Why must we show restraint to our enemies.

[Dreadsox]

awaits for obligatory STING remarks about how smashingly it's all going and how those on the Left like Dread are desperate to find something going wrong in Iraq because they just hate Bush

This may be the first time anyone here has called me a member of the left.

 

[Irvine511]

This may be the first time anyone here has called me a member of the left.

well, by the logic of some, if you are opposed to the war in Iraq, or simply think it's anything less than an unqualified success, you are therefore a member of the Left.

 

[Dreadsox]

Didn't they find loaded missles a month ago that had chemicals in them???

You mean the missles with the WMD's that were so degraded they were of no concern. Those?

Did you know, they found yellow cake too? They knew he had yellow cake. They knew that he had failed to make it even remotely dangerous. But they withheld that from the public. Why would he be seeking Yellow cake, when he had yellow cake? It makes no sense.

 

[Irvine511]

The insurgency, might not have been if the war had been handled properly.

this has been the basis of my opposition to the war since 2002.

those currently in charge were incapable of handilng such a difficult war properly, and thus the mission was over before it even started. whether or not the mission was a good one or a bad one is irrelevant, since it was never going to succeed in the first place.

 

[Justin24]

I did not know that. Thank You for informing me.

 

[JMScoopy]

awaits for obligatory STING remarks about how smashingly it's all going and how those on the Left like Dread are desperate to find something going wrong in Iraq because they just hate Bush

well you wont hear it from me. i used to support the war, not so much now. it seems we arent accomplishing anything over there except being a presence and getting in firefights every so often. we need to start kicking ass and making these people fear us the way we feared them after 9/11.

 

[Dreadsox]

well, by the logic of some, if you are opposed to the war in Iraq, or simply think it's anything less than an unqualified success, you are therefore a member of the Left.

I am not opposed to the war. I still think Iraq needed to be delt with. I am opposed to the way it has been handled. I am opposed to manipulating the American public with half pieces of information.

I believe we have created more terrorists because of the situation.

 

[JMScoopy]

well, by the logic of some, if you are opposed to the war in Iraq, or simply think it's anything less than an unqualified success, you are therefore a member of the Left.

i guess im a member of the left them.

 

[BVS]

I believe we have created more terrorists because of the situation.

 

[JMScoopy]

I believe we have created more terrorists because of the situation.

a policy that deals with terrorists like i posted damn sure wouldnt create more terrorists.

 

[BVS]

a policy that deals with terrorists like i posted damn sure wouldnt create more terrorists.

Of course it would, probably a lot quicker than the current policy.

 

[JMScoopy]

Of course it would, probably a lot quicker than the current policy.

how so? even the terrorists must care about their families. you think someone that wanted to become a terrorist, or people that commit terrorism, but arent like the radicals would risk them all being tortured and killed?

 

[Irvine511]

I am not opposed to the war. I still think Iraq needed to be delt with. I am opposed to the way it has been handled. I am opposed to manipulating the American public with half pieces of information.

I believe we have created more terrorists because of the situation.

dammit, Dread -- will you stop with the thoughtful nuance and informed understanding of events! either Saddam Hussein was a meanace and had to be dealt with in March of 2003 in precisely the way Bush handled it, or you hate freedom and love terror.

 

[Dreadsox]

The Council on Foreign Relations (A group Sting and I both admire) has this to say...

This report clearly shows how the administrations policy and the leadership up at the top (Generals) have created the terrorist situation in Iraq.

http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/25 May Presentation for Straus Military Reform Project.pdf

 

[Dreadsox]

Max Boot....a major war supporter talks about troop levels...

[Q]I have never been a dogmatist on the issue of troop levels. I was not one of those who criticized the original invasion force in 2003 for being too small. There were enough troops to take Baghdad, and there were legitimate reasons to fear that sending too many Americans would cause a backlash. Better to have focused on supporting Iraqi security forces—except there were none to support. The Iraqi army was dissolved by the U.S., and no serious effort was made for a whole year to field a replacement force, creating a security vacuum that has never been filled.[/Q]

Security vacuum.....

Leads to terrorism????

[Q]The situation is particularly dire in Iraq’s capital. In May, according to the Los Angeles Times, 2,155 homicides occurred in Baghdad, 85% of the national total. [/Q]

Sounds like we created a problem??? No???

Oh why do they hate us? Why would Osama want Bush to win>???

http://www.cfr.org/publication/11011/staying_the_wrong_course_in_iraq.html?breadcrumb=default

 

[BVS]

how so? even the terrorists must care about their families. you think someone that wanted to become a terrorist, or people that commit terrorism, but arent like the radicals would risk them all being tortured and killed?

You're basically just feeding the monster so it's get bigger. Because then they can say, "See the West is the horrible monster we've been telling you about." Then it won't be just the Middle East we have to worry about. And you'll never have the man power to chase every new recruit. All you would need are a few financial backers to move into Africa convince them their horrible living conditions are due to the West and see what they are doing now, they're ripping innocent children out of their houses and killing them.

 

[JMScoopy]

And you'll never have the man power to chase every new recruit.

it's not about tracking down every new recruit. it's about
installing fear in these people. you are a terrorist, if we catch you, and we will, this i what happens to you. of course a few examples would have to be made to they know we're serious.

 

[Dreadsox]

dammit, Dread -- will you stop with the thoughtful nuance and informed understanding of events! either Saddam Hussein was a meanace and had to be dealt with in March of 2003 in precisely the way Bush handled it, or you hate freedom and love terror.

I am going back to my vacation.....

 

[BVS]

it's not about tracking down every new recruit. it's about
installing fear in these people. you are a terrorist, if we catch you, and we will, this i what happens to you. of course a few examples would have to be made to they know we're serious.

