Debate
Free World: The book
Latest
Commentary
Suggested Websites
Timothy Garton Ash
What should we ask of Bush II.2?
When George W Bush was reelected President of the United States on 2 November 2004, much of the rest of the world let out a collective groan. What can we expect of his second administration? As important: what should we demand of it? See TGA's Guardian columns on this subject |
 |
Debate - Page 7/12
Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Don White, Florida USA
Antti Vainio, Finland: Do you really think
torture is ok?
DON: One American among many declares, Absolutely not! The first reason
is the DEMEANING effect torture has on the perpetrator. Torture debases
the torturer, not the victim. Torture dehumanizes the torturer, not the
victim. It is a road down which no civilized society would thoughtfully
choose to travel. To put it short, we have been there, done that.
A second reason, it is impossible to depend or rely on information gained
by torture. How can you be certain if you had only tortured the victim
one more day, he would have revealed the truth? Last, the detainees at
Git-mo have been out of touch since the day of their capture and would
have no information of current value. This same constraint is applicable
to other Œsecret‚ U.S. bases maintained (in violation of both
international and domestic law) around the world,
Recall the recent election ploy when Pres. Bush claimed to have Œdiscovered‚
a computer cache in Pakistan including a spy film of downtown New York?
Bush put NY and Washington on HIGH alert. Cost in overtime pay, $50 million.
Cost to OBL? A few hundred bucks. 9/11 cost OBL perhaps $3 million. The
U.S. has spent $300 billion! In high finance they call that a LEVERAGED
BUY OUT!
An alert citizen discovered the film Pres. Bush touted was 4 years old!
The citizen noted the building pictured had been remodeled some 4 years
earlier. The tragedy is we cannot be sure whether this was just a cynical
Republican political ploy, or if our ŒIntel‚ agencies were
FOOLED for real! That‚s the scary thing!
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Good News: the UN has chosen a group of countries responsible for deciding
the agenda for its next Human Rights Commission meeting. Bad News: The
countries include: Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe; 60% of the members
on the panel are human rights abusers themselves. Perhaps the UN felt
that first hand experience would aid the panel in its mission. IN THAT
CASE, PK, THE UNITED STATES WOULD HAVE BEEN INVITED. [MY COMMENTS IN CAPS.]
Michel Bastian, France: To Phil Karasick: A "few hundred thousand?
Do you have any evidence to support that claim?‰ MB - I based this
on the study done by researchers for The Lancet, a British medical journal.
[LINK POSTED] Íll grant you they did a statistical job, not
an actual body count. They also took into account deaths due to insufficient
medical supplies, failing infrastructure etc., That doesn‚t absolve
the Bush administration from their responsibility. [EDITED]
DON: The United States‚ lingo I call NEW SPEAK denominates civilian
deaths as COLLATERAL DAMAGE. Regardless of the number of Iraqi dead, 15,000
or 100,000, America has dehumanized those people. Or is it SANITIZED?
We started this PUBLIC RELATIONS diversion during the Vietnam War. America
killed somewhere between 1 million and 3 million Vietnamese civilians.
Mostly what we now like to call, as in the WTC, INNOCENT people. These
are indeed dangerous times.
PK: There aren't any "camps" for illegal combatants other than
at Git'mo. MB: Sure there are. Theýre just not as well known:
Baghram and Kandahar in Afghanistan, Abu Ghuraib in Iraq, Diego Garcia
in the Pacific (Solomon Islands). AMERICANS, ESPECIALLY IN RED STATES,
GENERALLY LIVE IN A BLISSFUL STATE KNOWN AS IGNORANCE. OR DENIAL.
Michel Bastian, France, To Phil Karasick: Cruise missiles work using the
same basic principle as ballistic principles. It's not "rocket science"
(if you'll pardon the pun). It́s a bit more complicated in practice
of course (terrain-following stuff, way points, enemy radar cover etc.)
Unfortunately, a cruise missile is the wrong kind of weapon to use against
terrorists. Cruise missile technology is over 20 years old, and was designed
for use against Soviet-Bloc fixed installations -- airfields, barracks,
etc. [EDITED BY DON]
DON; Americans are supremely infatuated with technology. Out goal is a
CLEAN war, one in which we can kill others from a safe distance. Don‚t
misunderstand me, I‚m not saying Americans in 2005 are 21st century
knock-offs of Ghengis Khan. Rather, that Americans have been bamboozled
by 30 years of bad leadership which would not or could not face the reality
of WAR. We are SUPER MACHO!
The U.S. is committed to a world where its corporate citizens will be
able to roam, free of national restraints, to sustain the American Empire
on the backs of the billions of underprivileged peoples of the world.
Americans repeat this litany over and over, ŒWe‚re the best!
We‚re the greatest! We‚re the richest! We‚re the strongest!
That is 2005 America IN A NUT SHELL!
I‚m very sorry for that. We could have done so much better.
Can you imagine the POWER and INFLUENCE America would have around the
world today if INSTEAD of flaunting 8 super carrier battle groups, we
had 8 super HOSPITAL ships as in the USS HOPE of by-gone days? And etc.
Jim Jordan, USA
I would just like to say that "separate"
is spelled "separate," not "seperete." I know this
is a difficult concept to get across. Most of us have something that enables
us to feel superior to all other people and with me it is the ability
to spell "separate" and properly use the subjunctive tense.
Unfortunately I don't spell very well. I learned to spell during the "Look
- Say" era and still remember my first grade teacher telling us we
could tell the difference between "Horse" and "House"
because "Horse" had a saddle we could ride and "House"
had a door we could walk through. Words are still pictograms to me. Thank
God for Bill Gates and Spell Check. Unfortunately Spell Check can't tale
whether the word makes any since.
Now, seriously, I do wish you Europeans would learn the difference between
Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. Mr. Bush is an Evangelical but he is
NOT a Fundamentalist. Fundamentalists did, to a great degree, back Mr.
Bush because he was the only game in town but they do not view him as
the savior of Fundamentalist Christianity. Fundamentalists believe, among
other things, that the bible is literally true except for things they
believe to be clearly metaphor and they also believe they are the only
ones qualified to point out what parts of the Bible are clearly metaphor.
Sometimes this even extends to Jesus himself. For example when Jesus told
the Roman soldier his daughter was "only asleep" the Fundamentalists
say this was metaphor even though the Roman solider clearly said, "My
daughter is dead," and Jesus said, "No, she is only asleep."
I don't know how they do it. It's magic.
Evangelicals, on the other had, tend to take the bible a little more loosly
than the Fundamentalists but they are distinguished from, say, Catholics,
Anglicans, Lutherans, and Orthodox Christians by "receiving Jesus
Christ" in some kind of adult life-changing experience rather than
at baptism as I did. They do not receive the Holy Spirit then. Pentecostals
receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is not the same as being
"born again."
Bush, as an Evangelical, considers all sins to be equally bad in God's
sight. You will not hear him say much about homosexuals because, though
he believes homosexual behavior to be sinful, he considers it no more
sinful than any other sin. This is characteristic of Evangelicals. Fundamentalists,
on the other hand, look at the Bible and see that God wanted to kill homosexuals
but had lessor penalties for others so they create a hierarchy of sin.
