NewsWeek

[Jason]

Personally, I love Ann Coulter. Smart and beautiful.

[Jamie_B]

How funny is it that her website [url="http://www.anncoulter.org/"]http://www.anncoulter.org/[/url] (She's an orginzation?!?) Has a google ad to [url="http://dontblamemeivoted4kerry.com/"]http://dontblamemeivoted4kerry.com/[/url] ?

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]

Google apparently doesnt conern itself with directing their ads based on Party. (I knew there was a reason I like that search above all others)

[Homer_Rice]

Before I reply, I have a question. Does the Greater Cincy airport have short-term parking? I was looking for signs to this effect yesterday, but didn't see any. I may have missed it, but the only signs I saw were generic "parking" signs, and they seemed to be pretty far from the terminals. When I go back up next month to pick up my friend, I don't want to have to walk a mile to get to terminal 3. I just want to get in and out as quickly as possible.

You know, even though Cincy has gotten a bad rap over the past few years, it's still one of my favorite larger cities. I spent the evening on the east side, out past Loveland. Man, that area has exploded since I was a kid, there used be be nothing out there. I'll take Cincy over Philly or NYC anyday.

[quote name='bengalrick' date='May 18 2005, 01:25 PM']how can we equate a war that has freed millions from a tyrant, to an article that killed 17 people?

the intellegence was all pointing towards he had the evidence... we had plenty of other intellegence agencies saying the same thing, so in respect to your post, we did have enough sources to do protect ourselves and help the people of iraq... the newsweek article was written w/ only 1 source...[/quote]

bengalrick;

That's not an adequate framing of the equation, imo. To extend your metaphor, we're dealing with functions of complex variables. To be fair, my original equation was simple, but it did drive towards what I view as the premises of the Newsweek debacle, as I articulated it: bad info plus bad decisions=unnecessary dead folks.

Your claim that this war has "freed millions from a tyrant" draws a conclusion which ignores the processes leading up to the decision to go to war, almost as if you are suggesting that the ends justify the means. There are a lot of folks who disagree with both that ethical principle and the specific application in this instance. Furthermore, your claim that millions have been somehow "freed" is debatable, too. At this time, for all we know, we could have just shifted the whole Iraq mess from the frying pan to the fire. I really hope that we can salvage some good from this intervention, but it's too early to tell.

With regard to Newsweek: I worked at a newspaper for a while and I remain good friends with both the managing and editorial editors of that paper. I know that they attempt to adhere to good standards, yet I am not so naive to believe that the prism through which they view the world doesn't shape their editorial choices. Newsweek blundered here, not only with respect to confirming their info, but also with respect to not understanding the potential consequences.

Simple as my formulation is, it still is useful as a wedge to getting at the core of events. With regard to your equation, the "math" is still the same: you measure the results by taking a few moments to reflect on how many young people will never have a girlfriend or boyfriend, or have a spouse and family, or own a home, or have a meaningful career, or enjoy a lot of the conveniences and blessing in life which we take for granted.

Now, are there principles which are worth fighting for, worth risking the shortening of one's individual life for the sake of the greater good? I think so and I am sure you do, too. We would probably agree on WWII as an example of this, and maybe on our Civil War (if you are a "Yankee".) Where we disagree is on this war against Iraq. The image I have in my mind is of an Admin whacking at a pinata; they stand there, blindfolded, wielding a big stick. Some bystanders observing events think that there's candy in the pinata, others think that the pinata is really a hornet's nest.

[quote name='bengalrick' date='May 18 2005, 01:25 PM']am i reading this wrong or something:
"With respect to this thread, I just think it's, at best, foolish, and at worst, hypocritical, to apply one standard to a magazine and another to the policy-makers which brought us this war. If one must attack the magazine, then apply a similar standard to the government."[/quote]

I'll add to what I just said by re-framing your equation: "How can we equate a war, which we (sort of) declared, and which has killed a lot of people to an article which has prompted a reaction in the Islamic world which has killed some people."

