Re: OT: Repuglicans are disgusting, 11/10/05 edition

In article <11o4hgefh2p4374@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Frank Berger <frank.d.berger@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>How many people would Saddam Hussein's regime have murdered had he not been
>overthrown? I don't think they would accept your stability argument. What
>about people living under tyranny? Don't you care about them? I do. Do
>you want to live under tryranny? Freedom is only for you? If I were you I
>would accuse you of being unfeeling, if not racist.

Do you care about all the peoples of the world living
under tyranny? Of course not. But you're programmed
to care about one set, the ones whose country we invaded
and the subject of this thread re WP use.

Freedom is for Frank to post forever on forums against
people who question their government's actions in a
democracy while calling such questions anti-American
and dissing our sources in that way (so much for
freedom in some eyes).

>> There always were intensely split factions there,
>> and a dictator kept the place from chaos. What happened
>> there was their responsibility, but now what will happen
>> in the near future will be our responsibility.
>
>Absolutely true.

Which was Bush's doing. Or his handlers.

>> Also due to our stupidity in going in there, without
>> support and without enough troops, borders unsecured,
>
>Well, our own border is unsecured; fair is fair. You wanted more troops? I
>thought you against the war altogether. Which is it?

Well, let's have some logic and practical thinking again.
IF you're going to wage war and send other people's children
to fight for you, and to invade a country where their presence
won't be understood very well, and you're worried about
terrorists, think a bit.

The military told Rumsfeld he needed more people. No,
they could win easily with 1/3 of what the military guys decided.

So he sent in a force that could not provide cover on the
borders and in (also, as well as we) came the external
insurgents, knowing that they'd find some fine young recruits
in a country occupied by the U.S. suddenly.

If people like you must rush to wage war, then protect
the people you're trying to save and your own troops.

Or, face what we have today, which is crippling this
country and it'll be seen more so in the next half-year
with recruitment way down and people now aware that
our reasons for invading were pure vapor.

>Or is it that you will critizicize every thought, motivation and action of
>the Bush administration no matter what? Please do not interpret this to mean
>I support all actions of the Bush administration. I do not, not by a long
>shot. I've said I didn't vote for him and I wouldn't if I could.

If I criticize the war and the use of WP in Fallujah
you have shown in this thread that you will of course
call it "every thought, motivation..." of Bush admin.

But since it makes you feel better, go ahead.

>> and not understanding the strife there between
>> factions (not to mention for false reasons), once
>> we have to leave it becomes obvious we failed to
>> stabilize the country.
>
>If we pull out prematurely, we will for sure have failed to stabilize the
>country. No war, even those you, an admitted non-pacifist, would have
>supported, has been fought without errors. Bad errors.

Yes, I agree we shouldn't pull out prematurely.
Our only discussion has been, really, about WP, and you
brought me back into it with your sudden accusations
about my intent to 'deceive' after I'd left this
thread.

>> As others explained we are failing now to stabilize
>> it (to understate it) and Chalabi who helped mislead
>> us is sympathetic to Iran. America is losing as it
>> is, both in the great outpouring of sympathy we had
>> during 9-11 and in respect. Bullies are not
>> respected. You may call this Anti-American thinking
>> but to me it's anti-American to allow this kind of
>> behavior.
>
>Yes, but I don't call you unfeeling, a liar, etc., etc. for disagreeing with
>me.

I call you unfeeling because you keep writing that
you don't care no matter what was done because you
can see the humans as only 'insurgents' or 'combatants'
and that they should not have left their women and
children there, in their homes, as we were advancing.

We didn't just make a mistake. We made a very
horrible one, destructive to them and to ourselves.

Focus should now be on how we stop doing the worst
and find out how we can leave them to help themselves
after all the training we've given and all the money.

>> America or the concept of it was never this.
>> And the freedom we say we want to export is the
>> right to protest the most self- and other-
>> destructive actions of our leaders.
>>
>>>There you go again.

Yes !