They have seldom, if ever, committed the worst of the sins. When they
are found to have committed the worst of the sins (as once happened in
my experience) the church promises not to prosecute them if them move
to San Francisco and promise never to return.
Now, what do you demand of Bush? If you keep him out of France he'll be
fine. He and the French President despise each other. Some people don't
like each other and they don't. Work around it. The German guy is OK but
he's eaten up with guilt over invading France twice in one century and
losing both times and when he goes to France he starts apologizing and
then becomes France's Northeast Province. Keep him away too. If you can
keep the Presidents of the U. S. and France from playing Macho Man with
each other until after the next elections everything ought to be fine.
With Iraq? We're there. The worst thing we could do now is pick up and
leave. You want to see chaos and confusion? Let us pick up and leave.
We were wrong. We're sorry. Now quit telling us you told us so and help
us get out of this mess with some of our dignity intact (God knows France
alone has enough dignity for all of Europe) before this thing boils completely
out of control.
Don White, USA
POSTED BY Jim Jordan, USA The difference between
Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. Mr. Bush is an Evangelical, NOT a Fundamentalist.
Fundamentalists backed Mr. Bush because he was the only game in town.
. Fundamentalists believe the bible is literally true except for things
they believe to be clearly metaphor. They believe they are the only ones
qualified to determine what parts of the Bible are clearly metaphor. Sometimes
this even extends to Jesus himself. For example when Jesus told the Roman
soldier his daughter was "only asleep" the Fundamentalists say
this was metaphor even though the Roman solider clearly said, "My
daughter is dead," and Jesus said, "No, she is only asleep."
I don't know how they do it. It's magic. . . . Evangelicals, on the other
had, tend to take the bible a little more loosely than Fundamentalists.
They are distinguished from, say, Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and
Orthodox Christians by "receiving Jesus Christ" in some kind
of adult life-changing experience rather than at baptism as I did.
Pentecostals receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is not the same
as being "born again." Bush, as an Evangelical, considers all
sins to be equally bad. You will not hear him say much about homosexuals
because, though he believes homosexual behavior to be sinful, he considers
it no more sinful than any other sin. This is characteristic of Evangelicals.
Fundamentalists, on the other hand, look at the Bible and see that God
wanted to kill homosexuals but had lessor penalties for others so they
create a hierarchy of sin.
WITH Iraq? We're there. The worst thing we could do now is pick up and
leave. You want to see chaos and confusion? Let us pick up and leave.
We were wrong. We're sorry. Now quit telling us you told us so and help
us get out of this mess with some of our dignity intact (God knows France
alone has enough dignity for all of Europe) before this thing boils completely
out of control. [Edited by Don White]
DON: Excellent reporting on American religions, JJ of USA. However, I
disagree sharply with your final assessment of the situation in Iraq.
JJ, you questioned, „You want to see chaos and confusion? Let us
pick up and leave.‰ I ask how many Iraqis were killed yesterday?
20-50? It‚s getting to be old news in the U.S. of A. But it is happening
every day in Iraq. Oh, and 4 Americans were killed too.
I believe Bush is committed to the same KISSINGER DOCTRINE that kept the
US in Vietnam from 1969 to 1974.. Nixon ran in 1968 on the promise to
„end the war.‰ He won. The voters accepted we had lost the
war and wanted out. Kissinger persuaded Nixon America could have PEACE
WITH HONOR. Whatever the hell that means. That bad decision cost 20,000
American KIAs and we killed about 1 million Vietnamese For naught. Recall
the FAST EXIT of the U.S. in 1975? Do you see why I am sensing a deja
vu?
We could withdraw 5,000 men (and women) a week from Iraq, which would
take about 30 weeks before we were „outta here.‰ I believe
it would be NO WORSE in Iraq after we were gone. Maybe no better but surely
no worse.
America‚s problem is we want to dictate what kind of government
(compliant if not subservient) and economic system (willing to contract
with US but with private ownership of oil resources) is in place in Iraq.
Pure and simple. The American Empire in action!
Jan Paul, USA
We should ask the President to push to get
the Fair Tax Act. It would even help fund Social Security since even foreign
visitors that spend almost 100 billion a year here would be paying in.
The Act would make businesses more competitive with China. It would eleminate
most of the 250 billion in compliance cost. We wouldn't have to file income
tax anymore. And prices would come down a lot on many procucts as much
as 10 to 30%. The tax is slowly progressive from 0% for poverty level
to 29.9% for wealthy.
http://www.geocities.com/cmcofer/faq-all.html
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
RE: your comment -- "Michel Bastian,
France
I based this on the study done by researchers for The Lancet, a british
medical journal (see http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.html?ex=1109134800&en=e6f7929deb7faf34&ei=5070
)."
That alleged "study" has already been thoroughly discredited.
The researchers based their fraudulent conclusion on a methodology that
involved talking to a tiny and unrepresentative sample of the population
(a mere less than 1,000 families) and asking if anyone in their household
had been killed or injured during the liberation of Iraq. From that infintesimal
sample size, the researches extrapolated their results and tried to claim
the results were representative of an overall Iraqi population of more
than 20 million people. No mention or investigation was made during the
study of whether the participants were Shi'ites (far less likely to be
participants in anti-American terrorism in Iraq), Sunnis (who form the
core of the terrorism movement) or Kurds (who are total non-participants
in the ongoing terrorism, since the US invasion liberated them). Further,
the researchers admitted that their study did not even bother to question
whether the casualties reported were, in fact, not innocent civilians
at all, but were instead insurgents (terrorists) killed while attempting
to commit acts of terrorist violence against Coalition personnel. If they
were indeed insurgents (terrorists), then they deserved killing, and should
not even have been counted in the survey to begin with. Apparently it
did not occur to the researchers to take into consideration the fact that
if you knowingly and willingly engage in violent acts of terrorism against
Coalition forces, you are statistically far more likely to meet with a
rather violent end than if you had simply continued living a peaceful
and non-violent existence. Terrorists who take on the US military do indeed
have a far higher mortality rate than the general Iraqi population. The
only thing "wrong" with that is, the mortality rate for Terrorists
isn't quite up to 100%. (YET).
Michel Bastian wrote: "The last ones
they released (from Git'mo) were three british inmates, which were released
from custody shortly after their arrival in Britain because they had no
ties with any terrorist organisations. Those people were imprisoned for
THREE YEARS without any charges, proof or motive for punishment just because
they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time."
Just exactly how does knowingly and deliberately residing in a Terrorist
state (Afghanistan, under the murderous rule of the Taliban), a brutally
medieval state that is intentionally harboring a mass murderer (Osama
Bin-Laden) during wartime, qualify as being "in the wrong place at
the wrong time"? If they weren't Terrorism supporters, what were
they doing in an Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban in the first place?
Michel Bastian wrote: "So much for information gained through torture."
How would you "know" whether the detainees who were released
and who then returned to acts of terrorism, were ever "tortured"
at all?
Michel Bastian wrote: "The US actually managed to sabotage the trial
of one of the german-based 9/11 accomplices because they wouldn´t
give out information to the german court. The court actually had to let
this guy walk because the evidence linking him to 9/11 was not given out
by the US authorities."
