Just to clarify one statement above, what’s anathma to many Americans is any religion in government, not just Islam. No slight was intended to the Muslems of the world.
Perspective please. Aside from mere scope, it is humiliating to be sure, even for a former torturer, to be paraded around naked and forced into sexual positions. But it is a far cry from poisoning whole villages with women and children, institutionalizing statutory rape, and putting people through paper shreaders feet first.
Cite for the existence of the shredders, please. So far the paucity of evidence for their existence makes me inclined to think that they are an urban legend on par with Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators from Gulf War I.
If you need a site for that one, you’re not paying attention.
So you do have one then?
When I first read you post I was struck by how differently you saw my apology, and I thought there must be some cultural disconnect going on. That’s when I noticed that you were from the Washington, D.C. area where apologies are loaded with currents of meaning that are found nowhere else. Perhaps that’s it.
Let me make it clear that I was speaking for myself, and no one else. Nowhere do you see me say “**we ** are sorry”; it’s always “**I ** am sorry”.
Saying that you are sorry is not an admission of culpability, at least not outside of Washington. I hope even those inside the beltway can see the difference between “I’m sorry I killed your mother” and “I’m sorry for your terrible loss.”
Out here in the heartland we have a tradition of saying “I’m sorry” to anyone who has suffered a tragedy. This is often accompanied with a casserole if the tragedy involves the death of a loved one. I’m not sure why we bake casseroles - it’s not as though the bereaved are especially hungry at this time in their lives - it’s just a thing we do.
Perhaps we of the SDMB should all send casseroles to Iraq. Yeah, I know it’s a lousy idea. The casseroles wouldn’t ship well, and God knows how the Irqis would interpret the gesture. Still, the idea makes *me * feel a little better.
Gotcha, bnorton. I certainly don’t want to be unfriendly about it. But I don’t see as you have anything to feel sorry about.
If you want to express sympathy, that’s one thing. But apologizing is another. And you used the word “apology” in your OP.
I agree with Finagle, a call for an official apology would be more in order. Coming from the government and all, it would have more of a sense of speaking for us all, something a bunch of individual apologies cannot do.
I am a supporter of the war in Iraq, and I see this boneheaded move by some of our soldiers as being extremely damaging to our work there. Throwing them all into Leavenworth for a good long time would be a great way to restore credibility in Iraq. I hope we do it as quickly as the court-martial process allows.
From dictionary.com:
To me an apology is more “expressing regret” than “asking pardon”, but I can see how others might take the word.
Would the UN need the level of troops that we currently have deployed? I get the feeling if there was a legitimate international force, the people would be fighting as much, hence less troops are required. Just a thought.
I think it’s important to determine who exactly people are pissed at, America or Bush? Bush has made people look bad, he has alienated other countries, and I’m sure people have grudges against him. Who knows, voting him out may be the exact message we need to send to let the world know we don’t approve of what he’s doing either. Bush is a liability, people don’t like him, people don’t want to help him fix the situation because that will make him look good. Frankly I don’t blame them, with his my way or the highway approach and all.
Neither Kerry or Bush have a plan with any substance, but at least most of the world doesn’t hate Kerry. We need the help of these people, we probably won’t get it with Bush in office.
You’re right, this is a totally fucking stupid story, and has nothing to do with the situation in Iraq .
It’s not about quitting, it’s about being completely out of touch with the situation. He thought we would be welcome with open arms, which is something I could have told you wasn’t going to happen long before we went in. He really believed this though, which to me makes him naive at best, and nuts at worst.
And more often then not it isn’t. Besides we don’t even know what we’re slogging (stupid fucking word btw) ahead to. Perhaps you can explain that one to me.
No it’s not that tough to get people to agree. We attack Afghanistan, the country that harbored the guy who perpetrated 9/11
I don’t know anyone who was against that.
Strawman, and a pathetic one at that.
Good, because he didn’t.
