our troops as 'unqualified' to do any REAL job. You need to get out and meet some of our troops. Don't expect the type of guys you went to Evergreen with. These are sharp, intelligent, hard working individuals that are a compliment to our country when they visit other countries. Did you know you have to meet certain criteria to get in? They don't just go down to the homeless soup line and recruit. Our troops are made out of something you wouldn't understand. You would never be a troop, nor would they let you.
ANDREW SAYS, "I don't want to be part of any civil war, and I'm not trying to be anyone's Wingman. I admit, I might be a very poor one."
*It's good that you can admit that.
ANDREW THINKS THIS IS A FAMOUS QUOTE FROM A REGGAE MUSICIAN, "Judge not, until you judge yourself"
-Bob Marley
*Well, a least now we know who you look up to for guidance. What's that burning smell?....hmmm. Hey, here's some intelligent quotes by Margaret Thatcher, you may not have heard....The last one is my favorite and applies heavily to you guys.
"...Conservatives have excellent credentials to speak about human rights. By our efforts, and with precious little help from self-styled liberals, we were largely responsible for securing liberty for a substantial share of the world's population and defending it for most of the rest."
"Major international interventions are doomed unless the US is directly or indirectly involved. But if American politicians, officials and servicemen are to be put at risk of arrest and prosecution, the United States will be most reluctant to act in order to curb aggression or prevent genocide. So the effect of the court may well be to diminish, not increase, the numbers of (in the words of the UN Secretary General) 'innocents of distant wars and conflicts'."
My favorite, which HITS YOU GUYS RIGHT ON THE NOSE:
Lady Thatcher warned that America and Britain faced “a pervasive culture of anti-Westernism" that needed to be challenged. "There are too many people who imagine that there is something sophisticated about always believing the best of those who hate your country, and the worst of those who defend it."
NoParty
Wow, I missed a lot on the flight. I'll try to catch up with just one comment.
First off, welcome Dave.
Ok, so, as far as the wingman issue goes, you can have yours Red. I think Andrew made some excellent points about some (not all) of our troops being forced into the sevice due to economic circumstances. And I agree with him on this: The idea that this war is making me or my family safer is laughable.
No, NP, I'm not really one of those folks who believe this is a war for oil. If you want to benefit the oil industry, you keep the flow of oil stable, you don't go around causing international and diplomatic havoc in every oil-exporting country, as this president has done. But it sure looks like it to the international community, as well as the Muslim world. And to win, it's them we have to convince.
Please don't confuse the word "defenseless" with "innocent". I'm not saying anybody in those pictures was innocent. But they were captured, and they were defenseless, and while those dogs were restrained, there is plenty of blood on the ground in that picture to show that they hadn't been restrained for long. As much as they don't deserve it, the human rights of prisoners must also be respected, because "that's the way we operate".
We cannot win this war by being the same as the terrorists.
The beheadings, the horrible murders, the maimings and all else that the terrorists are responsible for make me angry too, NP, and I want them to stop. But I don't let my anger cloud my reason. An eye for an eye will get us nowhere but blind.
And yes, perhaps dropping down to their level will help us to defeat these particular terrorists.
But I'm deathly afraid of the US making the same mistake as the Israelis, who reacted to terrorism with such indiscriminate brutality that instead of stopping terrorism, they prolonged it.
We can't afford to make even one image mistake. We can't afford to look as bad as the terrorists. We can't afford to give the Muslim world any more reasons to justify their hate for us.
Our record must be impeccable.
And while I admit that our troops have served honorably, and made tremendous sacrifices to win this war, when it comes to the Abu Ghraib incident, I cannot say that their behavior has been impeccable.
But I don't believe that's their fault. I believe it's the fault of the leadership who create an atmosphere of rewarding failure.
It's not about what we're doing -- bringing democracy to Iraq is a noble goal, and I hope the president succeeds, not only because it's good to do so, but because he's now created a situation where failure would be disastrous.
It's about how it looks. Red and NP want the US to fight exactly the same as the terrorists. Perhaps they would like to see our military beheading the terrorists and then sending the tapes to Al-Jazeera.
That would show those Muslims, eh?
Those images have not weakened our will, it has made us even more determined, and has convinced us even more of our right-ness.