[quote name='bengalrick' date='May 18 2005, 01:25 PM']you are saying that if i am pissed about this article being published, w/out the correct amount of sources, i should also be pissed about us going to iraq, and being "lied" to about the wmd's...

if so, i am saying that the intellegence was (supposidely) saying he did have them... we had many intellegence communities telling us the same things... i don't consider being wrong as a lie...

hope this better explains myself...[/quote]

Actually, I was running late and in a hurry yesterday, so I had to log off and get moving. My thinking didn't even get that far; I just wanted to note what you were saying and that I didn't quite get it on the first pass.

With respect to lying: Although there are a lot of people who do think that this admin has a tendency to tell whoppers to get what it wants, I don't think we have to insist on that premise to conclude that some serious mistakes were made in the run-up to the war, as well as in its aftermath. Just as we don't have to insist that Newsweek has some nefarious "liberal" agenda to conclude that they blew it.

It's about exercising judgement. Apply the same standard of judgement to both sets of circumstances. That is one element which prompted my comment.

It's also about the power politics being played right now in DC, on both sides of the aisle. It isn't too farfetched to realize that this Newsweek incident would be used as a weapon in that fight. Fair enough, just so long as people don't get bent out of shape when it is used that way by both sides of the aisle.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='oldschooler' date='May 18 2005, 01:45 PM']Bush gave an ultimatum....Saddam "pushed" the invasion.
If Saddam does what he is [b]supposed[/b] to do...we don`t go to war.
But Saddam defies YET AGAIN....so Bush is a war monger....:roll:

It`s like a court order...if YOU defy the court order...is it the judge`s fault ?
Apparently to some of you it is.
Saddam is to blame for this war...that is a FACT.
[right][post="93816"][/post][/right][/quote]

Fortunately, international relations is a little more subtle than a middle-school playground. Or is it?

Is Bush a war-monger? I don't know. I do know that he is surrounded by people who have extremist strategic conceptions of America's place in the world, and that their tactics tend to be based on the exercise of raw power.

I do think his judgement is suspect and I think that because he has given me cause to do so.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[b]Yeeee On to Guantanamo [/b]



[img]http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/1pow1.jpg[/img]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[img]http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/206340.jpg[/img]

[i]"First we'll flush his Koran, then night stick up his ass"[/i]

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='May 19 2005, 05:57 PM']Fortunately, international relations is a little more subtle than a middle-school playground. Or is it?   

Is Bush a war-monger? I don't know. I do know that he is surrounded by people who have extremist strategic conceptions of America's place in the world, and that their tactics tend to be based on the exercise of raw power.

I do think his judgement is suspect and I think that because he has given me cause to do so.
[right][post="94340"][/post][/right][/quote]



OK ...so Bush is the "playground bully" and Saddam is the
"innocent geeky kid" ?


So your thinking is... Bush was sitting around just hoping for September
11th 2001.
So he could find a reason to have all of his "extremist" who have
"strategic conceptions of America's place in the world" to use "raw power"
to over take an "innocent" dictator...


I like my comparison of it being like a "court order" that was first placed
against Saddam in 1991. The "judges" before LET Saddam do whatever he
wanted...but after September 11th 2001...the 17 "court orders" HAD to be
enforced.
Saddam COULD have avoided all of this. Then instead of Bush being a
"playground bully"....he would have just been a "judge" that was doing his
job. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//3.gif[/img]

[Jamie_B]

My question about getting info from someone who doesn’t want to freely give it up and if there are ways to get it that don’t involve physical or physiological torture, wasn’t being rhetorical or smart assed, I’m serious, if any of you that have gone through that kind of training or have a better insight could answer it. Is there a humanitarian way to interrogate?

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='May 20 2005, 10:13 AM']My question about getting info from someone who doesn’t want to freely give it up and if there are ways to get it that don’t involve physical or physiological torture, wasn’t being rhetorical or smart assed, I’m serious, if any of you that have gone through that kind of training or have a better insight could answer it. [b]Is there a humanitarian way to interrogate?[/b][right][post="94567"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
I can't think of any Jamie...as far as I can tell, interrogation is either pain-based, threat-based, fear-based, or reward-based, often with combinations of all coming into play...we use sleep deprivation a lot, but is that inhumane?

