US Torture Scandal

[KrustyKidd]

Try to make this quick OIC. You have some good points that have been covered elsewhere I think.

As for the UN;

And if we all do not know the solution, or preventative measures (dare I say it), then should we not wonder whether the power of states such as the U.S. may be out of control?

Each Nation in the UN is not equal. They have a voice but all do not adhere to the same standards of human rights or of the measure of progress. As well, many have nothing to offer but rather stand in the way. A system to equalize voting power with a given standard of rights to have power would be in order.

Once legitimized, the UN would then hold a real perspective on what is and what is not good for the world rather than being a pulpit to simply voice anti Israel and US concerns. At this point the US may actually consider placing a fair amount of it's troops under UN control.

On the comment above about preventative measures: the problem with change is the illusion of progress.

Only time will tell. You want to know that some believe that things will not change. If they do, the hard lines they have drawn will crumble. I think that things will change rather quickly for the good. Blowback I think is how so many from the Left like to say. The world has changed over the past couple years. Before the US would simply have assasinated Saddam and installed a new, more friendlier leader - until the next crisis.

[caesar]

so, instead, they killed a whole bunch of innocent Iraq civillians; and maimed and torture others.

The UN has been hampered to a great degree by the permanent 5 and their misuse of their veto. The biggest problem being the vetoes from the USA protecting the present Israeli government from taking responsibilities for its over aggression and human rights violations.

Most nations have signed onto these human rights and world laws; unfortunately, the USA under Bush does not think these laws should apply to him or the USA.

Reuters; Former Officials to criticize Bush foreign policy. Read this article. Former Reagan diplomats and military appointees are asking the Americans to vote out Bush. This is a mix or Democrats and REPUBLICANS.

[o.i.c]

Vetoed UN resolutions started before the Bush era. There are logs of the outcome for each resolution addressed in the UN Security Council:

http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/scact.htm

[Black Dog]

I take it to mean that during war things are not supposed to be any worse than they are during peace, kind of like going in for an operation and the doctor never having to make an incision.

No. During war there are certain standards of conduct that are to be observed, standards that, in this case, were agreed upon by the U.S. military and subsequently (and systematically) violated by using what the Red Cross called "practices tantamount to torture".

Now, you may be willing to whitewash all the sins away by saying "bad things happen in war", but the fact is these occurances were beyond the standard of acceptable combat in war time.

You may wish to justift it further by shiftying attention elsewhere, but the fact remains: these violations were given the green light by senior officials and were part of a systematic campaign of abuse that stretched from Afghanistan, to Iraq and to Cuba.

This is by no means permissable, no means acceptable however, given the whole operation and actions that the US is taking to investigate it, bring democracy to Iraq is only a blip on the screen. Anybody that sees anything more sinister than ineffectual military supervision, a poor policy for POWs and some idiotic individuals working in those prisons is merely looking for an excuse to bash the US.

So, you can take a look at the evidence of high-level knowledge of the torture, from Rumsfeld to Ashcroft and possibly to Bush, the fact techniques used in Iraq are being used in Afghanistan and Gitmo and still swallow the tripe about "a few bad apples" and regurgitate it without batting an eye? Incredible.

I don't know how you do it.

And it just keeps coming.

Take a look at the memo posted by o.i.c. above.

Or read the article from the WSJ.

Pentagon Report Set Framework For Use of Torture

Bush administration lawyers contended last year that the president wasn't bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents who might torture prisoners at his direction couldn't be prosecuted by the Justice Department.

The advice was part of a classified report on interrogation methods prepared for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after commanders at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, complained in late 2002 that with conventional methods they weren't getting enough information from prisoners

A military lawyer who helped prepare the report said that political appointees heading the working group sought to assign the president virtually unlimited authority on matters of torture - to assert "presidential power at its absolute apex," the lawyer said.

Citing confidential Justice Department opinions drafted after Sept. 11, 2001, the report advised that the executive branch of the government had "sweeping" powers to act as it sees fit because "national security decisions require the unity of purpose and energy in action that characterize the presidency rather than Congress"

To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

This is seriously scary stuff. It seems the Bushites are trying to set up a kind of a authoritarian State with power emanating from the leader at the top and unencumbered by checks from other branches of government or, the people.

But folks like KK won't (or can't) see the rot that is infecting the American republic. To them, the word of the U.S. government is on par with the word of God: America's motives are unquestionably pure (save for a few "mistakes"), any deviance from the orthodoxy is "anti-Americanism".

[KrustyKidd]

From the article you provided the link for I extracted a few things. Some of which confirm what I already suspected, that prisoners in Guantonimo were being treated humanely. So humanely in fact that no information was being extracted from them.

A military official who helped prepare the report said it came after frustrated Guantanamo interrogators had begun trying unorthodox methods on recalcitrant prisoners. "We'd been at this for a year-plus and got nothing out of them" so officials concluded "we need to have a less-cramped view of what torture is and is not."

And then, in frustration, apparently with the need for intelligence to save lives ......

The official said, "People were trying like hell how to ratchet up the pressure," and used techniques that ranged from drawing on prisoners' bodies and placing women's underwear on prisoners heads

Ohhhhhhh, drawing on your body, making you wear underwear. Gee, war is so so much like ........ a strip club.

'The humanity!'

Senior officers at Guantanamo requested a "rethinking of the whole approach to defending your country when you have an enemy that does not follow the rules," the official said. Rather than license torture, this official said that the report helped rein in more "assertive" approaches.

Methods now used at Guantanamo include limiting prisoners' food, denying them clothing, subjecting them to body-cavity searches, depriving them of sleep for as much as 96 hours and shackling them in so-called stress positions, a military-intelligence official said. Although the interrogators consider the methods to be humiliating and unpleasant, they don't view them as torture, the official said.

Gee, sounds like what the police do. Hope you don't cross the border on a regular basis BD, this all could happen to you on entry to the US or on return to Canada. Once again, Outside of the cavity search, I went through this all during various times in the military.

The working-group report elaborated the Bush administration's view that the president has virtually unlimited power to wage war as he sees fit, and neither Congress, the courts nor international law can interfere. It concluded that neither the president nor anyone following his instructions was bound by the federal Torture Statute, which makes it a crime for Americans working for the government overseas to commit or attempt torture, defined as any act intended to "inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering." Punishment is up to 20 years imprisonment, or a death sentence or life imprisonment if the victim dies.

Gee, head of state having unlimited power. What a concept! Just think, if he was a cheese omelett at four in the morning, he orders a cheese omelett. if he want to pull out your fingernails, he pulls out your fingernails ......... and then answers for it in investigations, congressional hearings until the cows come home.

I guess this comes back to the perception of torture. If you figure wearing underwear on your head (as a few recruits had to on my basic training for having a bad locker turnout) torture, what would you classify a beating as? Murder?

How about getting you fingernails pulled out or genitals attacked by pliers? A holocost? Genocide? Mass murder?

Going a bit further, what would a limb amputation be classified as? A supernova or a giant comet hitting the earth?

I suppose it is a different threshold that separates us. Maybe you are not familiar with the powers that authorities have over the populace in various parts of the world, even here. They can hold you in a vomit soaked holding tank on a saturday night for next to no reason other than you failing to produce ID. you can be vitim to being beaten by twenty or so drunken cell mates while you wait for dawn .... or charges to be laid. When you explain your rights they throw a punch or two in a part of your body that gives no bruises, of course there are no witnesses when this happens.