That's exactly how it had to be, how it should have been. The whole reason
the U.S. wouldn't give information to the German court is precisely because
the revealing of that information would have caused catastrophic damage
to US intelligence services. It would have provided an opportunity in
open court for defense attorneys to cross-examine US government witnesses
and force them to reveal top-secret information about how evidence was
obtained. It would have compromised and done catastrophic damage to classified
and secret US intelligence-gathering methods and networks, methods and
networks that took years of work and billions of dollars to develop. It
would have disclosed information that could have allowed terrorists to
figure out how information about them was obtained. And THAT would have
allowed them to develop successful countermeasures and ways of thwarting
our intelligence-gathering. It would have ensured that we could never
clandestinely obtain information about the terrorists again.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
I wrote: "60 million people died in WWII,
and many of those people died during the fight to liberate Europe from
Naziism, but I don't hear anyone claiming that those deaths were "wrong"
or "immoral".
Michel Bastian responded: "Oh, they were wrong and immoral, since
the war itself was wrong and immoral. The difference is that the US didn´t
start the second world war and therefore weren´t responsible for
it. The Nazis and the Japanese were."
No, they weren't "wrong and immoral" deaths, other than that
they wouldn't have happened if the Nazis hadn't first invaded most of
the rest of Western Europe. They were unfortunate civilian casualties
that could not be avoided or prevented.
Michel Bastian wrote: "Well, so he promised money to Palestinian
terrorists. Everybody else in the Arab world did as well, so what´s
so special about this that it should justify invading Iraq?"
No, he didn't just "promise" money to Arab terrorists. He delivered
it. The money he gave, paid for terrorist acts. It caused terrorist acts
to occur, that would not have occurred if he had not provided that money.
It's blood money. What he did was essentially murder-for-hire. And not
everybody else in the Arab world did it too, either. When we catch people
in the Western world involved in funneling money to Arab terrorist groups
like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, we put them in prison, which is where they
belong. When the person providing millions of dollars to foment Arab Terrorism
is a Head of State, then it's time for that head of State to find something
else to do for a living. Voluntarily, or otherwise.
I wrote: "Correct, it's not the same situation by far. Iraq was FAR
MORE DANGEROUS to American interests than Germany or Japan ever were."
Michel Bastian responded: "In what way? Like I said, no WMDs, no
ties to 9/11; where´s the "direct threat" to America´s
security interests? Truth be told: there wasn´t any!"
Truth be told: Saddam Hussein had a track record of invading neighboring
Middle Eastern petroleum-exporting countries upon which the US depends
for a reliable source of petroleum. That's a threat to america's security
interests.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "All this is related to Iraq and to nothing else. Also, how does this support your theory that France wants (and is actually able) to get supremacy in the EU?".
See below:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57913-2003Jan28.html
http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?file=538689.html
Then, of course, there's always this:
TONY BLAIR, IN GREAT SPEECH, REACHES OUT. CHIRAC BITES HIS HAND.
see http://www.illusionfree.com/weblog/index.php/no_illusions/niperm/20041116_bridges/
Michel Bastian wrote: "So much so that
Islamist insurgency in Iraq is on the rise, and it´s now fueled
by non-Iraqi sources as well. So much so that now Iran and Syria are forming
alliances against the US under the banner of self-defence. So much so
that the Egyptians, the Pakistanis and the Saudis have to deal with rising
Islamist, anti-government organisations because of Iraq. So much so that
even the Indonesians have an Islamist uprising on their hands now (so
the negative effect isn´t even limited to the Middle East). Stabilize
the region, did he? Well if that´s stabilizing the region I can
see dark days ahead for the american dollar if Bush tries to stabilize
that as well."
Well, first of all, there are more than one insurgency going on in Iraq.
There's an insurgency on the part of the embittered Ba'athists who are
discovering that life isn't much fun without Saddam Hussein to protect
them from all the vengeful people they oppressed. And there's also an
insurgency by Islamic fanatics who are looking for a new place in which
to fight America, seeing as how they've been largely routed and kicked
out of Afghanistan and (to a lesser extent) Pakistan.
Second, Iran and Syria have been de facto allies for years. It's nothing
new. And it wasn't "caused" out of the blue by the Iraq conflict.
Syria has 15,000 troops stationed in and effectively controlling Lebanon
and has had them there for two decades. And Iran has been for twenty years,
and continues to be, the major supporter and source of funding for the
Lebanese Islamic terrorist group Hezbollah.
Third, Indonesia's government has been fighting against various uprisings
for decades, including various attempts by Islamic extremists to overthrow
Indonesia's government and install a radical Islamic state. Again, this
fact had nothing to do with Iraq. The conflict in Aceh province alone
is over 30 years old.
Fourth, the Egyptians have been dealing with rising Islamist, anti-government
organisations for years. And again, this wasn't caused by the Iraq conflict.
Had nothing whatsoever to do with it, in fact. You might or might not
recall that in 1996, seven years before the Liberation of Iraq, Egyptian
Islamic terrorists slaughtered hundreds of tourists in an attempt to destabilize
the Egyptian government.
Fifth, the Saudis have had to deal with rising Islamist, anti-government
organisations for several years now. And again, this had nothing whatsoever
to do with Iraq. It had to do with the Saudi government discovering post-9/11
that Al-Qaeda terrorism and the slaughter of innocents are not a phenomenon
reserved exclusively for Western nations and that fellow Muslims are not
immune.
Sixth, the Pakistanis have also had to deal with rising Islamist, anti-government
organisations for several years now. And, once again, this had nothing
whatsoever to do with Iraq. Rather, it had to do with Islamic terror groups
being outraged at Musharraf's having done an abrupt about-face and sided
with America against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
Michel Bastian wrote: "(so the negative effect isn´t even limited
to the Middle East)." What "negative effect"? You mean,
the fact that the Palestinians' PM Abbas is finally doing what the US
and Israel have long demanded as requirements for restarting the peace
talks -- throwing Arafat's corrupt cronies out of power, reforming Arafat's
murderous and numerous "security services", and demanding (and
trying to enforce) a halt to terrorist attacks on Israel by Islamic Jihad
and Hamas? Is that your definition of a "negative effect"?
Michel Bastian wrote: "Again, wrong.
Saddam was a threat to no one outside Iraq, and no amount of wishful thinking
on the part of the US administration is going to change that."
So, are you saying that Saddam being a very clear and murderous threat
to hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shi'ites INSIDE Iraq is "no
big deal" and not enough to warrant any intervention by the outside
world? I wonder why I hear echoes of the 1940s and the disgraceful pre-1941
argument of "Hitler (Saddam) is no threat to anyone outside Germany's
(Iraq's) borders, and what he does with a few (Jews) (Gypsies) (homosexuals)
(trade unionists) (Catholics) (Kurds) (Shi'ites) within Germany's (Iraq's)
borders is none of the world's business."
Michel Bastian wrote: "And they can be
broken psychologically for the rest of their lives. That´s not torture?
I wonder what is, then."
Well, Michel, you're in good company in that view. No less a luminary
than England's Prince Charles has complained that even non-physical, verbal
taunting and humiliation constitutes "horrific, degrading, debasing,
demeaning 'torture' ". Here's what his thoughts were with regard
to that subject.....