And it would do exactly the same in the Muslim world. They would become even more convinced that the US is an evil empire sent to destroy their culture.
If we want to win, we have to be credible. In order to be credible, we have to follow the rules that we'll expect the Iraqis to follow as responsible members of the international community.
Do as I say, not as I do, doesn't work with anybody.
Those are all noble ass ideas Gus, though if we follow them we will lose.When the British attacked America in the revolutionary war, and the war of 1812, they lost because they were applying their rules of gentlemanly European warfare here, while we were using guerrilla tactics we had learned in our domestic conflicts with the natives. The British would line up across fields and be slaughtered at the hands of our hit & run tactics because they refused to alter their rules of engagement to reflect our ungentlemanly tactic..please note they lost.
Gus: But I'm deathly afraid of the US making the same mistake as the Israelis, who reacted to terrorism with such indiscriminate brutality that instead of stopping terrorism, they prolonged it..
.
The Israeli / Palestinian conflict has been prolonged for exactly the reasons you support. The Palestinians are allowed to violate Geneva Conventions but the Israelis are held to a higher standard. If Israel were to be as indiscriminately brutal as the Arabs, that conflict would be over. But we demand that as a civilized society they take unnecessary casualties to appease our sense of right or wrong.
Now you and your kind are imposing those same rules on America in the Middle East that will keep us from winning, then you set back and bitch about the conflict being prolonged.
Look, imagine you are out somewhere and a guy walks up from behind you and knocks the shit out of you, and you respond by meekly pushing him because you dont want to increase his anger towards you. But them he pulls out a knife and stabs you, and you have a gun in your pocket but you dont allow yourself to use it because you dont want to break any laws, so you meekly push him again, then he takes your gun away from you and shoots you dead. You might not have ever broke any rules, but you are dead because he refused to play by the same rules that were restraining you.
Thats exactly the burden we bestow upon ourselves in the war on terrorism. They indiscriminately attack us, then blend back into the crowd. We know one of those guys in the crowd is the attacker, but we cant tell which one. So we apply our rules to his world and let the entire crowd go because all but one of them is innocent and we cant tell which one. Then he repeats the same tactics tomorrow and we again apply our civilized rules and let him go. He can repeat this indefinitely and WE will incur repeated losses because we are bound by our rules, or we can play by his rules and mow down that whole first crowd to assure we got him.
It may be wrong but I choose the method that keeps more of MY people alive, and prefer to live with the quilt of my actions than die righteous.
Now expand that logic to encompass the entire War on Terror. The Islamic World has learned that they can indiscriminately attack us and we wont respond in kind, so there is no incentive for them to alter their tactics because they are working. When the WTC fell the innocent ones were dancing in the streets in celebration of their brethren's successful act. And we respond like we would if we had been attacked by a large standing Army under the command of a political leader, by massing armor and equipment for a land campaign, will telegraphing our next move. Well those strategies might work against a Uniformed European Army that was prepared to fight us with the same rules of engagement, but they are totally worthless strategies against attackers that plan to blend back into the populace they know we wont attack.
Your whole argument, and our nations current plan, guarantee defeat if we are not willing to alter our rules of engagement to match our enemies. They may make us feel better about ourselves but following our rules plays right into our enemy's strategy....he is counting on it.
I think we should adopt his strategies and tactics and use them against him. I am talking about removing all our troops and just spend the next 20 years giving them a dose of what its like being on the receiving end of indiscriminate bombing. We see a gathering at an Islamic Market...we bomb it from the air. We see a large crowd in Mecca...we cluster bomb it. We see a Suspected underground bunker with gas-centrifuges in it, we bunker bust it. We hear of a Cleric spouting Anti-American Hatred we drop a fuel-air explosive on his Mosque during Friday prayers.
We do this for 20 years, and I bet they start to re-think the wisdom of their strategies.
Now I know thats sounds like Terrorist talk to Andrew, but its really just sound tactics if you dont want to lose. If y'all are determined to piss on a raging uncivilized fire with our current civilized rules, dont be surprised if your civilized D**K gets burned.
Bogey Splashed, returning to base.
'knay mate.
