Are the architects of the War on Terror in trouble

[RedNose]

Reads like Adamson, but you should use your own voice.

 

Will do. You should give the guy an account. He probably knows better than anyone about a lot of this stuff. You'd be surprised at how much of the democratic party line he strongly believes in, but plays devils advocate anyway.

[underworld]

No, it's an incredibly blatant partisan argument using all the classic neocon and rightwing assumptions and accusations as it's base. That you conisder it anything else other than rightwing escapist propaganda says volumes about the fact that they are still as capable of manipulating you with as ever.

 

substitute 'angry left' for 'neocon' and 'democrat' for 'rightwing'

 

if you can't accept that those substitutions make sense, maybe not agree with - but at least accept the possibility... then you are very blind to reality.

 

[note - my point isn't to get at who is right or wrong in this argument, rather, to say that your rhetoric is self defeating]

[JosephH]

Look I didn't post that piece of Rovian trash dressed in "moderation" - don't post partisan garbage like that and you won't get an angry response. Words count folks, and the posts above are exactly the type of distorting lexical twister replete with codewords that fox news was designed around and Rove so brilliantly manipulated half the country with. If you have something to say, say it, but drivel like this isn't going to fly.

[RedNose]

"Yes, but YOU DID post that Pelosian excrement. Fact is you've all been allowed to circle jerk for too long and need a little wake up call. Now if you want to talk about getting angry...well I'll be your Huckleberry"

 

Last time I'm posting as proxy. I know I started it, but please go to the source if you want to argue anymore. He's easy to find on the internet. OW I concede to you.

[tvashtarkatena]

Don't get your hopes up. This situation, despite your assessment (perhaps), isn't as cut & dry as My Lai.

 

Many in the position to prosecute these offenses are cognizant the saw they create to use on others' necks may, in turn, be used to cut the limbs on which they perch.

 

This is one of the most bone headed analogies I've heard to date. Mai Lai was an isolated massacre of just over 500 Vietnamese civilians by one unit. Calley went to prison for a whopping total of 1 year for it. The highest ranking officer responsible was a leiutenant.

 

Iraq is a wholesale disaster which has taken the lives of many tens of thousands and further destabilized an entire region far more strategically important than Vietnam. Thanks to us, sectarian violence using tactics perfected in Iraq are now being employed throughout the Middle East, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. I won't even mention Iran.

 

The difference in historical scale of these two events is huge. Iraq will likely eclipse the entire Vietnam War, nevermind one incident in that war, as a foriegn policy disaster.

 

I.e, STFU nOOb.

[tvashtarkatena]

I just wanted to say that after trying to wade through your pointless rambling that you're so full of disjointed shit the whites of your eyes are brown.

[Dechristo]

The post was in response to mattp's ponderance of prosecution of those responsible for crimes by governmental officials. This situation is very convoluted in comparison to My Lai.

 

Nailing responsible parties for My Lai was fairly "cut and dry" with the exception of deciding where in the chain of command to limit prosecution.

 

Comprehendo?

 

maybe you'd better have another cup of coffee, Kevtena.

 

 

BTW, Captain Medina was as, or more, culpable than Lt. Calley.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Reads like Adamson, but you should use your own voice.

 

Will do. You should give the guy an account. He probably knows better than anyone about a lot of this stuff. You'd be surprised at how much of the democratic party line he strongly believes in, but plays devils advocate anyway.

 

Adamson's solution to everything is to raise the body count. His political accumen is vastly overrated. He considers interest oriented negotiation and compromis a form of capitulation, and grossly overestimates the political usefulness of American military power. It's a good thing he's limitted to killing people on a onesy twosy scale, rather than holding a position of any higher authority, where he could do more widespread damage.

[tvashtarkatena]

The post was in response to mattp's ponderance of prosecution of those responsible for crimes by governmental officials. This situation is very convoluted in comparison to My Lai.

 

Nailing responsible parties for My Lai was fairly "cut and dry" with the exception of deciding where in the chain of command to limit prosecution.

 

Comprehendo?

 

 

maybe you'd better have another cup of coffee, Kevtena.

 

 

BTW, Captain Medina was as, or more, culpable than Lt. Calley.

 

 

The US government apparently didn't see it that way. Medina was acquitted. Calley's was the only conviction in that incident. He served a year in prison and 3 1/2 of house arrest.

 

You tried to compare a massacre perpatrated by a Captain/Lt. (damn near the same rank) as apposed to antire regional war order by a president and prosecuted, with torture, et al, by the secretary of defense and vice president and on and on an on. I simply called you on it.