In other countries, they beat the living daylights out of you, in front of witnesses, even better in front of witnesses to make them more afraid and willing to talk. Even that is not torture in the normal sense. It is when they start to jab things into your skin, burn you, pull on your testicles, pull out teeth and fingers that it reaches the torture expectations of the world. Keeping a suspect awake, denying him clothing and food ...... that would piss me off, make me want to talk, but leave no lasting physical or mental effects. Then again, maybe I am hardier than most.

n addition, the report advised that torture or homicide could be justified as "self-defense," should an official "honestly believe" it was necessary to head off an imminent attack on the U.S. The self-defense doctrine generally has been asserted by individuals fending off assaults, and in 1890, the Supreme Court upheld a U.S. deputy marshal's right to shoot an assailant of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field as involving both self-defense and defense of the nation. Citing Justice Department opinions, the report concluded that "if a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate criminal prohibition," he could be justified "in doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network."

Mr. LaFave, a law professor at the University of Illinois, said he was unaware that the Pentagon used his textbook in preparing its legal analysis. He agreed, however, that in some cases necessity could be a defense to torture charges. "Here's a guy who knows with certainty where there's a bomb that will blow New York City to smithereens. Should we torture him? Seems to me that's an easy one," Mr. LaFave said. But he said necessity couldn't be a blanket justification for torturing prisoners because of a general fear that "the nation is in danger."

Gee, a lawyer saying that sometimes torture is a good idea. Of course, you know me Black dog, Korporate Krusty. I would torture a whale to save a penny on a litre of gas. Ii am so inhumane, I would approve of making a suspect wear underwear on his head so I could find out which women and children filled market they planned on blowing up next.

[o.i.c]

Each Nation in the UN is not equal.  They have a voice but all do not adhere to the same standards of human rights or of the measure of progress.

Right. And the purpose of the UN is to essentially equalize nations, and the guidelines are listed in the Universal Declaration in terms of human rights. Similar points are reiterated each year as the aims of the UN.

A system to equalize voting power with a given standard of rights to have power would be in order.

I'm not so sure this will work either. It may look good on paper (i.e. the present theoretical purpose of the UN), but this is like saying we need a UN for the UN.

I think that things will change rather quickly for the good.  Blowback I think is how so many from the Left like to say.  The world has changed over the past couple years.  Before the US would simply have assasinated Saddam and installed a new, more friendlier leader - until the next crisis.

I'm not so sure. I guess we're both speculating at this point. You see change, I see decay. Although there are somewhat advertised films like "The Fog of War", "The Corporation", that are out there (there may be similar documentaries in the past), I doubt many people were affected by them in any way. You could be right, I really do not understand why the U.S. government would release something like this. Not to mention all the other information that is available, though sometimes it takes a little effort. But this could be a negative occurrence as well. Not much will change if people do read stuff like that. So it could just mean less work in keeping track of classified information.

[Black Dog]

You know KK, on matters of "what is torture" I'll defer to the definition set down by international law and confirmed by the Red Cross (again "practices tantamount to torture") than to your half-baked atempts to downplay U.S. actions (In my book, beatings, rape, murder-all documented behaviors at Abu Ghirab and Gitmo- are far more serious than your constant refrain of "wearing women's underwear" would indicate). Heck, for bonus "torture apologist" points, you managed to invoke the "ticking time bomb scenario" to justify torture, despite the fact such scenarios are, at best, far-fetched. Finally, even if we were to accept, for a second, that torture can be justified under certain circumstances, the simple fact remains that torture methods fail to produce reliable information.

I was wrong when I said people like you couldn't see the rot infecting your nation. You're actually part of it.

[KrustyKidd]

Can't stop with the personal attacks can you? Typical overreacting Black Dog. If you stop frothing for a moment, you will see that I do not approve of this stuff and stated so. The US has had an investigation going on before this even became public and how this all came about is quite normal really.

MSNBC

.

Exclusive: Read the War Crimes Memos

Indeed, the single most iconic image to come out of the abuse scandal—that of a hooded man standing naked on a box, arms outspread, with wires dangling from his fingers, toes and penis—may do a lot to undercut the administration's case that this was the work of a few criminal MPs. That's because the practice shown in that photo is an arcane torture method known only to veterans of the interrogation trade. "Was that something that [an MP] dreamed up by herself? Think again," says Darius Rejali, an expert on the use of torture by democracies. "That's a standard torture. It's called 'the Vietnam.' But it's not common knowledge. Ordinary American soldiers did this, but someone taught them."

Who might have taught them? Almost certainly it was their superiors up the line. Some of the images from Abu Ghraib, like those of naked prisoners terrified by attack dogs or humiliated before grinning female guards, actually portray "stress and duress" techniques officially approved at the highest levels of the government for use against terrorist suspects. It is unlikely that President George W. Bush or senior officials ever knew of these specific techniques, and late last week Defense spokesman Larry DiRita said that "no responsible official of the Department of Defense approved any program that could conceivably have been intended to result in such abuses." But a NEWSWEEK investigation shows that, as a means of pre-empting a repeat of 9/11, Bush, along with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods. It was an approach that they adopted to sidestep the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions, which protect the rights of detainees and prisoners of war.

As for not getting useful intel, what is useful intel Black Dog? It is names, times, observances, rumors, boasts. All corellated. You keep thinking 'smoking gun' and that every person arrested is thought to be high level Al Queda. Some are common street criminals, some are wrong place wrong time and others are genuine bad guys. When none of them talk, what do you do? Do you actually think that the US enjoys keeping innocent guys for the heck of it or would you think that there is a problem determining who is bad, really bad and who is the enemy?

Beleive it or not, most prisoners are not innocent. This is a country in turmoil and people, at this moment in time have to be considered guilty before innocent.

Heck, for bonus "torture apologist" points, you managed to invoke the "ticking time bomb scenario" to justify torture, despite the fact such scenarios are, at best, far-fetched.

Most plots are discovered after questioning prisoners and detainees more than any other method. When lacking any undercover agents this becomes a prime source of information. That Col that was turfed out of the army saved a few lives of his men. Terrorist cells the world over are broken due to this method. Believe it or not Black Dog, none of them turn themselves in out of guilt.

I appreciate the snitty insults Black Dog, they are so, .... confirming to me that you stoop rather than argue. Unfortunate as I would rather talk one on one with somebody that is a little less hateful so that things could actually be a learning experience other than an offensive/counter offensive partisan exchange. Anyhow, I make no appoligies for the US as I am not them. i am not Bush, Rumsfeld or any of those you seem to hate more than liver and onions. I am Canadian and observe what is going on and try to better understand it. I can see why things are, understand why they are. See how things are going and also see what mistakes have been made and, dare to speculate on the future. To tell you the truth Black Dog, I don't even hate Saddam Hussein and here you are frothing at the mouth hating Bush as much as Lonius hates the USA. As for this prisoner thing, read what I wrote before. I make no bones about it, unacceptable considering what the US is trying to do what with promoting human rights and all. However, perfectly understandable given the command structure at the time. The main 'atrocities' commited as portrayed by the press I have seen in peacetime in Canada, and worse. Simply an observance is all. If you see something terrible about my experiences and can dehumanize me because of them, you are an idiot.