NoParty
We do this for 20 years, and I bet they start to re-think the wisdom of their strategies.I bet they don't. We do this for 20 years, and we've got a terrorist war of attrition on our hands for centuries.
Red, I think we ought to kill people like that guy in your example who knock me over the head. Problem is, there's a group of folks standing on the sidelines that will either help him or us. We've told them that we are innocent victims in this thing, and that we didn't deserve this beating. But when we finish killing him, and turn that gun in our pocket on the crowd, our innocent victim line becomes difficult to believe, don't it?
Ok,Gus....
GUS SAYS, "The idea that this war is making me or my family safer is laughable."
*For someone that sees the world through a straw, I would expect a statement like that. Because you haven't PERSONALY been affected by terrorism, you, like the ostrich with it's head in the sand, feel that there is no problem.
GUS SAYS, "No, NP, I'm not really one of those folks who believe this is a war for oil."
*Ok, I guess it was Andrew that was spewing the " It's all about the Oil...Haliburton....Bush profiting....and all that other proven unaccurate propaganda that has become the buzz words for liberals that can't find the truth if was in their watch pocket and don't want to deal with the truth when they do find it. I'll trust that YOU don't harbor those same idiotic beliefs.
GUS SAYS, "But it sure looks like it to the international community, as well as the Muslim world. And to win, it's them we have to convince."
*And why do they think that way? Because the media, which works against the US, tells them that and their leaders that want to stay in control tell them that. If they put more faith in 'liberal undermining Americans',the media, and their criminal leaders, we're probably just going to have to kill them. Sorry, but it's not our fault, pal.
GUS SAYS, "....while those dogs were restrained, there is plenty of blood on the ground in that picture to show that they hadn't been restrained for long."
*You are jumping to conclusions. There was never any accusations of turning a vicious dog loose on a prisoner. No prisoner has been used for a dog biscut. I think a vicious dog threatening a prisoner is funny..not criminal. When he shit's his pants, it becomes even funnier. Maybe when he gets out, IF he does, he won't want to do ANYTHING to have to be put in a prison again. If you think using an intimidating dog is criminal, I'm afraid you'll need to arrest every K-9 unit in every police force in America.
GUS SAYS, "We cannot win this war by being the same as the terrorists."
*And on the same note, we cannot win this war using standard practices designed for standard warfare. So, GUS, should we just start waving our white flag now?
GUS SAYS, "The beheadings, the horrible murders, the maimings and all else that the terrorists are responsible for make me angry too, NP, and I want them to stop."
*But you have no tactics that will stop it. You do have plenty of time to undermine the folks that are doing something to stop it. You can't have it both ways.
GUS SAYS, "But I don't let my anger cloud my reason."
*Neither do I. I don't spend time being a part of the problem. I'm a problem SOLVER.
GUS SAYS, "An eye for an eye will get us nowhere but blind."
*The way you deal with things, maybe. A winner has the philosophy that it's more like, 'An eye for your life'. I may get a sore eye, or worse yet, lose that eye, but the other guy is dead.
GUS SAYS, "And yes, perhaps dropping down to their level will help us to defeat these particular terrorists."
*It's NEVER "dropping down to their level" once you have been attacked. It becomes 'doing whatever it takes to save troops and destroy the enemy as efficiently as possible'. The messier the better. I want any potential future terrorists to have such a guesome picture in their minds that they will take up basket weaving over fighting.
GUS SAYS, "But I'm deathly afraid of the US making the same mistake as the Israelis, who reacted to terrorism with such indiscriminate brutality that instead of stopping terrorism, they prolonged it."
*Way off target again, Gus. If the Israelis had done it my way, there would be no terrorism in Israel. It's the 'limp wrists' that have kept terrorism alive and well for the Israelis.
GUS SAYS, "We can't afford to make even one image mistake. We can't afford to look as bad as the terrorists. We can't afford to give the Muslim world any more reasons to justify their hate for us."
*Gus, they have been bred to hate us. Who gives a fuk if we piss some of them off. The media, liberals, appeasing countries, and the Islamic leaders are going to make sure they hate us NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. If they want to be free, they can be. If they want to die, we can assist them with that, too.
GUS SAYS, "Our record must be impeccable."