 

I've had my coffee, thank you.

Edited January 29, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[Dechristo]

The post was in response to mattp's ponderance of prosecution of those responsible for crimes by governmental officials. This situation is very convoluted in comparison to My Lai.

 

Nailing responsible parties for My Lai was fairly "cut and dry" with the exception of deciding where in the chain of command to limit prosecution.

 

Comprehendo?

 

 

maybe you'd better have another cup of coffee, Kevtena.

 

 

BTW, Captain Medina was as, or more, culpable than Lt. Calley.

 

 

The US government apparently didn't see it that way. Medina was acquitted. Calley's was the only conviction in that incident. He served a year in prison and 3 1/2 of house arrest.

 

I've had my coffee, thank you.

 

Right, and of course, the US government had no interest then or now in limiting convictions up the chain of command.

 

 

[Dechristo]

You tried to compare a massacre perpatrated by a Captain/Lt. (damn near the same rank) as apposed to antire regional war order by a president and prosecuted, with torture, et al, by the secretary of defense and vice president and on and on an on. I simply called you on it.

 

You're calling yourself, for all to see, on the lack of comprehension.

 

Topically, it's about the feasibility and ease of prosecution, not the scale or magnitude of offense. For that reason, using an example magnitudes of order less aggregious mirrors the point.

[tvashtarkatena]

The post was in response to mattp's ponderance of prosecution of those responsible for crimes by governmental officials. This situation is very convoluted in comparison to My Lai.

 

Nailing responsible parties for My Lai was fairly "cut and dry" with the exception of deciding where in the chain of command to limit prosecution.

 

Comprehendo?

 

 

maybe you'd better have another cup of coffee, Kevtena.

 

 

BTW, Captain Medina was as, or more, culpable than Lt. Calley.

 

 

The US government apparently didn't see it that way. Medina was acquitted. Calley's was the only conviction in that incident. He served a year in prison and 3 1/2 of house arrest.

 

I've had my coffee, thank you.

 

Right, and of course, the US government had no interest then or now in limiting convictions up the chain of command.

 

 

No commander wants to admit that one of his low level subordinates ordered an atrocity to be committed in the field. This is vastly different from ordering such atrocities from the very top as a matter of policy, DeKevsto. I see that as the salient flaw in your analogy.

 

Next time you're in town I'll buy you a cup of coffee.

 

 

[RedNose]

Adamson's solution to everything is to raise the body count. His political accumen is vastly overrated. He considers interest oriented negotiation and compromis a form of capitulation, and grossly overestimates the political usefulness of American military power. It's a good thing he's limitted to killing people on a onesy twosy scale, rather than holding a position of any higher authority, where he could do more widespread damage.

 

 

 

"Trashkan- I read your attack with some amusement. It's clear you have never met me. However, your words border on defamation, and make false assumptions about my role in both wars. Most jurisdictions provide civil recourse for this type of statement. I suggest you find the edit button. In fact your libel is off base completely regarding my role, which is not open to discussion here or anywhere.

 

My political opinion however is fair game. I believe in negotiating from a position of strength, and this is perhaps the reason for the surge. I support limited escalation as sound military strategy backed by political aims. We are trying to get to a place where we can sue for peace with an edge in the negotiations would be my guess. The dems won't actually support a second attempt at victory, as the course of the conflict has not been effectively managed up to this point."

[chucK]

I believe in negotiating from a position of strength, and this is perhaps the reason for the surge. I support limited escalation as sound military strategy backed by political aims. We are trying to get to a place where we can sue for peace with an edge in the negotiations would be my guess.

 

If we want to get to a position of strength from which we can negotiate, it has to be credible that we can hold that position of strength, else the opposition can just wait us out instead of negotiating. Calling this thing a "surge" directly implies that it's only temporary.

 

That makes me believe that the "surge" is just a way to run out the clock 'til the next sad sack has to take over. Or it might possibly portend something even scarier, to build up our forces for an invasion of Iran (the purpose of which would be, of course, to run out the clock. Or maybe even to make the case that with a full-blown holy war going it is now too dangerous to be changing presidents).

[tvashtarkatena]

My political opinion however is fair game. I believe in negotiating from a position of strength, and this is perhaps the reason for the surge. I support limited escalation as sound military strategy backed by political aims. We are trying to get to a place where we can sue for peace with an edge in the negotiations would be my guess. The dems won't actually support a second attempt at victory, as the course of the conflict has not been effectively managed up to this point."