Please explain in clear detail, what exactly made Iraq A THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES?
Keep these two things in mind before you answer.
a) he has no WMD
b) he has no connection with AQ
Lastly don’t tell me we didn’t know A&B were true until after we went in. MANY of us opposed to the war were not convinced of terror links or wmd in the first place.
Sweet, so when are we liberating those millions in North Korea?. I bet they can’t wait to eat something other then dirt and to be freed from the work camps over there.
What if after June 30th, the Iraqis tell us to get out now, just go. Would you support their wishes?
Some of us opted for a course on this war on terror that wouldn’t have put us in this situation. As you failed to listen to reason then, you fail to listen to it now.
Mhendo made a great point, why should we expect the shortsighted narrow minded pinheads who got us into this to get us out of it?
They’ve made mistake after mistake, but if we wait long enough things will be fixed? No, we need a new course, their mistakes are only compounding things.
Again, just because you don’t like it, and just because you don’t think it will happen, doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t be the appropriate solution. Simply dismissing argument after argument on the grounds that “what is, is right” does not make for a very stimulating discussion of other options.
Actually, the makeup of UN peacekeeping forces shows precisely that many other countries in the world are willing to place their troops under UN jurisdiction for substantial periods of time. Your assertion that every other country would act the same way as America is nothing more than that–an assertion.
Now you’re just being disingenuous, and completely misrepresenting my position.
I said that i chose to study US history because, for better or worse, the United States is basically the most important country in the world in many ways. Simple US involvement is currently a “MAJOR escalation” not just because the US becomes involved, but because it so often chooses to involve itself unilaterally or in cooperation with only a few other nations.
If the United States made a habit of fulfilling its obligations under international treaties (like the one it signed with the UN), and if it habitually sent troops to places in order not just to bomb but to help with peacekeeping efforts, and if it showed itself willing to do this under the auspices of an international body like the UN, then US participation in such actions would not be viewed by the world with the same jaundiced eye that it is now, when it often appears simply as the biggest bully on the block.
As for a US majority, you seem completely oblivious to the fact that many people throughout the world have more of a problem with the US government and the US command than they do with American soldiers. If the US government were not calling the shots, and American soldiers were standing side-by-side with other international troops and taking orders from a UN command, this would go a long way to placating many critics of current policy, even if US troops still constituted a majority.
I certainly believe that you’re right that Bush is going to keep slogging. The problem with your analogy is that you could at least see the other side when you started slogging. Bush barely seems to even have any idea that he’s stuck in the mud, let alone having a solution for getting out of it. He told us over a year ago that it was a case of “mission accomplished” in Iraq, yet right now he still seems unable to see the other side.
A philosophy that “the ends justify the means” is a rather slippery slope to put yourself on, is it not? As many have pointed out over the last year, does this not now oblige the United States to invade and overthrow every dictatorial regime in the world, including the ones that it has been turning a blind eye to, or propping up? Saddam Hussein is far from the only bad guy out there.
You also conveniently ignore that the reasons given for going into Iraq have, for the most part, been either completely or mostly discredited. It’s amazing how unconcerned you seem to be that you were lied to by your own government about the reasons for invasion.
Show me where i ever claimed this? But the fact remains that many Iraqis who are not involved in the fighting are becoming increasingly disturbed at the overbearing and even draconian tactics being used by the Amnericans who are in control of their country.
A marketing department? You already have one of those for Iraq–it’s called the US government. The problem is that you can only tell the Iraqis that you have their best interests at heart for so long before they will start expecting actual results rather than empty platitudes.
I never claimed that it would take less than a year to rebuild Iraq. I was hoping, however, that the US wouldn’t fuck up so badly that, a year later, the rebuilding has barely even begun and more US soldiers and Iraqis are dying now than during the actual conflict. That’s a pretty impressive level of “improvement.”
I just wanted to underscore this point, because it’s one that i wanted to make, but forgot about when writing my previous post.