BRITONS TORTURE ME, SAYS CHARLES
see http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,12388220%5e1702,00.html
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "It shouldn´t
only bleed for them. It should also bleed for yourself. Like I said, part
of the "evil" of Git´mo is the fact that the US is debasing
itself, using the same methods as the people they´re fighting."
Well, quite frankly, Mr. Bastian, if the supposedly "debasing"
treatment at Git'mo helps break up a terror plot, if it keeps even one
Al-Qaeda lunatic or other Islamic fanatic from crashing even one civilian
airliner filled with hundreds of helpless unarmed civilians into even
one civilian office building filled with thousands of helpless unarmed
civilians a'la 9/11, then I will regard "debasing" in an entirely
new and favorable light. I can live with being "debased". What
I cannot live with, is being murdered in an Al-Qaeda terror attack. People
can live quite well with being "debased". What they cannot live
with is being Murdered. People can survive and recover from being subjected
to enormous amounts of "debasement", degradation, humiliation
and embarassment. However, other than in a single, isolated incident that
occurred about 2,000 years ago, no one has yet successfully recovered
from becoming DEAD.
I previously wrote: Unfortunately, a cruise
missile is the wrong kind of weapon to use against terrorists. Cruise
missile technology is over 20 years old, and was designed for use against
Soviet-Bloc fixed installations -- airfields, barracks, etc. Things that
don't "move", in other words.
In turn, Michel Bastian responded: "You mean like a bunker where
OBL hides out, perhaps?".
Oh, so you somehow "know" that OBL is hiding in a bunker? Just
exactly how do you "know" this? And BTW, can you tell me precisely
'which' bunker he's in, out of about 20,000 in Afghanistan? And again,
just exactly how do you "know" this? How is it that you "know"
that OBL is "hiding out in a bunker", as opposed to, say, being
hidden out in a tent as the "Honored Islamic Guest" of an Al-Qaeda
family that has 6 little boy-children (all named "Osama")? Do
you have some kind of "personal direct line" to OBL and Al-Qaeda?
And wouldn't that mark you as some kind of hard-core Al-Qaeda sympathizer
yourself, since you seem to be claiming that you're personally better-informed
and more-knowledgable about OBL's whereabouts than all of the tens of
thousands of people within the US military and intelligence-gathering
communities, who have been searching (unsuccessfully) for Osama Bin-Laden
since 2001? Or do you just "know" OBL's whereabouts because
"the voices" told you? And if so, have you ever considered appearing
as a guest host on "The Psychic Friends Network"? You've stated
that the target coordinates for an airborne bomb- or missile-strike can
be changed dynamically in realtime via satellite GPS communication. Please
explain, I'm dying to know: Just where, precisely, do those target coordinates
for OBL's position come "from"? If you "know" of OBL's
whereabouts and hiding place, have you offered to provide the coordinates
to Coalition forces? And if not, why not? Do you really need to use a
phone, fax or e-mail to send the target coordinates, or can you just "think"
the coordinates into the missile guidance computer?I previously stated
the following:
(a) Killing a Terrorist with a cruise missile requires first knowing where
the Terrorist "is", so you know where to send the missile "to".
As has already been delicately pointed out, scouring 400,000 square miles
of Afghan valleys, canyons, mountains, caves and old bunkers to find one
specific, individual terrorist is hardly the easiest thing in the world
to do. The Soviets could not find Bin-Laden even when they had 125,000
troops in-country, and they had 10 times' more troops in Afghanistan than
we have there now.
(b) Getting the information you speak of (the location of Bin-Laden's
hiding place) requires the help and cooperation of someone who is local,
who has knowledge of Bin-Laden's whereabouts, and who is greedy / courageous
/ desperate / stupid enough to risk having their throat cut by Bin-Laden's
supporters in retaliation.
and (c) Afghanistan's rural populace is fanatically Muslim, deeply religious,
and intensely suspicious of and hostile toward foreigners, especially
non-Muslims. It's a population that is a natural base of support for Bin-Laden;
they simply will not give him up. There is already a $25 million reward
for information leading to Bin-Laden's capture, and no one has stepped
forward to try to earn it, either because they themselves support Bin-Laden,
or because they know they'd never live to spend it in a region where Bin-Laden
has a lot of fanatical support.
Michel Bastian wrote: "I can´t speak for FancyPants, but I
do know that there is a basic thing you don´t seem to understand
about modern warfare: it´s largely about information, not necessarily
just raw firepower. Before you can attack an enemy you have to know where
he is....".
Hooray!!!! You really ARE starting to "get" it. Yes, before
you can attack an enemy you have to know where he is. Do you "know"
where Osama Bin-Laden is? If you do, as you seem to be claiming that you
do (according to you, he's hiding in a bunker, right?), then please call
the White House or the Pentagon and tell them where Osama Bin-Laden's
hiding. They'd really, Really, REALLY like to know. You see, they don't
know where he is. And, for some unfathomably rude reason, Bin-Laden has
spurned our polite request that he walk out of whatever cave he's in,
come out into the open, take a position 100 yards from any civilians (since
we wouldn't want innocent bystanders to get hurt, of course), stand agreeably
still, and hold his arms out to make the target identification easier
when our warplanes and missiles come diving in on him. Therefore, we can't
attack him, because we don't know where he is.
Since you seem to be pretty sure of your opinion as to what the "wrong"
ways of gathering information are, perhaps you'd like to explain just
exactly how you could do a better job of finding OBL. There's been a $25
million reward offered for three years for information leading to OBL's
capture, and no one's shown any interest in claiming it, even though someone
must surely know OBL's whereabouts. And we already know your position
about obtaining information through less-than-Simon-pure methods -- even
if it's priceless intelligence data that could save thousands of innocent
civilian lives. Yes?
The reward is the "carrot", the detention and interrogation
methods are the "stick". But the murderous Al-Qaeda fanatics
won't take the "carrot", they'd rather die first. And we all
know that you won't use the "stick", because you don't believe
in it and because it violates your sensibilities. And the Al-Qaeda prisoners
know it, too. So, they have no incentive to cooperate.
Just exactly how, then, do you propose to do a better job of locating
Bin-Laden's exact whereabouts so that you can call in that "commando
strike, airstrike or missile strike"?
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> That alleged "study" has already been thoroughly discredited.
The researchers based their fraudulent conclusion on a methodology that
involved talking to a tiny and unrepresentative sample of the population
(a mere less than 1,000 families) and asking if anyone in their household
had been killed or injured during the liberation of Iraq. From that infintesimal
sample size, the researches extrapolated their results and tried to claim
the results were representative of an overall Iraqi population of more
than 20 million people. No mention or investigation was made during the
study of whether the participants were Shi'ites (far less likely to be
participants in anti-American terrorism in Iraq),
... but no less likely to get killed; cf. the bomb attack just yesterday.
> Sunnis (who form the core of the terrorism movement) or Kurds (who
are total non-participants in the ongoing terrorism, since the US invasion
liberated them).
Kurds get killed as well; cf. the bomb attacks in cities like Mosul and
Kirkuk.
