I’d hardly call an accusation put forth by a single man during his speech to the ACLU concrete evidence. My guess is that ole Seymour is so desperate for another My Lai type atrocity to report, he’s relaying rumors and exagerations he’s heard on the street in Iraq. It’s going to take more than a solitary soul without any hard evidence merely claiming it’s true for me believe the government is supressing tapes of US soldiers sodomizing young boys. But as horrible as it would be if it were true, it’s still irrelevant to what I was getting at.
Badmana was comparing the tactics used by insurgents with the tactics used by the U.S. The insurgents are murdering hostages to achieve their aims, but the U.S. does not include rape as a strategy. Some soldiers may, and do, commit crimes, but it is the worst type of inflamatory rhetoric to say that rape is an accepted part of our battle plan. That just ain’t so.
I understand that the issue for the Philippines wasn’t really the death of one of their citizens, but the risks for a lot of others, since there are a large number of expatriate Filipinos living in the middle-east (and as a result a lot of people/electors, having a relative of friend in the region feel concerned about the issue).
Another thing to consider is that the Filipinos don’t need to leave their country to fight extremist terrorists. They’ve got plenty to look after within their own borders.
I don’t like backing down to terrorists either, but in this case, they’ve got plenty of fight to handle at home.
Sorry, I guess I should have called it simply sexual assault. And sure as hell US soldiers, with or without orders are commiting sexual assault to the citizens of Iraq. Sure, having a female soldier sitting on a bunch of naked guys (taking pictures) might not be a big deal, but it’s sure as hell pissing off plenty of people.
I am more unforgiving to all these governments for not listening to their people in the first place. I guess that now the Phillipines will join us, along with Spain, Uruguay and others, in the list of ‘cowards’ and ‘quitters’ for doing exactly what Their People had been wanting since day one. The Coallition of the Willing is looking *less * willing by the second.
If we kill violent terrorists to get them to back down, yes, we’re in the right. As far as raping terrorists, I don’t see how that would be a good deterrent.
Big “IF” there, pal. Care to guess how may ‘terrorist’ were actually in the aproximately 12,000 civilians killed so far? BTW, this “right” you speak of, is it divine? 'cause I can’t seem to recall anyone else “giving” it to you.
I’d also be curious to know if Iraqis that oppose your continuing presence there would, in your opinion, count as “potential terrorists.” Because if they do, for the sake of consistency with this whole “pre-emptive war” business, you’re going to have to wipe out at roughly 80% of the Iraqi population.
Of course, as you can see here, they have no reason to be upset. Ungrateul bastards every last one of them.
I just think it might have been a poor long-term choice on Manila’s part. I don’t have much faith that terrorism will ever become completely a thing of the past, and I have only slightly more faith that al-Queda and its various offshoots, copycats, and general saplings will be rooted out in the next ten years or so. Hopefully Manila will have no other reason in the next ten years to get involved, or the people of its nations will suffer abounding terrorist action.
It’s like the little kid in the store who tugs at his mother’s sleeve because he wants something. If she finally gives in, he’ll keep doing it. If she says “No, and not even for your birthday if you keep asking” often enough, he’ll eventually stop.
In all fairness, I didn’t expect things to be running smoothly at this point. In fact, I pretty much expected that what we have right now was going to be almost the best we could hope for with as little planning and forethought as was put into this campaign. Getting our troops into Baghdad? If it had taken a year I’d have been surprised. Having electricity running to every place in the nation it had been, with roads and airplanes working, with schools open? If we’d gone into the situation with that in mind, they’d be better off than they are now, I’m not disputing that.
But anyone who believed that a decent standard of living was going to begin with the first moment the old government was overthrown is not only a poor student of history, they are a fool.
Well, let’s see, out of all the shifting excuses, you’re basically down to one: the humanitarian intervention bit. And on that score, you’re failing miserably. Whether you think the delays and multiple muck-ups are “reasonable” is rather inmaterial. Or do you forget that this invasion was sold not to your average Doper, but to everyman on the street – whether that man was in the US or Iraq. Hardly a “fool” in either case, but by the same token, hardly expected to be a student of history either. See, most of the ones that were, predicted pretty much the same thing you just wrote – including Bush pere himself in his memoirs as to why he never went into Baghdad. Not like the Noecons cared to listen = voila! current clusterfruck
BTW, have you forgotten the most rousing of cheers? The whole “they’ll greet us with flowers” routine? It does seem so last year, doesn’t it? I’ll also point out the obvious, namely that no one asked you to go there in the first place. So if you’ve failed to meet the expectations raised, you have no one to blame but yourselves – both for creating said expectations and for failing to live up to them.
I assume that he was referring to rape with objects of a few imprisoned Iraqis by American soldiers. I believe that either British or American soldiers also forced a detainee to insert his own finger into to his anus and then lick it. Not exactly the more traditional and muck wider spread rapine by Serbs and Muslims in the Yugoslavian conflicts.
As far as the pull out, who can blame them? The populace doesn’t want it and the US lied through its teeth to get them to join. As far as caving to “terrorists”, we’ve done the same with Iran Hostage, Falujah, Sadr, Abu Sayaf, etc. I believe the Filipino have “negotiated” with Abu Sayaf before too.
I have to ask about this. Thanks,** Love**, for bringing it up.
What if the Phillipines were planning a withdrawl anyway? They were, weren’t they?
Am I to understand that, if terrorists attack, you must* stop * doing what you planned to do? Is that what we’re saying here? Wouldn’t *that * also be a capitulation? Wouldn’t that be allowing someone else to dictate what you do?
Have there been any statements from Rumsfeld about this? Because if he’s critical of the Phillipines, I’d love to hear his explanation of why we pulled out of Falluja and don’t seem inclined to go back in and take out the terrorist training camps.
I think the Philippines did the right thing. It’s not their war and they were brought in under false pretenses (weapons of mass destruction, Saddam=Al Qaeda, etc). I applaud the Philippine government for doing what its citizens wanted. Especially since they were leaving anyway, no sense getting someone killed so you can leave on time.
I wish we (the US) could leave so quickly, but I think we have to stay for the long haul.
What is wrong with negotiations and diplomacy? What makes the terrorists less capable of negotiating than say a brutal and imperialist force? I would negotiate with a terrorist to avoid bloodshed. Why not? Does the fact that they fight for political ideas with weapons like millions of other people make me less likely to cooperate with them? Isn’t it better to form agreements and understandings than turn places into bloodbaths?
Plus I think the Filipinos will be glad to be home, considering most of them did not support this war.
In the abstract, giving in to extortionate demands is a bad thing because it validates extortion and terrorism, contributing to the perpetuation of the problem.
I wouldn’t be too critical of the Philippine government in this instance, because of the intense domestic pressure they were under. Still…
Terrorists don’t engage in negotiations and diplomacy. Negotiators and diplomats go in for that stuff. Agree to their terms doesn’t further international diplomacy – it furthers terrorism.
I wish there was a way for Arroyo to keep the Philippino people happy without appearing to accede to the demands of murdering bastards. I don’t envy the position she was put in.
This isn’t a little kid we’re talking about here though. This is a organised terrorist group who do believe if they do continue to behead they will eventually get what they want. They have true patience. Hell they planned and waited about 6 years to commit 9/11.
Backing down and capitulating will not stop them and will encourage them, but I do not believe that standing up to them will neccassrily make the situation better or force or persuade Al Queda and Islamic Extremists/insurgents to give up either. It seems like a damned if you do and damned if you dont type situation.