I know that at this point you want to call me a name or two, something in line with your exchange with Hugo last week. Maybe "self rightious prick" or something like that. But you cannot, as it would be akin to torture to a sensitive person such as myself. Worse than death to others.

BTW, you mentioned in an earlier post that some 70 year old lady got ridden around like a donkey. Could you dig that story up for us please? I have to see it to believe it, she must have been built like a brick shithouse because any person sitting on a 70 year old would flatten her in an instant. How did she survive, how big was the guy that got on her, how far did she carry him? Please.

[Black Dog]

If you stop frothing for a moment, you will see that I do not approve of this stuff and stated so.

You consitently downplayed the severeity of the allegations:

It's almost as bad as a college frat inititiation.

Here is some examples for those more sensitive from a Russian Source.

In other words, the degree of torture occuring was on a level far below which torture is normally equated with

In fact, more scadelous than anything else when compared to the everyday life of an Arab living in one of these regimes where more physical torture is fairly commonplace.

In it's proper perspective this torture issue is more of an Anti America round of ammo than anything based in reality.

Ohhhhhhh, drawing on your body, making you wear underwear. Gee, war is so so much like ........ a strip club.

Gee, sounds like what the police do

If you figure wearing underwear on your head (as a few recruits had to on my basic training for having a bad locker turnout) torture, what would you classify a beating as? Murder?

When viewed in the light of these statements, your condemnations come across as less than sincere.

Do you actually think that the US enjoys keeping innocent guys for the heck of it or would you think that there is a problem determining who is bad, really bad and who is the enemy?

The policy is, as one U.S. officer put it: "do what you must, grab who you can."

Beleive it or not, most prisoners are not innocent.

I don't believe it when, by the Army's own admission, at least 70 per cent of detainees are innocent of any wrong doing. I don't know how long it's going to take you to grasp this.

Most plots are discovered after questioning prisoners and detainees more than any other method

But torture and torture-lite do not produce reliable information.

Torturing Can't be Defended, Doesn't Even Work

. To tell you the truth Black Dog, I don't even hate Saddam Hussein and here you are frothing at the mouth hating Bush as much as Lonius hates the USA.

As I've said before, you maintain an unquestioning and impenetrable faith in the intententions of leaders and the system as a whole. Anything more than half-assed, mealy mouthed equivocation is, apparently, irrational "frothing at the mouth."

As for this prisoner thing, read what I wrote before. I make no bones about it, unacceptable considering what the US is trying to do what with promoting human rights and all. However, perfectly understandable given the command structure at the time. The main 'atrocities' commited as portrayed by the press I have seen in peacetime in Canada, and worse.

You're missing the big picture: the U.S. is heading down a path whereby its leaders are unaccountable to anyone, and unbound by conventions of international or domestic law. Or perhaps you do, but you seem untroubled by it.

Look at the document the Pentagon cooked up: on the face of it, is a charter allowing the US president to abuse human rights and ignore domestic as well as international law. According to the Rumsfeld document, detainees can be tortured at will in Bush's global "war" on terrorism. And, as history shows, occasional torture leads to more extreme, systematic torture.

I know that at this point you want to call me a name or two, something in line with your exchange with Hugo last week. Maybe "self rightious prick" or something like that.

Nope. I just think your faith is misguided.

BTW, you mentioned in an earlier post that some 70 year old lady got ridden around like a donkey.

U.S. Troops Said to Mistreat Elder Iraqi/Rode Old Lady Like A Donkey

[KrustyKidd]

An impressive amount of work arranging all my quotes in self incriminating format Black Dog. All in naught though as I stated quite clearly that I thought that the actions are wrong, yet not severe enough to be considered torture in the normal sense of the word. When we think of torture, we think of bamboo shoots under the fingernails, a hot poker putting and eye out, a sadistic Nazi with a dentists drill or a muscular guy tied to a metal cot shouting “Adrienne!” as the amperage is increased. Instead, we are now more sensitive. Sandbags on heads to ensure no permanent humiliation occurs while human pyramids are made, underwear on heads, a woman (allegedly) being ridden like a donkey and now fully recovered, a broomstick up a guy’s ass. Wow, a regular holocaust.

Anyhow, the US is investigating and has even punished some of those responsible. Loss of career for a two star General is Major punishment as is being dishonorably discharged. If there is a civilian charge applicable don’t you worry, for the US is looking to cover this issue base to base. In fact, they were on it before you even knew about it.

I know that you can figure out the difference in degrees of torture as you mentioned that there was worse then ‘underwear’ on the head going on.

Torture Thread

(In my book, beatings, rape, murder-all documented behaviors at Abu Ghirab and Gitmo- are far more serious than your constant refrain of "wearing women's underwear" would indicate)

Therefore, you should be able to understand that torture in Saddam’s time, was far far worse than what occured at Abu Garab:

Amnesty Report on torture in Iraq

  Torture victims in Iraq have been blindfolded, stripped of their clothes and suspended from their wrists for long hours. Electric shocks have been used on various parts of their bodies, including the genitals, ears, the tongue and fingers. Victims have described to Amnesty International how they have been beaten with canes, whips, hosepipe or metal rods and how they have been suspended for hours from either a rotating fan in the ceiling or from a horizontal pole often in contorted positions as electric shocks were applied repeatedly on their bodies. Some victims had been forced to watch others, including their own relatives or family members, being tortured in front of them.

Other methods of physical torture described by former victims include the use of Falaqa (beating on the soles of the feet), extinguishing of cigarettes on various parts of the body, extraction of finger nails and toenails and piercing of the hands with an electric drill. Some have been sexually abused and others have had objects, including broken bottles, forced into their anus. In addition to physical torture, detainees have been threatened with rape and subjected to mock execution. They have been placed in cells where they could hear the screams of others being tortured and have been deprived of sleep. Some have stayed in solitary confinement for long periods of time. Detainees have also been threatened with bringing in a female relative, especially the wife or the mother, and raping her in front of the detainee. Some of these threats have been carried out.

 

And even you Black Dog have to admit that ...

this is far worse than having underwear placed on your head.

She also met with former prisoners who told her of their time in Saddam's prisons.  Samuels says many of the reports of torture she heard involved beatings, electrocutions and such mutilation as cutting off hands or surgically removing the ears of army deserters.

Saddam's methods included using hammers to break bones, ripping out fingernails, amputating limbs with a chain saw, crucifixion, throwing live victims in acid baths and ovens, cutting loose wild dogs to attack victims, raping women in the presence of their children and husbands, cutting off a penis or a breast, and stripping children naked and forcing their parents to watch as they were stung by hornets and scorpions. The graves contain evidence of these and other sadistic crimes.

Some of Saddam's victims escaped to tell their tales on the day his statue was torn down in Baghdad. The USAID report contains three survivor accounts from mass executions outside Mahawil in the south of Iraq.

The survivors all describe being taken into custody without a reason being given. They describe seeing women and children also in custody, all of them haphazardly blindfolded. Once they were herded into holding areas they could see a pile of tires set on fire and were ordered to run past these.

Some of the women, children and elderly men were tripped or fell near the fire and were unceremoniously beaten to death with pipes or thrown into the blazing tires to burn alive. All of the survivors who escaped their would-be executioners had been shot and partially buried, crawling away to their homes under cover of dark and living thereafter in hiding.