> Further, the researchers admitted that their study did not even bother
to question whether the casualties reported were, in fact, not innocent
civilians at all, but were instead insurgents (terrorists) killed while
attempting to commit acts of terrorist violence against Coalition personnel.
If they were indeed insurgents (terrorists), then they deserved killing,
and should not even have been counted in the survey to begin with.
Like I said, it was a statistical job and they took into account anything
to do with the Iraq war, i.e. not only deaths directly related to US military
action or terrorist attacks, but also due to failing infrastructure etc.
They said that beforehand, and they´re right to take it into account
since it´s directly related to US military action. As for terrorist
"deserving" killing, I cannot agree with you on that. Terrorists
deserve killing only in self-defence or when threatening to kill innocent
civilians. If you can catch them without shooting them (ideally before
they commit any terrorist act; question of intelligence gathering, really,
a domain that I suspect has been neglected by the US), there´s no
justification for killing them, even if they killed a thousand people.
I do understand that you can´t make a distinction when in a combat
or self-defence situation, but once combat is over, you don´t shoot
people, even if they are terrorists. I don´t like this "dead
or alive, but better dead" mentality at all. Question of ethics (you
know, the "values" you all seem to be so fond of). Also, it´s
counterproductive. We did that in Algeria, you did it in Vietnam and look
where it got us. The US administration should remember that we´re
talking about real people here, not a Jean-Claude Van Damme revenge movie.
> Apparently it did not occur to the researchers to take into consideration
the fact that if you knowingly and willingly engage in violent acts of
terrorism against Coalition forces, you are statistically far more likely
to meet with a rather violent end than if you had simply continued living
a peaceful and non-violent existence.
Yes. However, many of the insurgents are insurgents only because they
see the US invasion as a crusade against their own values, notably their
nation and their interpretation of islam. One of the causes for that is
the fact the US went in without a UN mandate and against the wishes of
many arab and european states. With a UN mandate, you´d have a situation
like in Afghanistan where you have a little insurgency, but not on the
scale of Iraq by far. That´s what a UN mandate is for: legitimacy.
So yes, those deaths have to be counted since they relate directly to
the US decision to invade single-handedly. In other words: that´s
what you get for playing Lone Ranger.
> Terrorists who take on the US military do indeed have a far higher
mortality rate than the general Iraqi population. The only thing "wrong"
with that is, the mortality rate for Terrorists isn't quite up to 100%.
(YET).
Again, hate mongering and revenge fantasies won´t help you here.
They´ll just worsen the situation, but I suspect too many americans
are still caught up in a kind of media-induced frontier mentality to understand
that.
And another thing: the mere fact that you have to determine the actual
bodycount by statistics is a testament to the US military´s indifference
to Iraqi civilian deaths. One gets the impression they only counted and
indentified "american" bodies, because it would have been too
much work to bother with identifying or even counting the Iraqis as well,
or, even worse, they didn´t want to provide arguments to opponents
of the war. To use words like "collateral damage" suggests a
certain callousness that is not at all going to help.
To Phil Karasick:
> Just exactly how does knowingly and deliberately residing in a Terrorist
state (Afghanistan, under the murderous rule of the Taliban), a brutally
medieval state that is intentionally harboring a mass murderer (Osama
Bin-Laden) during wartime, qualify as being "in the wrong place at
the wrong time"? If they weren't Terrorism supporters, what were
they doing in an Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban in the first place?
Doesn´t matter, really. Even if they would have been terrorism supporters,
they´d still have a right not to be detained for three years without
charges, they´d still have a right not to be tortured and they´d
still have a right to be given a fair trial. That´s the real tragedy
of it all: the US are debasing themselves, doing exactly what they pretend
to fight against: they´re using inhumane and illegal means worthy
of any totalitarian regime.
> Michel Bastian wrote: "So much for information gained through
torture." How would you "know" whether the detainees who
were released and who then returned to acts of terrorism, were ever "tortured"
at all?
Declarations of the released inmates, interrogation protocols given to
british and other european authorities, official US administration guidelines
for interrogating prisoners, admissions by the US military and the Bush
administration, innumerable press reports. Are you going to contest the
authenticity of the Abu Ghuraib photographs as well, or will you spare
us your futile attempts to justify the unjustifiable?
> Michel Bastian wrote: "The US actually managed to sabotage the
trial of one of the german-based 9/11 accomplices because they wouldn´t
give out information to the german court. The court actually had to let
this guy walk because the evidence linking him to 9/11 was not given out
by the US authorities."
That's exactly how it had to be, how it should have been. The whole reason
the U.S. wouldn't give information to the German court is precisely because
the revealing of that information would have caused catastrophic damage
to US intelligence services. It would have provided an opportunity in
open court for defense attorneys to cross-examine US government witnesses
and force them to reveal top-secret information about how evidence was
obtained. It would have compromised and done catastrophic damage to classified
and secret US intelligence-gathering methods and networks, methods and
networks that took years of work and billions of dollars to develop. It
would have disclosed information that could have allowed terrorists to
figure out how information about them was obtained. And THAT would have
allowed them to develop successful countermeasures and ways of thwarting
our intelligence-gathering. It would have ensured that we could never
clandestinely obtain information about the terrorists again.
Yes Phil, of course. There are legal possibilities to exclude the public
from hearing sensitive evidence in those cases, and the US administration
knows that (or if they don´t they´re more ignorant than I
thought). The reason for not giving out the information was the fact they
wanted the defendant in Guantanamo Bay, and they wanted to force the Germans
to hand him over. Also, I suspect they wanted to discredit the german
courts so they could point the finger and label them "weak",
and ppssibly they didn´t want to suffer a dismissal of evidence
because it was gathered with illegal means (i.e. those infamous "stress
inducing methods"). Fortunately, it looks like they´ve come
around and given out the information. The trial seems to be underway again.
To Phil Karasick:
>No, they weren't "wrong and immoral" deaths, other than
that they wouldn't have happened if the Nazis hadn't first invaded most
of the rest of Western Europe. They were unfortunate civilian casualties
that could not be avoided or prevented.
.... because the germans and japanese started the war. Those civilians
wouldn´t have died otherwise.
> No, he didn't just "promise" money to Arab terrorists.
He delivered it. <...>
The point is moot, really. Even if Saddam did all these things (which
I´m not sure about since, again, you haven´t given any sources
for your allegations, but never mind), why him and not all the other totalitarian
regimes? The Bush administration specifically justified the war with 9/11
ties, which simply weren´t there, and now they have to scrape up
reasons from the bottom of the barrel to try and justify their actions.
> Truth be told: Saddam Hussein had a track record of invading neighboring
Middle Eastern petroleum-exporting countries upon which the US depends
for a reliable source of petroleum. That's a threat to america's security
interests.
Ohhh, so they DID invade Iraq for oil, did they? Is my memory failing
or did I hear somebody argue that oil wasn´t a reason for the invasion?
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "the point is Clinton
isn´t responsible for 9/11 any more than Bush is. He couldn´t
have foreseen it and he hadn´t the political base to launch an Afghanistan
invasion."