>>>> We are breaking them left and right
>>>
>>>Not also up and down? What Geneva conventions are we breaking?

>I didn't see any references to U.S. violations of Geneva Conventions.
>Perhaps you meant violations of the Andrys Basten Conventions?

Okay, you will probably want to skip this section
but here are citations for those who want to look
about them (I'm an avid blogger who looks for info
and this might bore) :

===============================================================

Supreme court reviewing this controversy (Nov 7 2005)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3867067.stm
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/11/court_to_rule_o_2.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5014021

[2]
Takes into consideration The Convention
against Torture as well as The Geneva Convention
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/12/us1227.htm

[3]
John Yoo, a professor at Boalt Hall Law School
at the University of California, Berkeley. From 2001 to
2003, he served as a deputy assistant attorney general at
the Justice Department.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june04/interrogation_05-13.html
=======
"I don't think there's any doubt that some of the pictures
show violations of the Geneva Conventions. I also don't
think there's any doubt that the Geneva Conventions apply to
the prison in Baghdad.
=======

[4]
Burning of prisoners:
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.221655896&par=0
"These are very serious allegations and, if true, very
troublesome," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman. "It is
the policy of the United States, as well as the Defence
Department, to treat all remains consistent with the Geneva
Convention and with the utmost respect," said the spokesman
on Thursday.

The US Central Command, which oversees American military
operations in Afghanistan, has also ordered an immediate
criminal investigation, saying the alleged atrocity was
"repugnant to our common values" and "is not sanctioned by
this command. "

[5]
Findlaw article on Geneva Convention and other violations
of int'l law with respect to secret prisons
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20051107_bergen.html

[6]
Int'l Security Law Project
http://www.cdi.org/news/law/gc-responsibility.cfm

[7]
Findlaw points out the people who disagree with
US Atty General Gonzales
=======
"Notably, the International Committee of
the Red Cross (ICRC), the official guardian of the Geneva
Conventions, has publicly expressed its disagreement with
the U.S. view.

So have such international legal scholars as DePaul
University Law Professor M. Cherif Bassiouni and human
rights authorities such as U.N. High Commissioner for Human
Rights Mary Robinson. Even the British, Washington's most
loyal allies, have expressed qualms about the U.S. position
on the detainees."
========

[8]
http://www.ccmep.org/2005_articles/civil%20liberties/011905_truthout.htm
Argument against Gonzales's opinion in memorandum of 2002
(retracted later but used by US for 2.5 years)
The writer is Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas
Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the
National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the
executive committee of the American Association of Jurists.

===============================================================

>Please point out the violations if I have missed them.

Read links above when you have time and inclination.

>> Not an entire city? When 10,000 homes were utterly
>> destroyed and about 40,000 damaged? When all the civilians
>> were told to leave their homes and their city?
>
>So that they wouldn't be harmed. Duh.

By us. Who made a "mistake" or "error"
in invading that country. Really nice.

>> "The bad guys" -- I see, anyone who is living there.
>
>No, the groups using terrorist activities to undermine the transition to
>democracy in Iraq.

Hey, nice quoting of the program!

Or, one could say those who don't want their
country or region taken over by Chalabi or by
the people currently occupying. The factions
co-exist, unhappily, before and now.

"Democracy" is a nice word but needs to
occur in a more natural way, from a real impulse
to it, and that does not occur over there,
and the religious dynamics are very awful.


>>>The Iraqi government and the majority of the people in Iraq would be
>>>opposed
>>>to our sudden and immediate withdrawal. Does that concern you in any way?
>>
>> Yes, and that's another reason I'm upset at Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld
>> - Cheney was the one who said they'd welcome us with flowers.
>
>Actually many did. A poll that says 80 or whatever percent if Iraqis would
>like the U.S. to leave is not inconsistent with a poll showing the majority
>of Iraqis don't want us to leave right this second.

"many' welcoming us with flowers wasn't enough to
make the general statement and its full meaning. It didn't
happen. Quite the opposite.

I've seen a lot of polls but none saying what they want
about us leaving "right this second."