*And it is.
GUS SAYS, "when it comes to the Abu Ghraib incident, I cannot say that their behavior has been impeccable."
*And so how long are you going to beat that dead horse? It would sure piss me off if I knew I got shot dead on the battlefield when I could have wore panties over my head, been humiliated, and barked at by a dog, and maybe even had my titty twisted, before being released to go home alive.
GUS SAYS, "But I don't believe that's their fault. I believe it's the fault of the leadership who create an atmosphere of rewarding failure."
*Yeah, it's Rumsfield's fault..oh yeah, and George Bush's too. Hell, they should have slapped those guy's hands and sent them back to continue with what they were doing....Discouraging some inbreds not to take up radical Islamic causes.
GUS SAYS, "It's not about what we're doing -- bringing democracy to Iraq is a noble goal, and I hope the president succeeds, not only because it's good to do so, but because he's now created a situation where failure would be disastrous."
*Way off base, again, Gus. For Bush to not have done this, would have been 'disasterous'. By now, I don't expect you to understand this. You will never understand this, but you will live among the benefits of it.
GUS SAYS, "It's about how it looks. Red and NP want the US to fight exactly the same as the terrorists. Perhaps they would like to see our military beheading the terrorists and then sending the tapes to Al-Jazeera."
*Way off base, again. I'm not for hiding behind a mask and performing a dull knife beheading for the 9:00 news, a week after airing heart wrenching pleas for mercy, so some kid can see his INNOCENT father dying a horrific death in Technicolor. I'm for squashing the enemy and being as messy as possible about it. I want all those anti-American reporters right on the scene, too. Use them to OUR advantage for once. Reporter, "OH, MY GOD! THE HUMANITY! LOOK WHAT THE COALITION HAS DONE TO THE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS! I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING SO HORRIBLE! (vomiting)" :)
GUS SAYS, "Those images have not weakened our will, it has made us even more determined, and has convinced us even more of our right-ness."
*You say that, but you spend all of your time trying to make us look like WE'RE in the wrong. Hmmmmmm.
GUS SAYS, "And it would do exactly the same in the Muslim world. They would become even more convinced that the US is an evil empire sent to destroy their culture."
*Why are you so concerned about further convincing the Muslim world of something they are already irreversably convinced of? The ones that are intelligent enough and haven't been permanently brainwashed, know that we are good people. 'Don't mistake our kindness as a sign of weakness.'
GUS SAYS, "If we want to win, we have to be credible."
*We don't have any problem with credibility. George Bush re-established our credibility to the world. It was tough after guys like BC destroyed it. GW pretty much does what he says he's going to do. However, it's not what we say that will eliminate terrorism or win this war, it's the damage we do to Islamic fundamentalists that will win this war.
GUS SAYS, "In order to be credible, we have to follow the rules that we'll expect the Iraqis to follow as responsible members of the international community."
*Gus, we are one of the few credible countries left. If they follow in our footsteps, they'll be fine. It sure would be nice if they didn't have folks like our liberals and our media, to try to fuk up anything positive that they do.
GUS SAYS, "Do as I say, not as I do, doesn't work with anybody."
*I know some guys that participated in the 'SCARED STRAIGHT' program that would beg to differ with you.
NoParty
(sorry, forgot to sign it)
Don't worry about signing NP. I can tell your nonsense anywhere.
Try living abroad or maybe just stepping outside of your little box for a while.
Then you'll see how much brutality convinces folks.
Not one lick.
"Way off base," np. Way off.
NoParty swoopin' in for an easy kill.
****Gustav said...
Don't worry about signing NP. I can tell your nonsense anywhere.****
Nonsense? Ok.
****Try living abroad or maybe just stepping outside of your little box for a while.****
It's the people that live outside my box that seem to be extremely jealous.
****Then you'll see how much brutality convinces folks.****
You see? This is an easy one. We're not the initial brutality. We are the responders. Their brutality doesn't do ANYTHING, but piss us off. That is not good for their health.
****Not one lick.****
Oh, come on. Can a fella get just one?
****"Way off base," np. Way off.****
I think I'm right on target. Right on.
zzzzzzzzzz. Sorry, gotta go.
Post a Comment
< Main