So many of the arguments against a UN force tend to assume that the situation in Iraq will be exactly the same with the UN in charge. But those supporting UN involvement are making precisely the point that World Eater makes here: that a UN force might well encounter less hostility among Iraqis, and also among the Arab states that are growing increasingly concerned about US tactics in Iraq.
Sure, there are militant fanatics who will fight no matter who is there, but the US handling of the situation is making it easier for those militants to garner more supporters. An international force supported by the UN would undermine some of the militants’ arguments, and make them less persuasive to the Iraqi people, most of whom just want to get on with life in a peaceful and safe environment.
It sure is a thought. You certainly haven’t offered any reasoning behind the thought, or evidence that this may be the case, but it sure is a thought. So is this: You’re a pathetic goat felcher who has nothing better to do than follow me around this message board posting utter tripe. Why don’t you run along and let me talk to mhendo, a poster who, unlike you, is capable of intelegent thought and reasonable discussion, even when he dosen’t agree with his opponent’s position. Just a thought.
For Americans there is a huge difference between America and the President, for the rest of the world, particularly in third world countries, not so much. You’re projecting how you see the world onto other countries, the same kind of Ameri-centric view that the White House displays.
When you get to Junior High School, you’ll learn about the concept of analogies. Try to pay attention in class that day, you might be amazed at what you learn.
Yea, except that we pretty much were, in many parts of the country. Imagine that, people were glad to be free of a brutal dictator!
slog ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slg)
v. slogged, slog·ging, slogs
v. intr.
To walk or progress with a slow heavy pace; plod: slog across the swamp; slogged through both volumes.
To work diligently for long hours: slogged away at Latin.
v. tr.
To make (one’s way) with a slow heavy pace against resistance.
To strike with heavy blows.
n.
A long exhausting march or hike: a slog through miles of jungle.
A long session of hard work: an 18-hour slog in the hay fields.
Christ, you’re not even smart enough to use a dictionary, and yet you expect us all to “explain it to you”? Look it up yourself next time.
Not particularly, because I didn’t attempt to marry it to another point of view. It was a stated fact, standing on it’s own, nothing more.
Good fucking Jesus, you are denser than neutronium. Talk about Straw men, I say “Iraq was a terrorist state” and you scream “There were no WMD’s! Iraq didn’t threaten us!” When I mention either of those things, please feel free to bring them up. Until then stuff them back up your ass so they can keep your brain company.
I’d like nothing better. Unfortunately, the presence of nuclear arms changes the entire situation. If N. Korea had no nukes or other WMD, I’d be all for an Iraq type solution to Kim and his lunatics. See, I have the ability to look at different situations and say “this is the case <i>here</i>, but the situation <i>over here</i> is different, and thus may require a different response”. You might want to try it some time, it’s called judgement. Most adults have some.
Absofuckinglutely! As long as it was “The Iraqis” telling us that in a formal, verified setting, and not simply some warlord running off at the mouth, much like you.
As soon as I see any “reason”, I’ll listen to it. Mhendo’s posts are generally full of reason, and I respond apropriately. Yours are the diarrheaic diatribes devoid of any wisdom, sense or knowledge, and so they get treated with the distain they deserve. Post something that makes sense and I’ll be happy to talk.
Oh, you’re absolutely right, many countries have placed their troops unter UN command for many long periods of time. I have no problem with that, even if they were American troops. And you’re avoiding the actual question I asked. If the troops of one country comprised a substantial majority of an international peacekeeping force, would you or would you not expect that country to want one of their guys in charge?
I think that we could probobly go 'round and 'round on this one all day. I am not disputing your assertation that the US coulkd have sent more troops to more places previously, unfortunately that dosen’t change where we are now. Likewise, placing a hundred thousand American troops under command of an Indian (or whoever) General just ain’t gonna happen, so is there any point in belaboring the point further?