Tough question...

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='Bunghole' date='May 20 2005, 12:26 PM']I can't think of any Jamie...as far as I can tell, interrogation is either pain-based, threat-based, fear-based, or reward-based, often with combinations of all coming into play...we use sleep deprivation a lot, but is that inhumane?

Tough question...
[right][post="94573"][/post][/right][/quote]

Yeah but to me terrorists dont qualify for the same rights as soldiers under the geneva convention. They dont fight open war under a suporting country. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//33.gif[/img]

These people should be delt with as such and no they shouldnt not have rights comparable to the restrictions for POW by the geneva convention as stated

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

( That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

© That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

They do none of these things as such should be considered with out honor or rights

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='May 19 2005, 06:36 PM']Before I reply, I have a question. Does the Greater Cincy airport have short-term parking? I was looking for signs to this effect yesterday, but didn't see any. I may have missed it, but the only signs I saw were generic "parking" signs, and they seemed to be pretty far from the terminals. When I go back up next month to pick up my friend, I don't want to have to walk a mile to get to terminal 3. I just want to get in and out as quickly as possible.

You know, even though Cincy has gotten a bad rap over the past few years, it's still one of my favorite larger cities. I spent the evening on the east side, out past Loveland. Man, that area has exploded since I was a kid, there used be be nothing out there. I'll take Cincy over Philly or NYC anyday.
bengalrick;

That's not an adequate framing of the equation, imo. To extend your metaphor, we're dealing with functions of complex variables. To be fair, my original equation was simple, but it did drive towards what I view as the premises of the Newsweek debacle, as I articulated it: [b]bad info plus bad decisions=unnecessary dead folks[/b].


[b][i]homer, here is where you and i seem to differ extremely... i say that, given the intellegence they had, they should have gone... you are saying that even w/ the intellegence given, it was a "bad decision"... are you saying that you don't think we should have invaded iraq b/c they had wmd's? i see this as either bad intellegence or bad judgement, but not both (of course, i see it as bad intellegence, but i could be wrong)...[/i][/b]

Your claim that this war has "freed millions from a tyrant" draws a conclusion which ignores the processes leading up to the decision to go to war, almost as if you are suggesting that the ends justify the means. There are a lot of folks who disagree with both that ethical principle and the specific application in this instance. Furthermore, your claim that millions have been somehow "freed" is debatable, too. At this time, for all we know, we could have just shifted the whole Iraq mess from the frying pan to the fire. I really hope that we can salvage some good from this intervention, but it's too early to tell.

[b][i]it is too early to tell, but your pessimism keeps rubbing me... reguardless of the outcome, we did free these people from saddam... that will be etched into history reguardless... the key now is to continue on the path of democracy... continue to have free elections, write their constitution, have a free press, and free speech to voice disconcern w/ their gov't, if they must...[/i]

[i]i don't think the end justifies the means... i feel that it's easy to look back now and say "well the wmd's weren't there... we made a grave mistake" when most everyone thought they were there too... lets put it this way, if we didn't invade, we wouldn't know if we were right or not... the country would be upside down thinking that iraq had intentions to hurt us... i'm not even going down the path of whatelse i think would be differnet to save you the headaches..[/i][/b]

With regard to Newsweek: I worked at a newspaper for a while and I remain good friends with both the managing and editorial editors of that paper. I know that they attempt to adhere to good standards, yet I am not so naive to believe that the prism through which they view the world doesn't shape their editorial choices. Newsweek blundered here, not only with respect to confirming their info, but also with respect to not understanding the potential consequences.

Simple as my formulation is, it still is useful as a wedge to getting at the core of events. With regard to your equation, the "math" is still the same: you measure the results by taking a few moments to reflect on how many young people will never have a girlfriend or boyfriend, or have a spouse and family, or own a home, or have a meaningful career, or enjoy a lot of the conveniences and blessing in life which we take for granted.