Saddam's atrocities, hundreds of thousands of mass graves from the past two decades. 290 thousand this article quotes.

More,

USAID indicated in its report on mass graves in Iraq that in some cases executioners have come forward to help find the killing grounds. Sometimes, Connor adds, the bodies are not fully buried and so quite easily found.

Yes, they are all recent. 300 thousand missing in the past twenty years. Fifteen thousand a year, twelve hundred a month on average. Thirty times as many as have been killed in the past fifteen months by US bombs, Iraqi bullets, Insurgent bombs and accidents resulting from all. On average, the monthly deaths have been 750 scince the US came. And on a bell curve as well getting lower and lower every day.

Why am I telling you all this? You probably think I am comparing the supposed US torture to Saddam’s. No Black Dog, much as I would love to see a SNL skit on ‘Cigarette Girl’ sitting in a UN docket in the Hague beside Saddam, the US did wrong, at least the soldiers involved did. They are being handled in the appropriate manner.

When the preamble for the war was gong on, I thought, along with Kennedy, Kerry, Chirac, Bush, Clinton, Blix and everybody else that WMDs were in Iraq. I did not however, lose any sleep about Saddam attacking America but have to admit that seeing the possibility of the Iraqi people free was exciting. When the rhetoric went from WMD to ‘Regime Change’ I knew things had changed a bit. I didn’t know why but to me, Regime Change was pretty good as the Iraqi people would be free. At this point the idea of democracy seeding began to hit home.

All this time, no substancial WMD finds so far, terrorist rumblings, Insurgent activity all over Iraq, the vision of a free Iraq still excites me. It will happen. It is, beyond all else, the main prize to me. Not the re-election of Bush, not to prove I was right, but to see them free and a member of the world community. Imagine!

The reason why I am telling you this Black Dog is to show all that I have always cared. To me, it is not about America, but Iraq. I think that the two will eventually go together and I also wanted to point out that you are the exact opposite. You don’t give a rat’s ass for the Iraqi people and are bent on bashing America against all else, simply to do so. If you say that is not true I will call you a bald faced liar.

You, who would see Bush in front of a war crimes tribunal to satisfy whatever leftist fantasy you have, for having guys commit these crimes in Abu Garab is laughable. While Saddam was killing thousands in the afore mentioned despicable manner you actually protested the only force that would set them free from the torture that was daily Saddam! How the hell did you ever expect to get him in front of a war crimes tribual Black Dog? Give him cab fare and hope he showed up? You stood in the way of the only force that would save the Iraqi people. ‘Better tortured than dead’ you might have said. Well Black Dog, unless you have far different numbers it seems that Saddam was packing them away in peacetime much better than the US was during war.

The other thing that would make me fall on the floor laughing were it not for the fact that there might be somebody actually thinking you are right is your fake compassion for the handful of prisoners who are victims of the Abu Garab incidents. And I will even go as far as to say Guantonimo as well. Shoot, raise it to hundreds if you want. Talk about a broomstick up an ass or two, or four, or ten for crying out loud. Your vision on how to correct all this, so that the Iraqi people can have the compassion they deserve? Something normal like Military courts martials, an apology, better supervision and restitution? Nope, you really love the Iraqi people, you want the US to leave, now.

Yes Black Dog, leave. That’s what your solution is for all the ills. You said it here

Was The War in Iraq Necessary,

Black Dog Quote

I think this kind of characterization of the insurgency is not only wrong, but dangerous. It's not a single, monolithic entity, but a number highly factionalized groups (often organized along tribal lines) that includes Saddam loyalists, religious factions (like the Mutqada al-Sadr's milita), foreign mujahhadeen and nationlist elements. The problem with applying a universal identity to the insurgency is that it leads to "one solution fits all" thinking. The sheer complexity of the situation requires complex thinking. 

Yes, this is the stability that Black Dog would inflict on the Iraqi people because he loves them so so much.LOL, I just know that they don’t have the Iraqis interests at heart. Nor the Wests, and you have empathy for them of some kind? Trying to understand them? Get in touch with their feminine side, what?

When asked if the US should pull out -

Yes. Pull out, let the Iraqi people take charge of their destiny.

. Simple fact is: the Iraqis want the military occupation to end. they don't care about the bloodshed to follow, they want to make their own destiny.

LOL, you have me rolling on the floor with this logic! Save a guy with underwear on his head so that he can get taken out by a roadside bomb, take the harness off an old lady so she can go shopping for carrots and get her head painted on to the marketplace walls along with her grandkids from a bomb. And it would never end, tens of thousands of them, possibly hundreds, even millions in a five or ten way civil war. You rock! Such foresight and empathy. Are you from the bizzarro world or something?

Hugo

It's my opinion that Baghdad might institute a democracy and would probably fight a long and bloody civil war against warlords and mullahs in outlying and ethnically different parts of the country. The existence of men such as Sadr is proof of this. For somebody who claims to cry a river over dead Iraqi civilians, you seem mighty keen for even more of them to be killed in a civil war that the West could prevent.

Black Dog

Open your eyes: there is a civil war. The CPA has muddled through with no coherent plan for how to build a democracy in Iraq. The current government has no credibility with the people (more than half of which want the U.S. et al out immediately, regardless of the consequenses) and, if it wer enot for the 500,000 U.S. troops backing it, would fall in no time. So the scenario you've outlained is already being played out. Th eonly differnce is the occupation is presenting a target for the Iraqi factions that might otherwise turn against each other. So, the West is preventing no bloodshed, causing much of it.

Oh, BTW, that was pretty cute last week when your ‘Freedom Fighters’ deliberately killed over forty Iraqis wasn’t it? Freeing them from life? Real popular insurgency. And you feel sorry for a few guys with underwear on their head. I think you have a slight problem with priorities Black Dog. Less Bush bashing and less support for insurgents might be in order. At least until things get calmed down a bit. Of course, hate America is the mantra of Black Dog Anything that might actually calm things down and save a few lives (Iraqi or American) will never cross your mind. Hence the reason why I know you don’t give a shit about the Iraqis, you only hate the Americans, everybody else you have an excuse for. That excuse is always the fault of America..

[Black Dog]

You continue to demonstrate a remarkable blindness to the implications of the acts of abuse themselves, as well as the appparent knowledge of such actions by some of the highest authorities in government. Either you can't see a problem with these authorities placing themselves and their subordinates above the law, or you approve of it. Either way, the point is that America's actions to date may not have been as bad as Saddam's (though there's an argument to made as to whther or not such comparisons are even valid), but, by all apperances, they're slowly but surely, marching in the same direction.

Finally, the simple thrust of your hysterical screed seems to be that I "hate America" because, unlike you, I'm unwilling to accept at face value and with the child-like faith I mentioned before, that America's intentions in Iraq are pure.

You accuse me of not caring about the Iraqi people, while conviniently dispersing with historical evidence indicating the people you claim are Iraq's Great White Hope were the same ones who, for decades, turned a blind eye to Saddam's worst atrocities, if not outright abetting them. That may seem like a minor historical detail to you, but I believe it is very significant to the curent situation. Perhaps you believe that Rummy, Cheney and the rest of the former Saddam Hussein fan club underwent some sort of grand epiphany, but I do not. Simply put, you expect Iraqis to be granted freedom by the same men who helped Saddam keep them under his bootheel in the first place. Such naivete would be amusing if the stakes weren't so high, both for Iraq, and the world. But I guess I, as an anonymous poster on an internet chat board, are to be held to a higher standard of moral conduct than the top officials behind Iraq's "liberation".