I (again) have the following comments: To begin with, I believe that a
great many Americans likely would have been willing to sacrifice American
GIs in an Afghanistan invasion before 9/11 if they had understood the
threat that Bin-Laden and his Al-Qaeda terror organization posed. And
it was Pres. Clinton's job to make the American people aware of the threat
and to marshal public support for annihilating that threat. And I believe
that for Clinton, doing so would not have been at all difficult, especially
for someone of Clinton's persuasion skills, and especially when the bombings
of US Embassies in Africa were still fresh in peoples' minds. But Clinton
failed to do so, and because he failed to do so, Al-Qaeda was essentially
ALLOWED by him to build up its strength and resources in planning the
9/11 attacks.
It was Clinton's responsibility to take the lead on annihilating Al-Qaeda.
It's the President, not Congress, not the public, who sets the direction
and agenda for US foreign policy. If Clinton (regarded as one of the most-gifted
communicators ever to occupy the White House) had gone before the Congress
and the American people and had made his case for aggressive US intervention
in Afghanistan with as much persuasive skill and determination as he used
in trying to Socialize the US health care system, then I believe that
American troops would have stormed Afghanistan in 1998-1999. And 3,000+
people in Washington, D.C. and New York City would might still be alive.
And I believe that the American people would have supported that invasion.
I believe they would have supported any military action whose need was
driven by protecting our national security. Hell, they supported US military
deployment in Somalia to protect famine-relief aid, in a situation that
had utterly nothing to do with US national interests whatsoever. But Clinton
not only never presented the case for that option before the American
people -- he never even tried. And whether Clinton "didn't have the
political base for an invasion of Afghanistan" or not, will never
be known now. It's a moot point, because Clinton never made a case for
that option of invading Afghanistan.
Therefore, it wasn't an option open for our consideration.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Don White in Florida wrote: "Torture
debases the torturer, not the victim. Torture dehumanizes the torturer,
not the victim." (My response in caps). IF TORTURE KEEPS AN AL-QAEDA
FANATIC FROM FLYING ANOTHER CIVILIAN AIRLINER INTO ANOTHER CIVILIAN OFFICE
BUILDING, THEN WE NEED TO USE "MORE" TORTURE, NOT LESS.
Don White in Florida wrote: "A second reason, it is impossible to
depend or rely on information gained by torture. How can you be certain
if you had only tortured the victim one more day, he would have revealed
the truth?". (My response in caps). THANKFULLY OUR INTELLIGENCE-GATHERING
AGENCIES ARE SMARTER THAN YOU ARE. THAT'S WHY THEY CROSS-CHECK THE INFORMATION
GATHERED FROM ONE DETAINEE AGAINST THE INFORMATION GATHERED FROM OTHER
DETAINEES TO SEE IF THE STORIES MATCH.
Don White in Florida wrote: "Last, the detainees at Git-mo have been
out of touch since the day of their capture and would have no information
of current value." (My response in caps). ANOTHER FALSE STATEMENT
ON YOUR PART. THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE DETAINEES WAS PRICELESS.
IT ENABLED OUR GOVERNMENT TO GAIN A DETAILED UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMMAND
STRUCTURE AND INNER WORKINGS OF AL-QAEDA.
Don White in Florida wrote: "This same constraint is applicable to
other ‘secret∫ U.S. bases maintained (in violation of both
international and domestic law) around the world"). (My response
in caps). ANOTHER FALSE STATEMENT ON YOUR PART. U.S. BASES ARE NOT IN
"VIOLATION" OF ANY LAWS, DOMESTIC OR INTERNATIONAL. WE MAINTAIN
BASES AROUND THE WORLD WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT OF THE HOSTING
GOVERNMENT. AND WE ARE GOING TO KEEP THOSE BASES THERE WHETHER YOU LIKE
IT OR NOT.
I wrote: "Good News: the UN has chosen a group of countries responsible
for deciding the agenda for its next Human Rights Commission meeting.
Bad News: The countries include: Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe; 60%
of the members on the panel are human rights abusers themselves. Perhaps
the UN felt that first hand experience would aid the panel in its mission."
Don White/Michael Moore in Florida responded: "In that case, PK,
the US would have been invited". (My response in caps). KINDLY "PROVE"
IT OR ELSE ACCEPT BEING CALLED A LIAR. ILLEGAL COMBATANTS AREN'T ENTITLED
TO THE SAME RIGHTS AS AMERICAN CITIZENS. NOR SHOULD THEY BE. THEY'RE TERRORISTS
AND DESERVE DEATH.
Don White/Michael Moore in Florida wrote: "Americans, especially
in red states, generally live in a blissful state known as ignorance.
Or denial." (My response in caps). FUNNY THAT YOU SHOULD MENTION
'IGNORANCE' SINCE YOU PERSONIFY IT SO WELL. IF YOU HAD BOTHERED TO READ
MY POSTING, YOU 'MIGHT' HAVE NOTICED THAT I LIVE IN SEATTLE, WASHINGTON.
WASHINGTON STATE IS A 'BLUE' STATE, NOT A 'RED' STATE, UNLIKE FLORIDA
WHERE 'YOU' LIVE. AND IF YOU FEEL THAT AMERICANS LIVE IN 'A STATE OF DENIAL',
HERE'S A SUGGESTION FOR YOU: GO LIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE. CANADA AND EUROPE
HAVE ROOMS READY FOR YOU. AND DELTA IS READY WHEN YOU ARE. I'M A BUSH
SUPPORTER, BUSH WON THE ELECTION, WE RULE THIS LAND, AND WE'LL PROBABLY
KICK LIBERAL BUTT IN THE 'NEXT' ELECTION, TOO. DEAL WITH IT.
Don White in Florida wrote: "DON: The
United States∫ lingo I call "New Speak" denominates civilian
deaths as "collateral damage". Regardless of the number of Iraqi
dead, 15,000 or 100,000, America has dehumanized those people. Or is it
"sanitized?" (My response in caps). WE KILLED FAR, FAR FEWER
PEOPLE ACCIDENTALLY THAN SADDAM HUSSEIN'S BRUTAL REGIME KILLED DELIBERATELY.
AND IF WE HAD NOT OVERTHROWN SADLY INSANE HUSSEIN, THERE IS EVERY LIKELIHOOD
THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN WOULD HAVE KEPT RIGHT ON KILLING IRAQIS. HE WASN'T
EVER GOING TO STOP. WE STOPPED HIM, PERMANENTLY. AND I AM PROUD OF THAT,
AND WE HAVE LITTLE TO NOTHING TO BE ASHAMED OF. WE BROUGHT FREEDOM TO
A NATION OF 20 MILLION+ PEOPLE WHO HAD KNOWN ONLY BRUTAL DICTATORSHIP
UNDER SADLY INSANE HUSSEIN.
Don White in Florida wrote: "The U.S. is committed to a world where
its corporate citizens will be able to roam, free of national restraints,
to sustain the American Empire on the backs of the billions of underprivileged
peoples of the world." (My response in caps). PK: MORE SOCIALIST
RUBBISH FROM THE ANTI-GLOBALIZATION IDIOTS, WHO DEEP DOWN ARE STILL ENRAGED
AND SULKING AT THE FACT THAT THE COLD WAR IS OVER AND THAT CAPITALISM
WON.