[b][i]you are looking at this all the wrong way imo... how many girlfriends, boyfriends, parents would have been around today, if we had started the war on terror 10 years earlier??? how would the middleeast look right now if Bush Sr. would have not listened to others around him, and toppled saddam's regeme in the early 90's??? these are all debateable, but i fail to see how things would be worse... 9/11 killed many "girlfriends, boyfriends" etc... you are looking at it all wrong imo... we can't judge how much we thwarted the enemy until they hit... but i feel fighting on their turf is drawing them away from ours... just my opinion...[/i][/b]

Now, are there principles which are worth fighting for, worth risking the shortening of one's individual life for the sake of the greater good? I think so and I am sure you do, too. We would probably agree on WWII as an example of this, and maybe on our Civil War (if you are a "Yankee".) Where we disagree is on this war against Iraq. The image I have in my mind is of an Admin whacking at a pinata; they stand there, blindfolded, wielding a big stick. Some bystanders observing events think that there's candy in the pinata, others think that the pinata is really a hornet's nest.

[b][i]it IS a hornets nest... that shouldn't stop us from killing the bad hornets, to preserve the good people... if we do nothing, the nest only grows stronger... sometimes, the best way to defeat a extreme evil, is to go right at it... you don't avoid it, or throw money at it... you defeat it...[/i][/b]

I'll add to what I just said by re-framing your equation: "How can we equate a war, which we (sort of) declared, and which has killed a lot of people to an article which has prompted a reaction in the Islamic world which has killed some people."
Actually, I was running late and in a hurry yesterday, so I had to log off and get moving. My thinking didn't even get that far; I just wanted to note what you were saying and that I didn't quite get it on the first pass.

With respect to lying: Although there are a lot of people who do think that this admin has a tendency to tell whoppers to get what it wants, I don't think we have to insist on that premise to conclude that some serious mistakes were made in the run-up to the war, as well as in its aftermath. Just as we don't have to insist that Newsweek has some nefarious "liberal" agenda to conclude that they blew it.

[b][i]i don't think newsweek is the next "cbs"... i mean, they also broke the bill clinton/monica story first... i think that they hurried to get the story up first, and didn't check out the leads well enough, for such an explosive story... who i think is extreemly biased is the reporters who are bitching at the US gov't for telling them to fix the mess they started... the bias to that, is the US gov't can't do it theirselves, w/out their help... i mean, this does make us look bad...[/i][/b]

It's about exercising judgement. Apply the same standard of judgement to both sets of circumstances. That is one element which prompted my comment.

[b][i]again, considering our intellegence, would you make a different decision?[/i][/b]

It's also about the power politics being played right now in DC, on both sides of the aisle. It isn't too farfetched to realize that this Newsweek incident would be used as a weapon in that fight. Fair enough, just so long as people don't get bent out of shape when it is used that way by both sides of the aisle.
[right][post="94336"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

[Guest LoyalFanInGA]

[quote name='BengalsCat' date='May 20 2005, 12:38 PM']Yeah but to me terrorists dont qualify for the same rights as soldiers under the geneva convention. They dont fight open war under a suporting country.  [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//33.gif[/img]

These people should be delt with as such and no they shouldnt not have rights comparable to the restrictions for POW by the geneva convention as stated

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

( That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

© That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

They do none of these things as such should be considered with out honor or rights
[right][post="94576"][/post][/right][/quote]

You're right...technically these "detainees" are not POWs. So they are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Like I said before, the chances of an American receiving these protections is slim to none. If we don't afford our detainees these protections, I think we eliminate the chance of an American detainee's [i]slim[/i] chance of receiving these protections.

And to muddy the waters even more...as a POW you are no longer considered a combatant. If you were to kill one of your captors during an escape, you could be tried as a war criminal for murder because you aren't a combatant. (It didn't make sense to me either when I learned this.) So if an American is captured and kills their captor (who is considered a terrorist) during an escape, will he be tried as a war criminal? I don't f-in' know. I guess it depends on whether or not Newsweek breaks the story.