To conclude, I don't know what else to say,a as you've buttressed your straw man quite well in your mind. If flailing away at that fictional creation makes you feel morally superior, by all means continue.

[KrustyKidd]

To conclude, I don't know what else to say,a as you've buttressed your straw man quite well in your mind. If flailing away at that fictional creation makes you feel morally superior, by all means continue.

Why thank you but I think I will flail away at you instead. To start, I commend you. You did not once refute my charge that you didn’t give a hoot for the Iraqi people and spent pretty much all of this predictable-as-usual post America Bashing and proving me right. Well done, my one-track-mind fellow poster.

slowly but surely, marching in the same direction.

Bizzaro world. Mr Mglixyzpt right? You were doing OK before this came out, I was actually thinking you were somewhat normal. Let’s see, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, some only covered by a couple inches of dirt, all with a bullet to the back of the skull, slashed throat with knife marks on the spine, buried or burned alive. Hundreds of thousands of grieving relatives vainly scrambling through the sites desecrating them as they dig up corpse after corpse looking for missing loved ones. Forensic doctors racing to identify the remains before they get to them. Yes, the US is so close to being like Saddam and the rest of the idots they are fighting against. I see the 82nd Airborne is Cutting heads off prisoners, dragging the bodies of any insurgents they catch through the streets of NYC and ripping them limb from limb as the Stock Brokers chant Koran Verses. How do you spell over exageration Black Dog? B-I-Z-Z-A-R-O

  Finally, the simple thrust of your hysterical screed seems to be that I "hate America" because, unlike you, I'm unwilling to accept at face value and with the child-like faith I mentioned before, that America's intentions in Iraq are pure.

No, you hate America because you simply need something to hate and are too mindless to search for it in other than already prepared rhetorical safe places like America bashing. I mean that if it wasn't them it would be something else. I daresay that the 'something else' would be a fairly safe entity such as big business, government of some sort, religion, ecology, or whatever but it would be something.

I think I told you on at least two occasions that I have absolutly no love or even like for Bush. I actually have a reason that you don't. I also said that I havn't been impressed by their performance in Central America and after the first Gulf War. I also told you that they should have thrown off this Vietnam Syndrome here in Iraq as well. There are a lot of reasons Black Dog, most of them do not invove the makings of a Tom Clancy novel or a Moore movie. America is a shoe-in for a simple Leftist focus object as it operates in much of the world, does not torture protestors and shoot them in scores, actually prints what people say and weathers idiocy rather well. . While not blameless for much of the worlds ills, it can also be thanked for much of the worlds successes. While their reasons for intervening in Iraq are multiple and some may be selfish, if you had a three dimensional mind Black Dog you would see that there is good mixed in with the perceived bad. Unlike you, I can see that many of those reasons can also be very beneficial to others, particularly the Iraqis.

You have to tell me; To an Iraqi, what is wrong about Saddam being out of power? Shoot, as a westerner tell me what is so bad? Comon, got to hear this one. Betcha going to tell me about how Saddam ruled all these fools with an iron fist and there wasn't that much violence going around right? Good boy Black Dog, keep them in perpetual Gulag rather than set them free to protest. Only you get to protest right? What are the down sides? They can actually live without fear of ending up in a mass grave, They can buy food and stuff, soon they might have a job if they don’t have one already. Their son’s won’t have to be drafted to go to some vanity war with Iran or Kuwait and daughters don’t have to be a whore for Uday or the local Regime officer. Where is the downside Black Dog? While we are at it. What is the upside for the average Iraqi of having a civil war if the US leaves? You hate the US so much that you wish they would leave Iraq and allow them to kill each other in the thousands. Such a humanitarian guy you are. Crafty too. Gives you the added safety factor of being able to say a year from now that they should have stayed and fodder for scores of future idiotic meandering posts. Hedging.

Now, back to the prison. I don’t suppose that Kerry’s camp is digging up any dirt that you don’t turn up do you? How about Rockefeller, you don’t suppose that he and his minions in the Senate Intelligence Sub Committee are doing the same? LOL, they sure are. There isn’t much to hide when you have a supposedly bi partisan committee run by Democrat partisan bastard like him. What I am trying to say is that the US broke the story, they dealt with it and continue to do so and if there is meat to put GW away it will rise to the surface. In the meantime, hear of any recent new abuses? If you didn’t then I guess that they are taking care of it.

Simply put, you expect Iraqis to be granted freedom by the same men who helped Saddam keep them under his Bothell in the first place.

LOL, guess you really are a Liberal as you figure that nobody is responsible for fixing the problems they make themselves. Only thing missing to complete this charactiture is the 'Blame the victim' idiocy and you almost have that one in wanting the US to leave so 25 million people who have no experienced government in the middle of a freakin war zone suddenly, can RUMBLE!!! . Like I said, you would leave them with Saddam, that is borderline sicko. No, it is sick, once the UN gave the go ahead making the ceasefire they should have gotten rid of him first infraction. I suppose they were wating for a few reasons that suited them. See Black Dog, I know there are many reasons for this action and not all are good ones. But there are enough to make the Iraqi people happy. And what is wrong with giving them freedom? You sound like one of these Christmas charities with poor kids. They refuse thousands of badly needed dollars because it was raised by strippers. Like who cares who frees them, it is a humanitarian debacle to not free them whatever the ulterior motive.

[Black Dog]

I'll dispense all together with your ridiculous and self-serving charges of anti-Americanism, given that you've not offered a shred of evidence to support such allegations (unless one were to assume that simple opposition to U.S. policies constitutes hatred, in which case you've got bigger problems than I thought). As well, I won't bother with your bizzare contention that I approved of Saddam's regime or somehow wish he was still in power. Such statements constitute a rank ad hominem attack and are best ignored.

What I will do, as a service to you, is point out exactly what I think is wrong with the U.S.'s involvement in Iraq.

To begin: in the interests of simplicity, we'll dispense with further discussion of the veracity of the pre-war rationale for military intervention in Iraq and the implications thereof. It's well-travelled ground and I've no interest in re-inventing or re-stating old arguments. Nor will I point out the numerous and glaring erors made during the "rebuilding" process thusfar.

First one must also acknowledge certain realities: Saddam is gone and Iraq, by and large, has been freed. Indeed, the insurgency, political turmoil and uncertainty are all indicators of that freedom (in this case, freedom being the upending of the preexisting political and social order; freedom such as this is seldom tidy). If Iraq splinters into sperate states or develops into a theocracy, such would be the consequenses of their newfound freedom.

However, freedom was not the motive: a "propserous and democratic Iraq" was. Here is where the U.S. has failed. Quite simply, democracy is a structure of institutions and principles that must be built from within, not imposed from without. In exchanging Saddam's rule for that of the U.S. occupier, Iraq has not been able to develop its own identity. Every society has the right to determine what kind of society it will be. Iraq has been denied that right, the right of self-determination that is the prerequisite of democratization. No matter how much say Iraqis have in the new government (and that is another argument), the structures, principles and institutions of the new Iraq were largely developed by non-Iraqis. This is why I advocate withdrawl: as tragic as the consequenses must be, the (often bloody) struggle for national identity is vital to the ultimate success of democracy. In other words: the fate of Iraq should be placed in the hands of Iraqis.