I am sure that many do not want us to leave when they're
among those with Chalabi and with us. It's a terrible
situation.


>> Are you reading what is happening over there? You would
>> spend something like 2 billion a day to do this for any
>> country with a murderous regime and spend the lives of our
>> young people for what you consider giving them democracy?
>>
>> That is ignorance of what the area is like. It's not
>> going to work. Whether we stay or leave, the ones in power
>> will ultimately suspend "democracy" to get their way.
>
>Maybe, maybe not. It's an investment. Some investments don't pay off. But
>they have to be given a fair shot.

It's an "investment" for you and other people's lives.

Gambling with people's entire lives is not the same as
an 'investment' especially when emulating poker faces
and a good hand when you have a bad one.


>The U.S. has cooperation of other nations in its Iraq endeavor. Just not
>enough to satisfy you.

Not enough to satisfy the boys (and girls) you keep
sending back for 3rd or 4th terms of duty now, many
writing home or saying when they're home, they wish
they could find a way out of the fine print and
thinking it's inevitable they'll die there.

But that probably satisfies you okay.l

Re 'democracy' I've addressed that above.

>> Oh, Frank finally separates individuals. Maybe read
>> a bit more carefully what someone is saying and you'll
>> note differences.
>
>Back at you.

You might not like what I say, but I do read carefully.

>>>> Your thinking has matched the thinking of the most
>>>> closeminded of Republicans,
>>>
>>>Does this mean that most Republicans are closeminded? Or are just
>>>referring
>>>to the closeminded ones? I can't tell. What about closeminded Democrats
>>>that support the war, like Liebermann?
>>
>> No, in the simplest logic tests, you'd fail, based
>> on such an idiotic statement. Read it again.
>
>It could have been meant either way. I asked 8 people. They all agreed it
>was unclear. None of them were neo-conservatives as far as I know.

Only if you insisted in reading it out of context
which was how I grouped you as closer to Republican, by far,
than to Democrat (which I'm sure you'll agree is so).

>> There are closeminded Democrats but your
>> thinking would much less likely match theirs.
>>
>>>> is said to make up about 38% who feel Bush can't do wrong,
>
>I believe the 38% say Bush is "generally doing a good job." That is hardly
>"can't do wrong." You really ought to try to be more precise.

That is despite the humongous list of things that
are wrong. I read Free Republic site regularly, and
do see the reasoning of that 38 or 39% -- it's not
likely to change much, as it's faith-based.

When things get just too clear it might get down
to about 33%.

>> Normally, if another, larger, richer country had
>> invaded us,
>
>We are a democracy. Nobody would have the right to overthrow our
>government.

LOL! And we had a "right" to overthrow theirs.
And then stay there for a long while while destroying so
much of the works there. And set up checkpoints
all over and control their "freedom" to go anywhere.

The problem is that our soldiers NEED to check
vigilantly because that car with "civilians" in it
coming down the road may well have a suicide bomb
in it. It's that kind of place, made worse by
their being more unified and growing in numbers
against what is perceived as a common enemy.

As longtime marine and military supporter Murtha
explained.

> Iraq was a tyranny. The government had no right to exist. The
>purpose of the invasion was and is to replace the government with a
>democracy.

Guess what? No govt has a right to decide
what other government has a right to exist. We can
overthrow them but we can also do extreme damage
to their people and ours (for years) while doing
so, with no good end in sight.


>> and had checkpoints everywhere to tell you
>> where you could or could not go, you might fight
>> that attempt to control us. If you did you'd become
>> a Combatant.
>
>If I were living under a tyranny, and the invaders came to help establish a
>representative government, I would welcome them, as many Iraqis have. I
>would not become a combatant. I would be a revolutionary against the status
>quo. I would be anti-authoritarian.

The current authority would be the invader's. So
you do follow the usual tendency. Now what the invading
country does and how they do it is a hell of a lot more
complicated than you infer here, which is why we have such
a sorry mess over there.