To respond to Jamie B about methods of interrogation; I'm not an expert, but here is my two cents worth. Good Cop, Bad Cop. Some individuals respond by using compassion and gaining their trust, usually you get more reliable information. Or you can use the bad cop approach. Make them hungry, tired, confused, lonely, physically uncomfortable, alter their sleep cycles, turn them against each other...Man, I'm glad I wasn't an interrogator. If you know anyone who has been to SERE (pronounced sear...survival, evasion, resistance, escape) asked them about the RTL...Resistance Training Lab. Those stories are always good for a laugh, after it's over.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='oldschooler' date='May 20 2005, 07:20 AM']OK ...so Bush is the "playground bully" and Saddam is the
"innocent geeky kid" ? 
So your thinking is... Bush was sitting around just hoping for September
11th 2001.
So he could  find a reason to have all of his "extremist" who have
"strategic conceptions of America's place in the world" to use "raw power"
to over take an "innocent" dictator...
I like my comparison of it being like a "court order" that was first placed
against Saddam in 1991. The "judges" before LET Saddam do whatever he
wanted...but after September 11th 2001...the 17 "court orders" HAD to be
enforced.
Saddam COULD have avoided all of this. Then instead of Bush being a
"playground bully"....he would have just been a "judge" that was doing his
job.  [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//3.gif[/img]
[right][post="94516"][/post][/right][/quote]

Read the Woodward books, it'll provide you with some (but not all) background to help you refine your ideas.

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='LoyalFanInGA' date='May 20 2005, 01:23 PM']You're right...technically these "detainees" are not POWs.  So they are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.  Like I said before, the chances of [b]an American receiving these protections is slim to none[/b].  If we don't afford our detainees these protections, I think we eliminate the chance of an American detainee's [i]slim[/i] chance of receiving these protections.

And to muddy the waters even more...as a POW you are no longer considered a combatant.  If you were to kill one of your captors during an escape, you could be tried as a war criminal for murder because you aren't a combatant.  (It didn't make sense to me either when I learned this.)  So if an American is captured and kills their captor (who is considered a terrorist) during an escape, will he be tried as a war criminal?  I don't f-in' know. I guess it depends on whether or not Newsweek breaks the story.

To respond to Jamie B about methods of interrogation; I'm not an expert, but here is my two cents worth.  Good Cop, Bad Cop.  Some individuals respond by using compassion and gaining their trust, usually you get more reliable information.  Or you can use the bad cop approach.  Make them hungry, tired, confused, lonely, physically uncomfortable, alter their sleep cycles, turn them against each other...Man, I'm glad I wasn't an interrogator.  If you know anyone who has been to SERE (pronounced sear...survival, evasion, resistance, escape) asked them about the RTL...Resistance Training Lab.  Those stories are always good for a laugh, after it's over.
[right][post="94598"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

We dont get any kind of POW status when captured. we get beheaded and taped. Or tortured. I think its fair to use the same method on them especialy since they dont fall under the geneva convention.. I didnt start this reign of terror of there's and i am glad we are putting out footdown on this honestly This kind of shit can not be tolerated in the world.

[jza10304]

Looks like it wasn't a vast left-wing conspiracy. I still don't understand why this would be a bigger deal than being plunger raped. You can flush, burn, or rip anything in front of me before I take a plunger in the 5 hole.

[quote]Red Cross warned U.S. over Quran
Allegations of mishandling preceded Pentagon guidelines
From Elise Labott
CNN Washington Bureau




WASHINGTON (CNN) -- [b]The International Committee of the Red Cross gathered "credible" reports about U.S. personnel at the Guantanamo Bay naval base disrespecting the Quran and raised the issue with the Pentagon several times, a group spokesman said Thursday.

Simon Schorno said the allegations were made by detainees to Red Cross representatives who visited the detention facility throughout 2002 and 2003.[/b]

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Thursday the Pentagon in 2003 issued strict guidelines on how U.S. personnel should handle the Quran.