As much as you would like to paint this as support for Saddam, or worse, callous disregard for the well-being of Iraqis, this is a view that ackowledges that building democracy is a struggle. And it is a struggle that must be undertaken by the Iraqi people alone.

[Mr Farrius]

America built itself on its own, why can't Iraq? It's time the United States stopped its policy of warring on nations and building them back up for them, at the expense of its own citizens. Why can't Iraq rebuilt itself? Since when did nations require that the U.S. help out with every step of their reconstruction? Frankly, I think the Iraqis can do it, they just need the right leaders. BD is right. As long as the U.S. continues to impose itself on Iraq, democracy will become something hated, not wished for.

[caesar]

Mr Farrius; you amaze me. Iraq had built itself. The USA destroyed much of Iraq's infrastructure that is why thhe USA is responsible for rebuilding Iraq. If someone wrecks your car; you want him to pay for it; would you agree with the one who caused the damage if he told you to just go out a buy a new car yourself??????? DUH

Iraq would probably be happy to do its own rebuilding just as long as the USA pays for the damage it has done.

[Mr Farrius]

Caesar, that was a horrible, horrible example. While a car wreck is an accident, Iraq was a war. The more appropriate example would be if someone was out to kill you, and ran into you with a car. It wouldn't make sense for that person to try to fix your car would it?

Iraq can get all the money it needs from places beside the U.S.

[KrustyKidd]

Good post Black Dog, direct and to the point. And free of rhetoric. I hope I can do it justice with the same. Before I get into it though, I wish to point out that I never once did the mindless Right Wing Rhetoric thing of ‘You must be a Saddam lover.’ Rather, I asked a question of what is wrong with him being out of the picture, and also stated that you have, in my opinion an unrealistic dislike (possibly hatred) of the USA which you blanket-coat all it’s actions with. I consider you a fairly intelligent (if not very intelligent) poster and am pretty sure that you are above hatred of static institutions. I also thank you for not doing what so many do, and rather, actually narrowed the discussion, rather than try to enlarge as well as offering this clear, stark look into your reasons.

    freedom such as this is seldom tidy 

Are you sure you are OK with this statement? I mean, normally you are throwing every little negative occurrence in our faces to use as a shining example of why the Iraq action is totally wrong. Now you are saying that problems are a normal occurrence when an action such as this is taken. Wow. Althoughto you, the US action is wrong for reasons you state, the collateral damage is normal, the US is doing nothing wrong other than the overall mission they have undertaken. Freedom carries a price.

If Iraq splinters into sperate states or develops into a theocracy, such would be the consequenses of their newfound freedom

Why have the UN then? Why would we help France in WWII? Why should we send peacekeepers to Yugoslavia? Shit, for that matter, why is it so unnatural for the US not to simply take over the world? I mean, what you are advocating is ‘if it can be done, let it be done’ right? Scince the US is in Iraq now, they should just move into Jordan and then take over Saudi. It would be the natural thing to do. Hell, for that matter, they can come into Canada after they used our gun registry to find out where all the weapons are and take us over too. Like, if it feels good, it must be the way things are supposed to be. Freedom.

Here is where the U.S. has failed.

Is this it? I expected a real reason and I get this;

  Quite simply, democracy is a structure of institutions and principles that must be built from within, not imposed from without. 

Some absolute statements

    the sun and moon circle around the earth.

Lead can be turned into gold.

It is impossible to travel faster than sound.

........................

......and another one ....

  Quite simply, democracy is a structure of institutions and principles that must be built from within, not imposed from without. 

Homer Simpson? Who said that and on what social event was he referring to that was a proven? Was it anything like what happened in Japan? is happening now with the UN and world involvement as well as the massive financial aid being pumped into Iraq? Was it at a time when there is the mass media coverage that we have in this day and age? Is it kind of like Japan? Or like Germany post WWII? Don’t tell me about German democracy prior to as at one time Iraq had democracy as well. Really, your idea of them finding “their own identity” is the new, unproven idea.

Here is a definition of democracy;

Democracy - a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power.  2. A state governed in such a way 3. control of a group by it’s members.

A state governed in such a way. No such place. No such form of government known as democracy. In practice, true democracy works only with small groups of teenagers as they decide on which movie to go see on a Saturday and which restaurant they will hang out at afterwards. Even deciding with rock- paper-scissors is a form of random democracy but to govern a 25 million person country by democratic referendum is a pipe dream. Gaddaffi couldn’t do it and he is the dictator of Lybia. Even Canada is not a democracy, rather it is a self- elected-representative-dictatorship. Meaning that once every so often we exercise democracy and vote in a government to rule us for a set term. Immediately after we vote, we are subjects again with no choices in government. Granted we have rights and all as individuals and groups (among them laws to oust the government we have chosen) but essentially we are subjects.

Hence, this talk of how democracy is being foisted on the Iraqi people is crap. A choice is being given to them. There will be a few candidates and they can choose which they prefer with the choices growing in number each year. I imagine some will be socialist, some religious and others more western valued. What is so hard to understand that they will have a choice? The way you go on about it is that they will have no choice but must accept (your definition of democracy which I imagine is a particular western style of government) In subsequent elections there might even be more radical parties running, even terrorists. Who knows?

Is this terrible? They don’t get to choose? Instead, in your vision, we must have the UN appear and hand out RPGs, grenades, ammo and AK 47s and then, when everybody is equally loaded to the tits ......... it’s one... two ...three.... go! And let them find their identity? Get real. Identity. If they really feel that they are in need of identity and have to ‘find themselves’ there isn’t much to stop them from killing each other after a free election. It’s a political statement on its own and that option is always open. That is why elections should be tried first.

Like I said, you have no compassion for the Iraqi people and simply dislike or hate the USA so much that you would see death beyond what these people have ever seen, in their streets, women, children all just to see egg on the US flag. If this isn’t your reason then please continue as I am missing a point Black Dog. I know you are not stupid or trivial so there must be something I am missing here. .

I think that what you meant by this comment was that ‘A democratic style of government such as what we have in the west must be built from within, not without.’ Thinking about it, and my definition of it above I agree. II mean, if the only thing democratic is the vote and it must be free, then how can anybody force another to vote a certain way and then call that democratic?

However, there is absolutely no reason why the apparatus, education and resources to hold democratic elections cannot be influenced from the outside. I mean, I vote but do not set up the polls or government counting systems.

In short, all that needs to fulfil this prophesy as bogus is to hold an Iraqi election sooner or later.

In exchanging Saddam's rule for that of the U.S. occupier, Iraq has not been able to develop its own identity.

Hello, Black Dog. Earth to Black Dog. No identity? Does the phrase ‘Cradle of Civilization’ ring a bell? Ten thousand stinkin’ years of history and suddenly, a hundred years ago, they are subjected to dictators and foreign countries and now, freed and given a choice they have no identity? They probably figure they are Jewish or something right? A Baghdad phone book full of Stienbergs Goldstiens? The confused idiots will suddenly start building cuckoo clocks instead of carpets or something if we don’t set them straight by letting them slit each other’s throats. People in the former Yugoslavia didn’t know who they were either and needed to be set free to kill each other too. These Iraqis are a bunch of monkeys too ignorant to figure out how to work a doorknob right? I figure all that has happened is that they have fallen and need a hand to get up here.