Actually, I would say it does, in the broad sense. Not the ends justyfying the means, but by refusing to allow nations to support terror on one hand and hide behind the UN on the other, it eliminates a lot of the assumptions that terrorists operate from. If we are going to fight and win the war on terror, it had to be all terrorists, period. The one positive to come out of Iraq is that the US has demonstrated a willingness to come after states it lables terrorist if it dees it necessary. This makes it much less likely to be necessary in the future, because it gives the war on terror credibility. Iran, Lybia, Syria, even N Korea have all been a lot more willing to disarm or to seriously talk with the US since we attacked Iraq. I wonder why?
Not in this thread, but I have certainly expressed my displeasure and disgust with Bush’s lies about WMD before. (or were they?Biased source, I know, but you gotta look on all sides of things to find a middle truth)
I think we both agree that more should have been done in the past year, and more needs to be done now, as in very, very soon, or this entire thing could spin out of control.
Of course you don’t respond to the point, typical.
Do you feel that a legitimate international force would draw less ire from the population? My reasoning? People hate the Americans, it’s possible we’re better off with someone else in there.
Follow you around? Get over yourself, we obviously disagree a lot, so we clash alot. I don’t follow you around any more then I follow around a thousand other posters.
I suppose calling someone a pathetic goat felcher is reasonable and intelegant 
No, what I’m trying to determine is if Bush is voted out, would bringing in someone who did not create this situation automatically be a step forward? If they hate Bush, yes, if they hate America, then no.
I’m also willing to say the guy may very well be 3 steps back in other areas, this is besides the point. I’m trying to determine the the individual benefits of each possibility before I add them up.
It was a stupid analogy. Walking though some mud to get to the other side has nothing to do with Iraq which consists of a lot more then vague concepts of “staying the course”.
Thrilled with SH out, not thrilled with being occupied by America. Some of the Iraqis may be tolerant of our presence, and if we were ever seen as liberators, I doubt they feel that way anymore.
Man are you comprehensively impaired or what?
I asked you “slogging towards what”?, aka what are the desired end results of the war?
You said
“There are a lot of people who wouldn’t have supported an attack on Iraq absent of videotape showing Saddam juggling 2 canisters of anthrax and a backpack nuke,”
This is a fact?
You’re grasping at straws here, in fact, fuck that, you’re not making any sense.
Let’s try this again.
You – Iraq is a terrorist state!
Me - What makes them a danger us? They don’t have WMD or AQ connections, so are you essentially saying SH is an imminent threat to us because he is an asshole with rape rooms and bad intentions.?
I hear this constantly bandied about, and it makes no sense. Bush & Co. keep insisting he was a threat to the world, and the US. Without weapons to strike us, or allies to attack us, I find it silly that his “bad intentions” constituted a threat.
Oh ouch you got me, I have no judgment, time to fling myself off the cliff. :rolleyes:
Here’s some judgment, how about going after Libya or Iran, who fit more of the criteria we used for invasion then Iraq. At least they have a aluminum tube or two.
Well then Houston you have a problem. Condi Rice recently stated that the US would overrule the Iraqis and let troops stay at least for a little longer. She made it with a “they don’t know what they’re doing" sort of implication.
Oh the fucking irony.
Don’t forget about us funboy.
OK, then I’ll admin I haven’t been paying attention.
So where’s that cite? Thanks!
It seems that the jury is still well and truly out on the issue of Saddam’s human shredders.
This article** in the UK magazine The Spectator (hardly a raving leftist journal), by Brendan O’Neill, traces the origins of the allegation, and outlines some of the attempts to substantiate it. Even if the story does turn out to be true, it appears clear that many of the world’s media outlets (and politicians) have uncritically reported the story without bothering to do very much in the way of fact checking.
O’Neill concludes:
As O’Neill also says:
This is true. And if the shredder story did turn out to be true, i don’t think i or many other people would be very surprised. But the evidence marshalled so far is not especially compelling.
** The Spectator requires free registration. If you want to read a copy of the article without registering, go here.