Schorno said the Red Cross heard no more allegations about mishandling of the Quran after the guidelines were issued.

Boucher said the United States works closely with the Red Cross and acknowledged the group "had heard some concerns about the handling of Qurans, which it shared with the U.S."

But he said actions taken in respect of detainees' religious practices at Guantanamo include providing them with Qurans, indicating the direction to Mecca, providing the call to prayer and serving meals according to Muslim customs.

"We have very extensive guidelines about how Qurans are to be handled, who they're to be handled by, the wearing of gloves, how they're to be moved and transported, in order to ensure that no such concerns will arise," Boucher said.

Schorno did not provide specific instances of alleged desecration, instead addressing only to the general issue of disrespecting the Muslim holy book.

"The fact that ICRC documented these allegations, documented them and formalized them, I think makes a difference," Schorno said. "We researched them and found they were credible allegations."

Although Red Cross employees did not personally witness any mishandling of Qurans, Schorno said, they documented and corroborated enough reports from detainees to share them with Pentagon and Guantanamo officials in confidential reports.

Schorno said the Red Cross would not have raised the issue if it had been an isolated incident, but he would not offer specifics about the number of complaints.

"The very fact that we brought up the issue speaks for itself," he said. "We don't make such reports for minor problems."

U.S. officials have often downplayed such complaints about Quran desecration because they came from detainees.

Teams of Red Cross representatives have been making six-week visits to the U.S. detainee camp in Cuba every three months since 2002.

A Red Cross team is currently on the ground at Guantanamo, Schorno said.

A recent Newsweek magazine article alleged that U.S. investigators had concluded that U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Quran, in one instance by flushing the Muslim holy book down a toilet.

Newsweek subsequently retracted the report, saying its government source had indicated doubts about his information after publication.

The Bush administration blamed the report, at least in part, for deadly violence that erupted in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world.

Human Rights Watch said that despite the Newsweek retraction it also had received reports from Muslim detainees -- at Guantanamo Bay, in Afghanistan and in Iraq -- that U.S. interrogators had repeatedly sought to offend their Islamic beliefs in order to humiliate them.

"Several detainees have alleged to Human Rights Watch and others that U.S. interrogators disrespected the Quran," according to a statement issued by the group Thursday.

Reed Brody, a spokesman for Human Rights Watch, noted the Newsweek story "would not have have resonated had it not been for the United States' extensive abuse of Muslim detainees and the government's failure to fully investigate all of those implicated."

The group also denied Newsweek's report caused the damage during last week's anti-American rioting in Afghanistan, blaming instead "violent protesters and poorly disciplined Afghan police and troops."

U.S. officials have acknowledged that investigations are ongoing into reports of religious intolerance -- including desecration of the Quran -- by interrogators at Guantanamo Bay.

"We do listen when people raise questions about the handling of the Quran, and we have made very clear what our policies are," Boucher said.

"The policy and practice that we follow at Guantanamo is to respect the religious rights of the prisoners."

"If there are credible instances that are called to our attention of where those rules were not followed or the policy is not carried out thoroughly, then we investigate," he said.

"We make sure the practices are corrected and improved."[/quote]

[|Bunghole|]

We are America, and as such, we should (and mostly, DO) take the moral high ground in these situations (well, [i]publicly[/i], anyway...).

Just because our enemies engage in certain behavior with their POW's doesn't mean we should stoop to their level. Ever.

I am more in favor of a "non-capture" approach where ammunition is dispensed at alarming rates and the killing is free and easy...when dealing with terrorists, that is.

Loyal...ever melt a .50 barrel?
I got into a LOT of trouble at a range in Germany for that...
Article 15 and everything...I was a dumb kid then...I could have hurt somebody else or myself...I just wanted to see it happen...stupid...

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='May 20 2005, 11:58 AM']homer, here is where you and i seem to differ extremely... i say that, given the intellegence they had, they should have gone... you are saying that even w/ the intellegence given, it was a "bad decision"... are you saying that you don't think we should have invaded iraq b/c they had wmd's? i see this as either bad intellegence or bad judgement, but not both (of course, i see it as bad intellegence, but i could be wrong)...