There's little to fear when you believe you are fighting a Jihad. Have you not noticed this? Do you honestly think insurgents would cross borders to fight the US army(one that is obviously armed better than you) if fear was a factor?

 

[JMScoopy]

how so? even the terrorists must care about their families. you think someone that wanted to become a terrorist, or people that commit terrorism, but arent like the radicals would risk them all being tortured and killed?

here's your answer, im sure at least some of the people that wanted to become terrorists would be descouraged by this. at least it might prevent people from acting up over there (blowing up cars, shooting at soliders, etc etc)

 

[BVS]

here's your answer

They strap bombs on children and use them as sacrifices.

 

[80sU2isBest]

you are aware that it is the official policy of the US (thanks to Rumsfeld and Cheney) to use "coercive interrogation techniques" such as waterboarding that are specifically forbidden by the Geneva Conventions?

Geneva Conventions apply to soldiers of a government's army, not terrorists.

If "waterboarding" a terrorist will lead to info that will disrupt a plot to kill innocents, I support it wholeheartedly.

 

[Dreadsox]

Come on, you know that the Geneva Conventions apply to soldiers of an army, not terrorists.

If "waterboarding" a terrorist will lead to info that will disrupt a plot to kill innocents, I support it wholeheartedly.

Most of the readings I have done be it

or

Would dispell any Myth that viable intelligence comes from torture.

 

[JMScoopy]

They strap bombs on children and use them as sacrifices.

i guess im gonna keep my reply to this to myself.

 

[Justin24]

Most of the readings I have done be it

or

Would dispell any Myth that viable intelligence comes from torture.

Could you be 100% sure torture would never work?? What if India had tortured a few terrorist and they found out about a possible train bombing coming up. 147 people would still be alive and over 400 people would not have been injured.

 

[nbcrusader]

Most of the readings I have done be it

or

Would dispell any Myth that viable intelligence comes from torture.

Do you consider these books military analysis, advocacy or a mixture of both?

 

[Irvine511]

Geneva Conventions apply to soldiers of a government's army, not terrorists.

the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

but i can accept the fact that rules designed to apply to, say, German POWs in WW2 might be inapplicable to an Al-Qaeda member (though not a Taliban fighter, as there was a government they were fighting for), however this does not mean that there are no rules and no laws and no standards for detaining an insurgent/terrorist. simply because we might have a new category of fighter does not mean that they are sub-human

If "waterboarding" a terrorist will lead to info that will disrupt a plot to kill innocents, I support it wholeheartedly.

but this is a slippery slope -- have you no problems with the president becoming the moral equivalent of a mafia boss? what if i threatened to crush his testicles? kill his wife and children? saw off his limbs? where does it end?

your "if" scenario doesn't hold any water. it's never a "24"-style situation where there's some information that's going to stop the bomb on the train, and in fact, most information gleaned from torture is *bad* information because a tortured man will say anything to get you to stop torturing him

 

[Dreadsox]

What I can be sure of is that one book was written by a soldier who was at Guantanamo. The other book quotes CIA sources from within the governement. To semi-quote them...

They were having more success in getting information from the terrorists by not torturing them and showing kindness. They were getting valid intelligence. Then the Department of Defence was given the reins over the prisoners. They moved towrds torture, which is what the terrorists had trained and prepared for and had engraved into their brains would hapen to them. They got less VIABLE intelligence, more falsehoods, more chasing the tail, and less usefull information because.....a tortured person will say ANYTHING.

WHen they showed kindness....up to and including giving medical treatment to a terrorists family....they got MORE infor, valid info,. and helpful info that was less draining on the resources.

 

[Dreadsox]

Do you consider these books military analysis, advocacy or a mixture of both?

I would venture a mixture of both.

 

[Irvine511]

not to depress anyone too much more, but i can't not post this:



[q] REVOLTING TRUTH:
Even by the degraded standards of everyday life in Baghdad, this report from CNN's Nic Robertson comes as a shock:



One international official told me of reports among his staff that a 15-year-old girl had been beheaded and a dog's head sewn on her body in its place; and of a young child who had had his hands drilled and bolted together before being killed.


From its gruesome particulars, the report goes on to describe the fear that has gripped even the most hardened Iraqis during this latest round of sectarian bloodletting. Robertson's dispatch points to a revolting truth about the war in Iraq--one that American officers discovered long ago, but which has yet to penetrate fully the imaginations of theoreticians writing from a distant remove. The fact is, there is very little that we can do to dampen the sectarian rage and pathologies tearing Iraq apart at the seams. Did the Army make a mistake when it banished "counterinsurgency" from the lexicon of military affairs? Absolutely. Does it matter in Iraq? Probably not. How can you win over the heart and mind of someone who sews a dog's head on a girl? Would more U.S. troops alter Iraq's homicidal dynamic? Not really, given that, on the question of sectarian rage, America is now largely beside the point. True, U.S. troops can be--and have been--a vital buffer between Iraq's warring sects. But they cannot reprogram their coarsened and brittle cultures. Even if America had arrived in Iraq with a detailed post-war plan, twice the number of troops, and all the counterinsurgency expertise in the world, my guess is that we would have found ourselves in exactly the same spot. The Iraqis, after all, still would have had the final say.
--Lawrence Kaplan

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=24150

[/q]



and now i'm going to throw up.

and this leads us to a hard observation: we cannot pull out too soon lest everything completely collapse, and yet there appears little that we can do to stop Iraq from spiraling into civil war.

Kaplan is saying that our guns and money and ideas are no match for history and hatred.

and Kaplan, a writer for the liberal hawkish The New Republic, was an ardent neocon supporter of the war just a few years ago.