 

Negotiating from a position of strength is only viable when a) one is actually negotiating and b) one understands and considers the interests of your adversary. The 'surge' fits neither definition. It is a temporary and rather slight increase in a strategy that has produced only failure. The various factions of the insurgency and their outside supporters know this. They know that America's political support for the Iraqi adventure has already ended. They know of their success in exporting sectarian violence throughout the region. They know that the surge will be shortlived because our ground forces are tapped out. They are well aware of the historical ratio of peacekeeping forces verse population for controlling insurgencies, and that the U.S. cannot support anywhere near the troop levels required.

 

Perhaps partitioning the country can someday produce stability, but without such a significant change in strategy our forces are being wasted.

[JosephH]

My political opinion however is fair game. I believe in negotiating from a position of strength, and this is perhaps the reason for the surge. I support limited escalation as sound military strategy backed by political aims. We are trying to get to a place where we can sue for peace with an edge in the negotiations would be my guess. The dems won't actually support a second attempt at victory, as the course of the conflict has not been effectively managed up to this point."

 

210k troops would be a surge; 21k simply pushes the fierce fighting from 100yds outside the Green Zone to 300yds and [finally] secures the road to the airport so folks can bug out safely. The execution of the military campaign in Iraq has been a complete embarassment. "Limited escalation" is just another way of saying 'get out alive'. Hopefully the lesson learned in this fiasco is that if you are going to unleash our military might then unleash it unconditionally, completely, and with at least half a clue as to what will follow on the day after. And any decision to unleash our military needs to be based on a cogent assessment of reality, not the felonious reinvention of it. The Chinese are laughing their asses off at us, and rightfully so...

[fear_and_greed]

"Trashkan- I read your attack with some amusement. It's clear you have never met me. However, your words border on defamation, and make false assumptions about my role in both wars. Most jurisdictions provide civil recourse for this type of statement. I suggest you find the edit button. In fact your libel is off base completely regarding my role, which is not open to discussion here or anywhere.

 

And here I thought spray was going to be boring after Fairweather had a hissy fit and threw the toys out of his crib.

So you're some kind of super secret agent lawyer type then? Pray tell.

So what happens when I say that Bush, Cheney, Rummey, Wolfy should be arrested, taken to the Hauge and put on trial for war crimes?

 

 

 

[JosephH]

Then I step up and second that suggestion...

[mattp]

Lets not lose sight of the fact that the Democrats have been worse than worthless in all of this. Anybody who was reading the newspaper and paying attention to what appeared on page 10 rather than just the headlines knew that we were going into Iraq on false pretenses and there was a high likelihood we were not going to win in the aftermath. Maybe you liked the “for us or against us” cowboy schtick, but these two conclusions were inescapablly clear before we invaded. All of that stuff that has come out in the last year or two about how the intelligence was manipulated was in the newspapers back then, and the stories of how the Bush team sacked military leaders who warned them about their poor war plan were in the papers, too.

 

As much as I distrust American politics, the change in political tide -- even if temporary -- is compelling. This may or may not turn out to be more of the same partisan jockeying. Will anybody, Democratic or Republican or WhateverParty, actually find the courage to speak up and press for real accountability whether or not it is calculated to win their reelection?

 

Rambo III was on TV the other night and I didn't watch it but I heard that the trainer guy was saying to a Russian: “We’ve had our Vietnam – we won’t make that mistake again.” Well, clearly we have. Now are we as a nation ready for some real reflection?

 

I've argued that prosecution of high level officials responsible for getting us into this mess is probably an important part of any effort toward reflection and a real change in course. It may not be essential but it is probably important. And I don't just mean finding a colonel somewhere to hold out to dry: the orders to engage in widespread torture on at least four continents came from the top of the chain of command - not mid-level. But it is certainly not sufficient, nor will it necessarily change a thing, to impeach the president or try somebody like Donald Rumsfeld for war crimes.

 

[mattp]

By the way, I note with interest the recurring argument among those who advocate for stronger military efforts that Clinton is in some way more responsible for 911 than is Bush. Where do these guys get this stuff? The first Trade Center bombing came early in Clinton's term. Under his administration they caught the perpetrator and sent him to jail. They identified Bin Laden as a bad guy and shot missiles at him - missing him by a few hours - and were criticized for doing so not out of concern for terrorism but for political movations in trying to distract the public from Monica Lewinski. His administration put forth all kinds of proposals to try to cut off funding for terrorist groups, increase intelligence efforts, and join with our allies in fighting terrorism. These efforts were largely if not primarily blocked by Republicans. The Bush team has admitted that their terrorism task force didn't even get started before 911, and Bush's reaction to the August 2001 memo warning that terrorists were probably intent on an attack in the US is legendary.