[right][post="94585"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Look at the people populating this admin. Check out their backgrounds and what they were proposing even before the election of 2000. PNAC, Cheney, AEI, neo-cons/Straussians, the Rice/Schultz connection, etc...


[quote name='bengalrick' date='May 20 2005, 11:58 AM']it is too early to tell, but your pessimism keeps rubbing me... reguardless of the outcome, we did free these people from saddam... that will be etched into history reguardless... the key now is to continue on the path of democracy... continue to have free elections, write their constitution, have a free press, and free speech to voice disconcern w/ their gov't, if they must...

i don't think the end justifies the means... i feel that it's easy to look back now and say "well the wmd's weren't there... we made a grave mistake" when most everyone thought they were there too... lets put it this way, if we didn't invade, we wouldn't know if we were right or not... the country would be upside down thinking that iraq had intentions to hurt us... i'm not even going down the path of whatelse i think would be differnet to save you the headaches..
[right][post="94585"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

You keep insisting that I am pessimistic. This isn't about moods or beliefs; it's about problems and how one either fixes them or makes them worse.

[quote name='bengalrick' date='May 20 2005, 11:58 AM']you are looking at this all the wrong way imo... how many girlfriends, boyfriends, parents would have been around today, if we had started the war on terror 10 years earlier??? how would the middleeast look right now if Bush Sr. would have not listened to others around him, and toppled saddam's regeme in the early 90's??? these are all debateable, but i fail to see how things would be worse... [b]9/11 killed many "girlfriends, boyfriends" etc... [/b]you are looking at it all wrong imo... we can't judge how much we thwarted the enemy until they hit... but i feel fighting on their turf is drawing them away from ours... just my opinion...

[right][post="94585"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Define the "war on terror." Low intensity operations have been around for millenia. (Think Trojan horse.)

Research just where the latest crop of mercenaries/terrorists came from and whether or not the US had anything to do with their origin. (Read Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars".)

What's 9-11 got to do with our declaring a war on Iraq? Aside from the fact that it was the proximate excuse to declare that war? Do you think that WWI started because some anarchist stood on a corner and took a potshot in Sarajevo? (In fact, there were lots of anarchists in Sarajevo that day, but that's another story.)

[quote name='bengalrick' date='May 20 2005, 11:58 AM']again, considering our intellegence, would you make a different decision?
[right][post="94585"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

I'm saying that the decision to invade Iraq was made despite the evidence at hand. There was enough evidence to suggest that containment was effective and working, and that the 1998 decision to work towards regime change could have been pursued longer to better effect for our middle east policy.

[Guest Gonzoid]

Why do they give stupid people computers?

The riots were not sparked by [i]Newsweek[/i]...

[quote]in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran -- and I'll get to that in just a minute -- but more tied up in the political process and the reconciliation process that President Karzai and his Cabinet is conducting in Afghanistan.  So that's -- that was his judgment today in an after- action of that violence.  He didn't -- he thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine.[/quote]

And that comes from [url="http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050512-secdef2761.html"]Air Force General Richard Myers[/url].

And in regards to McClellan going on about media credibility, I have two words: Jeff Gannon.

[Guest bengalrick]

jza... the key to all of that report by the american red cross imo:
"Although Red Cross employees did not personally witness any mishandling of Qurans, Schorno said, they documented and corroborated enough reports from detainees to share them with Pentagon and Guantanamo officials in confidential reports."

those "detainees" are terrorists that were in terrorist's camps when we picked them up... they are al-quaeda... if it was witnessed directly, i'd believe it.. but i am skeptical..

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Gonzoid' date='May 20 2005, 01:36 PM']Why do they give stupid people computers?

The riots were not sparked by [i]Newsweek[/i]...
And that comes from [url="http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050512-secdef2761.html"]Air Force General Richard Myers[/url].