In exchanging Saddam's rule for that of the U.S. occupier

Exchanging? What the hell are you talking about? Five or ten years down the road when there is no Iraqi government or free elections, but rather a totally US control of every aspect of Iraqi life you can say that, until then, you have to take it at face value until proven different. That of self government on June 30 and self rule and free elections come next year.

I know you have your doubts Black Dog, but they are not facts but rather suspicions. I acknowledge that self rule is a great probability, not a certainty but before you can use a political formula as a fact such as what you proposed, we would have to see indications that the US is planning to run Iraq forever. I see none of that. Of course there is going to be heavy involvement by the US for some time, just as a parent does not give everything to a teenager at once. It will happen though, and possibly with more violence to come in the form of anti US demonstrations and such. Even petitions at the UN and anti US resolutions there as well.

Iraq has been denied that right, the right of self-determination that is the prerequisite of democratization..

Let’s see... Get rid of Saddam, a threat/possible threat to world peace, and then leave a vacuum so millions can die in search of another dictator/warlord/Nazi terrorist type government. Anything but set up a system whereby they might choose their governmental system. Hmmmm ... it does have it’s possibilities...... Yes, and then the US can invade them again when Iran makes a super Islamo Fascist state complete with OPEC rule. Once they give their first nuke to one of twenty terrorist organizations we can nuke them. End of problem. You certainly rock.

No matter how much say Iraqis have in the new government (and that is another argument), the structures, principles and institutions of the new Iraq were largely developed by non-Iraqis. This is why I advocate withdrawl: as tragic as the consequenses must be, the (often bloody) struggle for national identity is vital to the ultimate success of democracy. In other words: the fate of Iraq should be placed in the hands of Iraqis

Thanks for avoiding the ‘other argument.’ How else is a completely free vote to be instituted though? You have factions that rule by violence and must have order before any vote can be taken. Even at the optimum, there will be violence at many outlying polls come that day I am sure, it will be a couple of elections before a real Iraqi government becomes a reality, however, it will happen. If the US left it up to a civil war, there would be no elections, no choice, no identity, no history. Only the identity and history of the Dictator/Warlord/Nazi/ Communist State in power. Just a different dictator after many thousands died. Hardly an identity or an Iraqi system. Possibly not even an Arab system. Violent for sure though.

BTW, I see you found a cheerleader. Sweet!!

Mr Farrius

America built itself on its own, why can't Iraq?

America was a colony of Britain which revolted. It had an obvious single enemy entity to fight rather than try to extricate a strong terrorist/spy/secret police government from it’s midst. As well, there were not ten different violent-armed to the teeth - factions all vying for power covertly supported by twenty different governments and religions. With three surrounding countries drooling over the opportunity to carve out some territory once things start falling apart. Far from the American experience. It was a much simpler time. As well, events in America did not affect any other country in the world. Even Mexico and Canada who lived next door to them were unaffected.

It's time the United States stopped its policy of warring on nations and building them back up for them, at the expense of its own citizens. Why can't Iraq rebuilt itself? Since when did nations require that the U.S. help out with every step of their reconstruction? Frankly, I think the Iraqis can do it, they just need the right leaders. BD is right. As long as the U.S. continues to impose itself on Iraq, democracy will become something hated, not wished for.

Absolutely. As to why they can’t do it themselves, Saddam was too busy building Palaces and hiding loot to do this and scince he has been ousted the insurgents haven’t been showing up for work on time. The guys that have been painting lines in the road for the traffic lanes have been getting killed so not much has been getting done. Scince there was no Iraqi government to restore services and transportation systems the US did it for them, and taking bullets. If you have a problem with that then try looking at it from the US taxpayers point of view, they paid $500 billion to help them out. Why shouldn’t they make some back instead of the French etc who contributed nothing? Now all we need is a way to have some free elections. First, have to get rid of insurgents. Then, we have an interim government, then, we get the UN in there to set up free elections, then, with all sorts of candidates from different political panties ranging form capitalistic to religious we hold elections freely. Then, just like you said, we get the right leaders in there and finally .... Irtaq can pay back some of the ten Billion that the US taxpayer lent them. Mind you, they are at a loss for the hundreds of Billions that the US forgave but so is a lot of the world c ommunity, mostly other Middle Eastern states. That's the price you pay though. And also another reason why the idea of letting an investement slip into anarchy. You want it to succeed. Get what you pay for. Good job Fasrris! . And I thought you were a leftist. Welcome aboard! And as for continuing to impose themselves you will note that they are trying to get out and each step forward by Iraq, the US steps back. Interesting trend isn’t it? With any luck, the only losers will be insurgents and Leftists. Even the French and Russians are getting the bulk of the oil contracts. Everybody is happy except the losers.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

QUOTE 

  Quite simply, democracy is a structure of institutions and principles that must be built from within, not imposed from without. 

I think what was meant is that freedom must be earned. The problem seems to be that people equate 'freedom' and 'democracy' far too closely. Actually, it is the freedom part that is ambiguous.

Even Canada is not a democracy, rather it is a self- elected-representative-dictatorship.

There is no place in the Koran that refers to the 'will of the electorate', only the will of Allah. Any country that has 'God' as it's central law giver is doomed. Wacky. You should see what Israel's Knesset is like. A total cluster-f*&k, democracy or not.

[KrustyKidd]

I think what was meant is that freedom must be earned. The problem seems to be that people equate 'freedom' and 'democracy' far too closely. Actually, it is the freedom part that is ambiguous.

No i don't think that was what was meant. If true then Canada earned nothing and should be living under a brutal dictator. Unless of course, simply paying taxes and being a good, obiedient citizen is considered 'earning' you freedom.

as for your point about the Koran, we shall see. Is derfinitely is a problem to be dealt with come the near future.

[Black Dog]

Damn: I forgot about this thread!

Are you sure you are OK with this statement? I mean, normally you are throwing every little negative occurrence in our faces to use as a shining example of why the Iraq action is totally wrong. Now you are saying that problems are a normal occurrence when an action such as this is taken. Wow. Althoughto you, the US action is wrong for reasons you state, the collateral damage is normal, the US is doing nothing wrong other than the overall mission they have undertaken. Freedom carries a price.

The fact that this new vision is being imposed upon Iraqis, instead of forged by Iraqis is what's wrong with the U.S. and your vision.

Why have the UN then? Why would we help France in WWII? Why should we send peacekeepers to Yugoslavia? Shit, for that matter, why is it so unnatural for the US not to simply take over the world? I mean, what you are advocating is ‘if it can be done, let it be done’ right? Scince the US is in Iraq now, they should just move into Jordan and then take over Saudi. It would be the natural thing to do. Hell, for that matter, they can come into Canada after they used our gun registry to find out where all the weapons are and take us over too. Like, if it feels good, it must be the way things are supposed to be. Freedom.

This doesn't make any sense.