Don White wrote: "Can you imagine the
POWER and INFLUENCE America would have around the world today if INSTEAD
of flaunting 8 super carrier battle groups, we had 8 super HOSPITAL ships
as in the USS HOPE of by-gone days?".
(My response in caps). PK: CAN YOU IMAGINE THE POWER AND INFLUENCE WE
WILL HAVE EVEN MORE OF, NOW THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF QATAR IN THE PERSIAN
GULF HAS SET UP EDUCATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS WITH SOME OF THE FINEST UNIVERSITIES
IN AMERICA, TO OFFER WORLD-CLASS EDUCATIONS TO MUSLIM YOUNG PEOPLE FROM
ALL OVER THE ARAB WORLD?
U.S. EDUCATION TAKES ROOT IN ARAB DESERT
see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6870667/
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
See below:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57913-2003Jan28.html
http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?file=538689.html
Old news, Phil. And this article still doesn´t tell me how France
is going to get supremacy in Europe against the wishes of 24 other member
states. It´s just not realistic, and whatever you might think about
Chirac and the french government, don´t underestimate them: they´re
not going to go for this kind of thing because they´re not stupid.
They won´t try anything like that because it´s bound to backfire.
> Then, of course, there's always this:
TONY BLAIR, IN GREAT SPEECH, REACHES OUT. CHIRAC BITES HIS HAND.
see http://www.illusionfree.com/weblog/index.php/no_illusions/niperm/20041116_bridges/
Well, I can´t see that Chirac actually "bit Blair´s hand"
in this instance. Also, recent events (state visit by Bush) sort of defused
the situation a bit. Now Bush and Chirac are actually working together
on Lebanon. Blair´s speech is pretty good, though. I especially
like that "high wire" bit. That´s one thing about Blair:
I´d consider him a much better politician than most european leaders
(especially Chirac, which, you will be surprised to hear, I don´t
particularly like as a president), if it weren´t for this blasted
Iraq war and his handling of it. Actually before the war, if there had
been such a thing as a european nation, Tony Blair would´ve been
my clear choice for european prime minister, with Joschka Fischer as foreign
minister (though Xavier Solana wouldn´t be bad either).
> Well, first of all, there are more than one insurgency going on in
Iraq. There's an insurgency on the part of the embittered Ba'athists who
are discovering that life isn't much fun without Saddam Hussein to protect
them from all the vengeful people they oppressed. And there's also an
insurgency by Islamic fanatics who are looking for a new place in which
to fight America, seeing as how they've been largely routed and kicked
out of Afghanistan and (to a lesser extent) Pakistan.
Yes, true. So let´s hope it stays limited to those groups, because
otherwise the whole thing will get out of hand. However, the argument
still stands: the insurgency is fuelled by the US occupation, which was
caused by the US decision to invade in the first place.
> Second, Iran and Syria have been de facto allies for years. It's
nothing new. And it wasn't "caused" out of the blue by the Iraq
conflict. Syria has 15,000 troops stationed in and effectively controlling
Lebanon and has had them there for two decades. And Iran has been for
twenty years, and continues to be, the major supporter and source of funding
for the Lebanese Islamic terrorist group Hezbollah.
Well, I wouldn´t know about "for years". Also, the strengthening
of the de-facto alliance between Syria and Iran is directly caused by
the threatening position the US is in at the moment because of the Iraq
war. If there was no US presence in the middle east, neither the Syrians
nor the Iranians would feel threatened enough to renew their alliance.
> Third, Indonesia's government has been fighting against various uprisings
for decades, including various attempts by Islamic extremists to overthrow
Indonesia's government and install a radical Islamic state. Again, this
fact had nothing to do with Iraq. The conflict in Aceh province alone
is over 30 years old.
Yes, and this has been exacerbated by Iraq, because now the indonesian
radicals have developed a siege mentality.
> Fourth, the Egyptians have been dealing with rising Islamist, anti-government
organisations for years. And again, this wasn't caused by the Iraq conflict.
Had nothing whatsoever to do with it, in fact. You might or might not
recall that in 1996, seven years before the Liberation of Iraq, Egyptian
Islamic terrorists slaughtered hundreds of tourists in an attempt to destabilize
the Egyptian government.
Also true, but like I said, Iraq has become a focus point for all these
lunatics, which wouldn´t have happened if the US hadn´t invaded.
Also, more moderate elements have grown closer to the islamists because
of the Iraq war.
> Fifth, the Saudis have had to deal with rising Islamist, anti-government
organisations for several years now. And again, this had nothing whatsoever
to do with Iraq. It had to do with the Saudi government discovering post-9/11
that Al-Qaeda terrorism and the slaughter of innocents are not a phenomenon
reserved exclusively for Western nations and that fellow Muslims are not
immune.
Again, yes, but Al Quaida has actually been strengthened by Iraq. Since
Al Quaida largely operates out of Saudi Arabia, this is not good for the
Saudi government. In fact, Iraq has served Al Quaida to rally popular
opinion against the Saudi government, which could well have a very adverse
impact on political stability there.
> Sixth, the Pakistanis have also had to deal with rising Islamist,
anti-government organisations for several years now. And, once again,
this had nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq. Rather, it had to do with
Islamic terror groups being outraged at Musharraf's having done an abrupt
about-face and sided with America against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
Yes, true, but you´re missing the point (again). Without Iraq, Pakistan
would have been a lot less unstable than it is now. Actually, I´m
rather surprised some nutcase muslim hasn´t shot or blown up Musharaf
by now.
> Michel Bastian wrote: "(so the negative effect isn´t even
limited to the Middle East)." What "negative effect"?
Cf. above.
> You mean, the fact that the Palestinians' PM Abbas is finally doing
what the US and Israel have long demanded as requirements for restarting
the peace talks -- throwing Arafat's corrupt cronies out of power, reforming
Arafat's murderous and numerous "security services", and demanding
(and trying to enforce) a halt to terrorist attacks on Israel by Islamic
Jihad and Hamas? Is that your definition of a "negative effect"?
No, but it has nothing to do with Iraq. It´s got everything to do
with Arafat´s death.
> So, are you saying that Saddam being a very clear and murderous threat
to hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shi'ites INSIDE Iraq is "no
big deal" and not enough to warrant any intervention by the outside
world?
No, not at all. It was a big deal and something should have been done
about it much earlier (back in the eighties, actually). Instead we´re
now facing the results of two decades worth of political stupidity by
the western nations (including, but not limited to, the US).
> I wonder why I hear echoes of the 1940s and the disgraceful pre-1941
argument of "Hitler (Saddam) is no threat to anyone outside Germany's
(Iraq's) borders, and what he does with a few (Jews) (Gypsies) (homosexuals)
(trade unionists) (Catholics) (Kurds) (Shi'ites) within Germany's (Iraq's)
borders is none of the world's business."
Oh, please, Phil, don´t rehash the same argument all the time. Saddam
wasn´t Hitler. He didn´t have nearly the same military power
as Hitler, and he wasn´t nearly as threatening as Hitler.
> Michel Bastian wrote: "And they can be broken psychologically
for the rest of their lives. That´s not torture? I wonder what is,
then."
Well, Michel, you're in good company in that view. No less a luminary
than England's Prince Charles has complained that even non-physical, verbal
taunting and humiliation constitutes "horrific, degrading, debasing,
demeaning 'torture' ". Here's what his thoughts were with regard
to that subject.....