And in regards to McClellan going on about media credibility, I have two words: Jeff Gannon.
[right][post="94636"][/post][/right][/quote]

they weren't started b/c of the koran story?!? what a laugh!! what happened that pissed off these people "all of the sudden" in the political process? what did karzai do this day that pissed everyone off so bad?

i love how people will use some quotes of the gov't (if they follow their beliefs) but call other things that others say, a lie, based on who said it...

[Guest Bengal_Smoov]

[quote name='BengalsCat' date='May 20 2005, 12:56 PM']We dont get any kind of POW status when captured. we get beheaded and taped. Or tortured. I think its fair to use the same method on them especialy since they dont fall under the geneva convention.. I didnt start this reign of terror of there's and [b]i am glad we are putting out footdown on this honestly This kind of shit can not be tolerated in the world[/b].
[right][post="94615"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


So would you support America intervining in Sudan or any other country that has a ruthess dictator and needs freedom?

[Guest bengaljet]

[quote name='Gonzoid' date='May 20 2005, 01:36 PM']Why do they give stupid people computers?

The riots were not sparked by [i]Newsweek[/i]...
And that comes from [url="http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050512-secdef2761.html"]Air Force General Richard Myers[/url].

And in regards to McClellan going on about media credibility, I have two words: Jeff Gannon.
[right][post="94636"][/post][/right][/quote]
You got a lot of nerve mentioning Jeff Gannon-he was just trying to do an honest job and was a hero to me. My blood is really boiling now-although I must admit I liked his other name better-James Guckett.
I liked how McClellan knew his real name was James Guckett but called him Jeff at the conferences-Real honesty shown by Mac. Jeff only got to ask 200 softball questions ,that didn't even need an answer.
Jeff Gannon ,a real low-life and he had accomlpices in the fraud.
Don't pick on Jeff or James or whatever-it was a dishonest mistake.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='May 20 2005, 01:18 PM']Look at the people populating this admin. Check out their backgrounds and what they were proposing even before the election of 2000. PNAC, Cheney, AEI, neo-cons/Straussians, the Rice/Schultz connection, etc...[/quote]

so you think they just lied to us, so we could go get saddam?

[quote]You keep insisting that I am pessimistic. This isn't about moods or beliefs; it's about problems and how one either fixes them or makes them worse.
Define the "war on terror." Low intensity operations have been around for millenia. (Think Trojan horse.)[/quote]

the war on terror was started by bush in 2001, a little after the towers fell... if we were trying to fight terrorists on 9/10, things changed on 9/11...

[quote]Research just where the latest crop of mercenaries/terrorists came from and whether or not the US had anything to do with their origin. (Read Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars".)

What's 9-11 got to do with our declaring a war on Iraq? Aside from the fact that it was the proximate excuse to declare that war? Do you think that WWI started because some anarchist stood on a corner and took a potshot in Sarajevo? (In fact, there were lots of anarchists in Sarajevo that day, but that's another story.)
I'm saying that the decision to invade Iraq was made despite the evidence at hand.[b] There was enough evidence to suggest that containment was effective and working, and that the 1998 decision to work towards regime change could have been pursued longer to better effect for our middle east policy.[/b][/quote]

yeah, the UN was doing a splendid job of keeping us safe [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]

saddam wasn't ever going to step down...

i'm purposely avoiding the iraq-al quaeda connection... if you really want to hear it again, i'll post it, but i've gone down that road a thousand times...

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='jza10304' date='May 20 2005, 02:15 PM']Looks like it wasn't a vast left-wing conspiracy.  I still don't understand why this would be a bigger deal than being plunger raped.  You can flush, burn, or rip anything in front of me before I take a plunger in the 5 hole.
[right][post="94623"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

02&03 wand u dont think changes have been made do ya????????????????? shit i thought u were alil more observent that that. This is 05

[jza10304]

[quote name='BengalsCat' date='May 20 2005, 02:38 PM']02&03 wand u dont think changes have been made do ya????????????????? shit i thought u were alil more observent that that. This is 05
[right][post="94671"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
I was just pointing out the fact that it could be true, given the history and legacy they have over there.