If you had to leave your home, take your wife
and children with you while you knew that some of
your neighbors were among the remaining 'combatants'
you'd probably not be so sanguine.

>> to so many there. For sending our kids over to
>> waste years in a horrible situation if they get to
>> survive it and all the memories of faces and limbs
>> torn apart while they themselves are in danger
>> ALL the time.
>
>Answered above. Do you notice you just keep repeating the same things and
>virtually never actually respond to my points?

Actually, I always do respond but you respond
to different points with just bland programmed
statements that avoid the meaning of what I've
bothered to type about the complex situation they
and we are facing there. You do tend to like
to see things in comforting black and white.

>> They're not good at all in this case, but if you
>> read the descriptions of WP and what they do to people,
>> only a monster would justify using them against humans
>> defending their own city. I realize you may not have read the
>> one at the neutral emedicine site I cited.
>
>I have indeed. And for the umpteenth time, I have never defended the use of
>WP in any particuar situation.

You did say it would not burn the skin without burning the clothes.

IN fact it can do that but health workers must avoid contact
with those clothes or they can be burned, afterward.

> I HAVE tried to point out that there are
>differences between civilians and combatants and between deliberately
>targeting civilians as opposed to combatants.

You were heard but told that giving them names like "combatants"
and making it A-OK to do that to them under our particular
set of bad circumstances is not A-OK with others.

> It may well be that using WP
>against combatants in a situation in which there are likely to be
>significant civilian casualties is wrong. The U.S. has not signed that
>particular protocol.

American used to stand for moral standards. Christians
used to. Everything is topsy turvy nowadays. The communists
and the Fascists did justify what they did in these ways.


> I don't know all the arguments pro and con. Do you?

No but I'm exploring while you pooh pooh almost all
sources that you declare mainstream and proclaim you
didn't have time in over a week to read mainstream links.

You tend to write from your gut and don't seem to care
much about conflicting information.


>Can you imagine that there COULD BE good arguments against that protocol?
>Perhaps the U.S. feels it is necessary to reserve the right to do so in
>certain circumstances. Maybe using WP to flush the combatants out can save
>civilian lives that would be lost using large amounts of conventional
>explosives. Remember, the combatants are not supposed to be hiding among
>civilians.

Remember that the combatants as you call them are civilians
often, who decided to fight us, in their cities.

As I have said you'll find countless ways to justify it, so
talking with you has been utterly useless because there is
no hint of a moral stand when it comes to our side with you.


>> Yes, I did watch the one re the journalist, to see for
>> myself. That was enough. That those crazies want us
>> to see that they'll do this is clear. It's the last
>> one I viewed since I didn't need to know more.
>
>I didn't need to know more either.

For me, only that we have a crazy enemy scattered
among them and that we need to find a way to
make them irrelevant. We've done the opposite
over there.

>> As for what you 'know about' the Rai film, you know
>> nothing except that it's not a mainstream source so
>> you ignore it.
>
>I haven't ignored it. I've been talking about it. Where have you been?

Dissing it is not talking about what was in it.
Saying it's not mainstream is not discussing it.
Saying they're only combatants is not either, and
being able to avoid looking at the damage to actual
people in a very mistaken war is not helping.


>> The reality is there are desperate crazy people
>> over there. One step someday will be people working
>> to end the desperation.
>>
>> But more likely the world will all go up in smoke in our
>> own lifetime the way things are going.
>
>Perhaps, I hope not. But I don't want to live and wouldn't like to see all
>of Africa, Asia and Europe living under an Islamic theocracy, either, which
>may be the alternative to fighting them.

Others can live under what they choose to.
We are making the Islamic cause even more powerful in
their eyes when we find we were wrong, decide we
will keep doing what we're doing anyway, and treat
humans as "insurgents" in their own region.

>I am anything but robotic. I am anything but robotic. I am anything but
>robotic.

:-)

>>>No, a realist. All the things you are descibing also happen in wars that
>>>you, an admitted non-pacifist, would support.