 

And no: I am not a big fan of Bill Clinton. Or his wife.

[Dechristo]

Next time you're in town I'll buy you a cup of coffee.

 

and with Oly writing he'd go climbing (that's right, I've these pledges in writing from both of you) I've enough support garnered to warrant a trip to the PNW.

 

I'm only waiting for the key pledge of (preferably, heated) doghouse floor space.

[Buckaroo]

Modern wars are just a racket. The politicians, both dem and repug are p-owned by the military industrial complex, the oil companies and AIPAC.

 

Ever since the Ruskies folded the M.I.C. has been looking for another boogie man. Enter "terror". It's perfect, not a state but a race, a religion, a mindset. Because there are no states that come close to competing with us. Our military expense is greater than the next 6 countries combined.

 

So bring down a couple buildings that were way outdated anyway, add a p-owned media, stir. Get your war on. Now that the sheeple are afraid of "terror".

 

It's fun to observe how it all ties in, the tangled web and connections of the global elite. The Neocons, the Israelis, the Bush crime family, the oil companies, Halliburton, the Saudis. Notice how the dems really haven't done anything to turn it around, just so much lip service. They're p-owned I tell ya.

 

Before the invasion they ran war-games. One general was doing so well running the simulated Iraq forces in full on guerilla mode they made him stop. They knew it was no good going in but it's what they wanted. Not to "win" but just to spend money, make money, control the oil flow and ruin a progressive Arab country. A low level protracted war is more profitable. Anyone notice it's gone on longer than WW2? The Iraqis weren't even fighting until the release of the Abu Graibe pics? Coincedence?

 

And their lining up to attack Iran. Labled the "crazies", neocons, cheney rummy(gone now) during the bush 1 years. They were at a lower level then. Now their at the helm, look out.

 

We'll be lucky if the dems get enough power and spine to do anything about it. And when/if they manage to convict, it'll be pardons all round. Just like poppy (his drug lord nickname) when he pardoned everyone to keep himself from being implicated in Iran Contra. Many of them while they were still in trial.

 

And word up Red Nose. The blue red conflict is a false dichotomy. Just a few years back there was very little red blue conflict. It's a recent creation of the wealthy elite of this country, fabricated by the media which they have consolidated the control of. Divide and conquer. The real conflict is not between you and me but between us, the working class, and the wealthy elite who are everyday working to make things even more disparate than they already are. It's class warfare plain and simple and it's being waged on us.

 

""I am not a big fan of Bill Clinton. Or his wife.""

 

No doubt. P-owned, sold us out to "free trade", de-reg'd the media. Ever notice when they started advertising pharmacuticals on the boob tube? And she's now meeting with Murdoch and on the board of WalMart.

[Dechristo]

This bent to deep global conspiracy parallels and meshes neatly with another popular belief system which also features a force above and beyond comprehension and influence of the masses culminating in the Christian "Apocalypse".

 

strange bedfellows

[Buckaroo]

""which also features a force above and beyond comprehension and influence of the masses""

 

maybe some peoples comprehension ehh? Others may see Christianity as just another scam by wealthy elites. After all there were about 60 gospels, they only picked the ones beholden to their power/money cause. And the Koran says Jesus was not divine, just a prophet who was not even crucified.

 

Do some reading, the DaVinci Code barely scrapes the surface.

[Dechristo]

""which also features a force above and beyond comprehension and influence of the masses""

 

maybe some peoples comprehension ehh?

note: "the masses". Yeah, that lines up with both lines of thought.

 

Others may see Christianity as just another scam by wealthy elites.

Check. Thanks for contributing to the reinforcement of similarities.

 

After all there were about 60 gospels, they only picked the ones beholden to their power/money cause.

 

...add a p-owned media, stir.

Hey, you're good at this! You've almost convinced me there's a deeper combined conspiracy. Like say, God threw the __________ (pick your label, Bavarian Illuminati, Skull and Bones, Freemasons, the Knights Templar, the Rosicrucians, the Jacobins, the Roman Catholic Church, NWO, etc., etc.) out of Heaven, but then made a deal with the blaggards: they'd get to trash us and the Earth for a time and then He'd get his turn!

 

 

Ahhh, now you're digressing:

And the Koran says Jesus was not divine, just a prophet who was not even crucified. Do some reading, the DaVinci Code barely scrapes the surface.

 

Saul of Tarsus, Josephus, and Gaius Tacitus wrote about five centuries before Muhammad and nineteen before Dan Brown. Considering competing self-interests and editing over time, they're all similarly reliable.

 

But, people believe what they want to believe... don't we.