Hence, this talk of how democracy is being foisted on the Iraqi people is crap. A choice is being given to them. There will be a few candidates and they can choose which they prefer with the choices growing in number each year. I imagine some will be socialist, some religious and others more western valued. What is so hard to understand that they will have a choice? The way you go on about it is that they will have no choice but must accept (your definition of democracy which I imagine is a particular western style of government) In subsequent elections there might even be more radical parties running, even terrorists. Who knows?

You must get beyond the generalities and look at the specific. I've said many times that democracy and democratic institutions are impossible without self-determination. What Iraqis are getting is a hand-picked group of exiles as a new government, using rules set down by a foreign occupier and enforced by foreign troops, thousands of whom will remain in country indefinitely. Quite frankly I just don't think a "democracy" create dunder such circumstances has much chance of being anything but a quasi-puppet regime.

Hello, Black Dog. Earth to Black Dog. No identity? Does the phrase ‘Cradle of Civilization’ ring a bell? Ten thousand stinkin’ years of history and suddenly, a hundred years ago, they are subjected to dictators and foreign countries and now, freed and given a choice they have no identity

Again with the fatuousness. Iraq, as a free, democratic state, has no identity as such. It's new to the nation and its people. However, the ability to have a say in what this new state will look like is more or less being denied Iraqis as the apparatus and identity of the new state are being detrmined from the outside. (As an example, consider the recent and short-lived "new" Iraqi flag.)

Exchanging? What the hell are you talking about? Five or ten years down the road when there is no Iraqi government or free elections, but rather a totally US control of every aspect of Iraqi life you can say that, until then, you have to take it at face value until proven different. That of self government on June 30 and self rule and free elections come next year.

A false dichotomy. You cna have free elections and teh trappings of democracy, yet stil be subservient. That's the direction the new Iraq could be heading.

By the way, KK, there's some more "pranks" to report:

'Secret film shows Iraq prisoners sodomised'

Young male prisoners were filmed being sodomised by American soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, according to the journalist who first revealed the abuses there.

[Hawk]

Even Canada is not a democracy, rather it is a self- elected-representative-dictatorship.

I must sadly agree with you on this one

The fact that this new vision is being imposed upon Iraqis, instead of forged by Iraqis is what's wrong with the U.S. and your vision.

You are overlooking that sometimes people need to be shown a vision in order to pursue it, that is what the USA is doing.

You must get beyond the generalities and look at the specific. I've said many times that democracy and democratic institutions are impossible without self-determination. What Iraqis are getting is a hand-picked group of exiles as a new government, using rules set down by a foreign occupier and enforced by foreign troops, thousands of whom will remain in country indefinitely. Quite frankly I just don't think a "democracy" create dunder such circumstances has much chance of being anything but a quasi-puppet regime.

It is rare for a left-winger to be at all positive about anything... at all. Heck a few days into the invasion they were all declaring 'quagmire' 'vietnam' 'we are losing!' 'we can't win!' blah blah.... well last I checked Saddam was captured, Iraq captured, and the USA was in control

Why dont we just wait and see what happens instead of overreacting and crying doomsday? =)

Again with the fatuousness. Iraq, as a free, democratic state, has no identity as such. It's new to the nation and its people. However, the ability to have a say in what this new state will look like is more or less being denied Iraqis as the apparatus and identity of the new state are being detrmined from the outside. (As an example, consider the recent and short-lived "new" Iraqi flag.)

Oh it would be sooooo heartless to get rid of the flag that represented decades of torture and death under the leadership of a hated dictator. Tell you what BD hows about we move you to some nice south american dictator's country, pin 'I love dictators' pins all over you, and release you into the public... see if you last a day =p

Perhaps this hasn't occured to you but maybe the Iraqis WANT a new Iraq that is anything BUT the old Iraq?

A false dichotomy. You cna have free elections and teh trappings of democracy, yet stil be subservient. That's the direction the new Iraq could be heading.

By the way, KK, there's some more "pranks" to report:

'Secret film shows Iraq prisoners sodomised'

Coulda woulda shoulda, probability isn't a constant so using it as a judgement call is pointless.

I got a 'prank' for you too:

http://encoderx.co.uk/nickberg/

[Black Dog]

Why dont we just wait and see what happens instead of overreacting and crying doomsday?

Well, for one thing, there's the fact that most of the events predicted by the anti-war left have come to pass: continuing resistance, an interim government of questionable legitimacy, no WMDs...

Basically, we haven't been given a lot of reasons to feel positive about this venture.

Oh it would be sooooo heartless to get rid of the flag that represented decades of torture and death under the leadership of a hated dictator.

The point is they didn't actually bother asking the Iraqis about what flag they wanted. Most Iraqis prefer the old standard, with its traditional Arab colours.

Perhaps this hasn't occured to you but maybe the Iraqis WANT a new Iraq that is anything BUT the old Iraq?

Has it occurred to you that maybe Ithe Iraqis should be the ones making the determination as to what country they want?

I got a 'prank' for you too:

http://encoderx.co.uk/nickberg/

We already have a thread for Nick Berg. Find it. Anyway, what's your point? That because some Iraqis choose to chop of the heads of innocent people, then its okay to bugger other Iraqis and film it?

[Hawk]

Well, for one thing, there's the fact that most of the events predicted by the anti-war left have come to pass: continuing resistance, an interim government of questionable legitimacy, no WMDs...

Basically, we haven't been given a lot of reasons to feel positive about this venture.

There is also the fact most of the dire predictions failed to come to pass. Saddam has been captured, the Iraqis defeated. According to the left that would neeeeever happen since this war was unwinnable, its another Vietnam right? A quagmire? I got a whole lot of nice quotes from a book called 'Misunderestimated' which you will find interesting, and if you want I will post them =)

The point is they didn't actually bother asking the Iraqis about what flag they wanted. Most Iraqis prefer the old standard, with its traditional Arab colours.

Oh so since we didn't ask what flag they wanted how do you know they want the old standard? I think you are adding just as much bias to this issue as you claim we are.

Has it occurred to you that maybe Ithe Iraqis should be the ones making the determination as to what country they want?

Of course, but how could they do that with a dictator in power that killed anyone who wanted change? Then the USA goes in and ousts the dictator (who is keeping them from 'making the determination') and suddenly they are evil, double standard anyone?

We already have a thread for Nick Berg. Find it. Anyway, what's your point? That because some Iraqis choose to chop of the heads of innocent people, then its okay to bugger other Iraqis and film it?

As KK, along with any right-winger you ask, has said numerous times (and you fail to accept) is that we don't support the scandals. Why is it that you are labelling me a 'scandal supporter'? Is it because I support the invasion of Iraq (albeit not whole-heartedly)?

Your use of the source indicates that those who support the USA support the scandal, which is nothing short of preposterous. The personel responsible for the scandals are being globally humiliated and tried for their crimes, also investigations are being led to bring any affiliated persons to justice as well. Let me ask you this, do you think those people who beheaded Nick are facing the same treatment? Of course not, they are heroes. The USA and the USA government are not even remotely close to being terrorist.

[caesar]

" the Iraqis defeated. " You claim the Iraqis are defeated; I thought the idea was to liberate them.

I think about as many Americans are dying there now since the "end of hostilities" or whatever Bush called it; as did during the invasion. Hardly seems like fait accompli there yet.

[caesar]

The torture of prisoners is widespread and similar in Cuba and Iraq. You really believe that it is the work of individuals. geeesh. They are nothing but scapegoats.