But the difference is that this is a war most people
are not supporting because they found out we decided
to do all this based on scaring Americans based on
false or zero actual evidence or reality.

Now if you want to say, okay we were wrong, but
I'd like to "spread freedom" so I will send all my
neighbor's kids over to do that. Now we will have
to institute a draft because the ones that have kept
doing it for you and me can't do it anymore, even
if you want them to.

>> You will never comprehend the difference between
>> fighting a war based on lies and fighting a war that
>> was needed.
>
>As already stated, I am more concerned with the the present than the past.

That's what people say when they make mistakes
and won't own up to it.

>How we got into the war has nothing to do with whether or when we get out.
>The first ship has sailed. I've given my reasons for continuing to support
>the effort to bring representative gocernment to Iraq.

That's a side issue. My discussion with you was
on the use of WP and what it means to us as a country
built on fairly moral foundations.

Even then, it's a decision you make for others
to make sacrifices for.

>>>So it's not the harm to civilians you really care about per se, it's the
>>>fact that it's happening as a result of a war that you consider to be
>>>unjust.
>>
>> Incredibly horrible logic once again. Unreal.
>>
>> It's the harm to civilians IN a war that most thinking people
>> know was started on totally false premises.
>
>In other words, the orginal premises matter more than the current state of
>affairs. Oh, I see now.

Well, you never fail to astound me with that wooden head
of yours. No, there's no "matter more" in that. They go
together, bound tightly. Again, it's logic. But you really
cannot teach logic to one who can't think that way.

>war is irrelevent. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that it was all
>simply a mistake. Nobody deliberately misled anybody; the intelligence was
>wrong, but believed by everybody (remember, this is just for the sake of the
>agument). You would STILL be outraged by the continued conduct of the war.
>Try to focus your arguments.

To focus them for your limited mindset is not my
aim here. The govt actually reacted to information they
got in a very irresponsible way, rushing to war. Something
that should never be done.

Much more detail on the question you raise here:
http://andrys1.blogspot.com/2005/11/that-pre-war-intel-same-for-all.html

>>>> And you see only 'win' 'lose' in life.
>>>
>>>Sigh. Another baseless personal attack. No longer unexpected.
>>
>> But that's all you write about.
>
>That's a silly remark. But you ARE supposed to "win" a war your're in.

Even if you chose to start it on false premises?

Is that how you live the rest of your life?

>> And again, why waste lives on Iraq when we could
>> have used all those forces against bin Laden instead.
>> Hmmm?
>>
>> It wasn't a red herring, but actually the Heart of
>> the matter.
>>
>> And here's an illustration of that:
>> http://andrys.com/bushchgs.jpg
>>
>> Words actually spoken.
>>
>I would never vote for a man with two heads (or faces). Although it is
>conceivable that each remark was reasonable at the time it was spoken. But
>let's not go there.

He's a pragmatist. If he can't do one thing, he decides
he has no interest in doing it after all. Not all promises
can be kept. Something he needs to remember


- A

--
http://www.andrys.com



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GIVE YALE THE FINGER
    ... of which, in my view, are hurting long term interests of this country. ... The United States' BEST assets are its ideals of democracy, freedom, ... That is not freedom of speech at all, ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • Re: OT: Katrinas Wrath
    ... > l> That's the thing about freedom - you have the freedom to make an ... In this country, you are responsible for you - ... >>> There are no material reasons not to save peoples lives, ... > out of the city, because they did not "heed warnings", but because the ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Making generations of enemies
    ... commensurate scale was visited on this country (of over 300 million ... the Republicans would have to fight. ... disdain for our Constitution and our freedom. ... spare your useless lives. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: How the EU will lead to war
    ... which might then present an image that the nations in ... right to travel within the borders of this country are being erased, ... freedom of the individual is being erased. ... process which transformed England into a democracy, ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: How the EU will lead to war
    ... which might then present an image that the nations in ... right to travel within the borders of this country are being erased, ... freedom of the individual is being erased. ... process which transformed England into a democracy, ...
    (uk.politics.misc)