BRITONS TORTURE ME, SAYS CHARLES
see http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,12388220%5e1702,00.html
Heh, nice one, Phil. I could make a few comments about Camilla and torture,
but I won´t since this is a british board ;-). To get back to the
more serious topic: verbal abuse isn´t usually torture, otherwise
most politicians would be guilty of torturing the public all the time.
However, sleep deprivation is torture. Keeping someone naked in a cell
without any light for months, having him sleep in his own feces, making
him perform degrading sexual practices, that´s definitely torture.
No physical damage involved, but the psychological effects are devastating.
To Phil Karasick:
>I (again) have the following comments: <...>
Therefore, it wasn't an option open for our consideration.
To make a long story short: Clinton didn´t have a political base
for an invasion, and Bush didn´t have one either before 9/11, which
is why he only invaded afterwards. However, I agree with you: the argument
is moot. The Iraq war has happened, so everything else is hindsight.
To Phil Karasick:
> Don White in Florida wrote: "Torture debases the torturer, not
the victim. Torture dehumanizes the torturer, not the victim." (My
response in caps). IF TORTURE KEEPS AN AL-QAEDA FANATIC FROM FLYING ANOTHER
CIVILIAN AIRLINER INTO ANOTHER CIVILIAN OFFICE BUILDING, THEN WE NEED
TO USE "MORE" TORTURE, NOT LESS.
It´s pointless to argue with you about that since we´ll never
see eye to eye on that one.
> Don White in Florida wrote: "A second reason, it is impossible
to depend or rely on information gained by torture. How can you be certain
if you had only tortured the victim one more day, he would have revealed
the truth?". (My response in caps). THANKFULLY OUR INTELLIGENCE-GATHERING
AGENCIES ARE SMARTER THAN YOU ARE. THAT'S WHY THEY CROSS-CHECK THE INFORMATION
GATHERED FROM ONE DETAINEE AGAINST THE INFORMATION GATHERED FROM OTHER
DETAINEES TO SEE IF THE STORIES MATCH.
Exactly, which is why they don´t have to torture people.
> Don White in Florida wrote: "Last, the detainees at Git-mo have
been out of touch since the day of their capture and would have no information
of current value." (My response in caps). ANOTHER FALSE STATEMENT
ON YOUR PART. THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE DETAINEES WAS PRICELESS.
IT ENABLED OUR GOVERNMENT TO GAIN A DETAILED UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMMAND
STRUCTURE AND INNER WORKINGS OF AL-QAEDA.
Oh yeah? Who told you that? And why didn´t they dismantle Al Quaida
then?
> Don White in Florida wrote: "This same constraint is applicable
to other ‘secret∫ U.S. bases maintained (in violation
of both international and domestic law) around the world"). (My response
in caps). ANOTHER FALSE STATEMENT ON YOUR PART. U.S. BASES ARE NOT IN
"VIOLATION" OF ANY LAWS, DOMESTIC OR INTERNATIONAL.
Sure they are in violation of international law, and they´re also
in violation of national law. The supreme court said so. Oh, sorry, I
forgot: you don´t consider the supreme court an authority....
> WE MAINTAIN BASES AROUND THE WORLD WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT
OF THE HOSTING GOVERNMENT. AND WE ARE GOING TO KEEP THOSE BASES THERE
WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT.
Don wasn´t talking about normal military bases, he was talking about
illegal prison centers.
> I wrote: "Good News: the UN has chosen a group of countries
responsible for deciding the agenda for its next Human Rights Commission
meeting. Bad News: The countries include: Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe;
60% of the members on the panel are human rights abusers themselves. Perhaps
the UN felt that first hand experience would aid the panel in its mission."
Don White/Michael Moore in Florida responded: "In that case, PK,
the US would have been invited". (My response in caps). KINDLY "PROVE"
IT OR ELSE ACCEPT BEING CALLED A LIAR. ILLEGAL COMBATANTS AREN'T ENTITLED
TO THE SAME RIGHTS AS AMERICAN CITIZENS. NOR SHOULD THEY BE. THEY'RE TERRORISTS
AND DESERVE DEATH.
Again, where are your "values", then? Where is that vaunted
christian spirit, turning the other cheek and all that? Mind you, I´m
not saying terrorists shouldn´t be apprehended and put in prison,
but they shouldn´t be tortured or killed, especially not without
due process of law. By the way, this "illegal combatant" bit
is a legal fantasy dreamed up by the Bush administration. Most law scholars,
including most of the american ones, have stated that. The Bush administration
uses this construct to worm their way around such trivial things as human
rights, due process of law etc.
> Don White in Florida wrote: "DON: The United States∫
lingo I call "New Speak" denominates civilian deaths as "collateral
damage". Regardless of the number of Iraqi dead, 15,000 or 100,000,
America has dehumanized those people. Or is it "sanitized?"
(My response in caps). WE KILLED FAR, FAR FEWER PEOPLE ACCIDENTALLY THAN
SADDAM HUSSEIN'S BRUTAL REGIME KILLED DELIBERATELY. AND IF WE HAD NOT
OVERTHROWN SADLY INSANE HUSSEIN, THERE IS EVERY LIKELIHOOD THAT SADDAM
HUSSEIN WOULD HAVE KEPT RIGHT ON KILLING IRAQIS. HE WASN'T EVER GOING
TO STOP. WE STOPPED HIM, PERMANENTLY. AND I AM PROUD OF THAT, AND WE HAVE
LITTLE TO NOTHING TO BE ASHAMED OF. WE BROUGHT FREEDOM TO A NATION OF
20 MILLION+ PEOPLE WHO HAD KNOWN ONLY BRUTAL DICTATORSHIP UNDER SADLY
INSANE HUSSEIN.
Endless repetition doesn´t make your argument any more valid, Phil.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Don White wrote: "Recall the recent election
ploy when Pres. Bush claimed to have discovered∫ a computer cache
in Pakistan including a spy film of downtown New York? Bush put NY and
Washington on HIGH alert. An alert citizen discovered the film Pres. Bush
touted was 4 years old! The citizen noted the building pictured had been
remodeled some 4 years earlier."
So what? Has it ever occurred to you that the age of the spy film is irrelevent,
and that the threat posed by Al-Qaeda is just as relevent and dangerous
now as when that spy tape was filmed? Have you bothered to notice that
Al-Qaeda is quite patient and willing to spend YEARS planning a terror
attack? The 9/11 attack was in planning for years before it was actually
carreid out. No, I didn't think that had occurred to you. Some people
just don't "get" it.
Incidentally, it now appears that Bush's concerns about New York City
continuing to be a potential high-value target of an Al-Qaeda attack were
completely justified.
(see below).
REPORT: MADRID TRAIN BOMBERS HAD PLANS FOR N.Y.
PLANS OF GRAND CENTRAL STATION FOUND, SPANISH PAPER SAYS.
see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7063769/
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "Even if Saddam
did all these things (which I´m not sure about since, again, you
haven´t given any sources for your allegations, but never mind)....."
Ask and Ye Shall Receive, Michel.
PALESTINIANS GET SADDAM FUNDS
