Bowling for children

[Crash]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-07-13-iraq_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

Suicide car bomber kills up to 27, several Iraqi children
BAGHDAD (AP) — A suicide car bomb exploded next to U.S. troops handing out candy and toys, killing 18 children and teenagers Wednesday.
http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2005/07/13/iraq-inside.jpg
Parents heard the shattering explosion and raced out to the discover the worst — children's mangled, bloodied bodies strewn on the street.
An Iraqi policeman secures the site where a suicide car bomb exploded in Baghdad. . At least 70 people were injured, a newborn and three U.S. soldiers among them
By Ali al-Saadi, AFP/Getty Images

and we're supposed to fight them fair.... WTF

damn liberal hippies get pissed when americans do this

http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/images/graner.jpg


but no one bats an eye when 30 kids are blow up by the same freaking psychos that were in abu ghraib




in a related story:

Armed men stormed a house in Baghdad on Tuesday, killing four Iraqi human rights activists and wounding another, a member of the group said.

The victims belonged to the local International Organization for Human Rights and were shot by several men at their office in the western neighborhood of Jamaa, their colleague Jamal Ibrahim said.


yeah, these ****ers are real human, and deserve to be treated with utmost respect... my ASS ...**** the geneva convention in this occupation

[Happydude]

stupid stupid terrorists...

[Fox 6]

yeah, these ****ers are real human, and deserve to be treated with utmost respect... my ASS ...**** the geneva convention in this occupation
In that case you would just be lowering yourself to the terrorists level. Also people people would disagree at the war in Iraq even more, to break a treaty that your country signed in good faith is a ridiculous thought. I'm not saying that they should sit back and do nothing, but breaking that treaty would be a bad idea.

[Crash]

yeah, I agree... the geneva convention should not be broken.. because then americans would be hated more than ever.

but something has to be done... it is an unfair war, and its causing american lives (about 1700 as of now)

my dad's regiment - 3rd ACR out of colorado... has had a crapload of casualties for one post. why? roadside bombs, suicide bombs and plain "what-were-they-thinking"

how do you fight an enemy that doesn't fight like you do?

think brittish in revolutionary war... 'but they aren't fighting the way they are supposed to...., they are hiding and wearing camoflage'

what happened to them? well, they didn't get their job done, because they were too concerned with doing it like a gentleman.

now, we're too concerned with "doing it polically correct" and its not good for us. That's all I'm saying.

[Fox 6]

It seems to me that you were probably blowing off steam, and expressing your frustration, and thats ok to do at times.

[DarrenMcLeod]

Terrorist bombings don't justify the prisoner photos.

[Crash]

of course, i'm just blowing off steam.

just sick of the media saying:

"2 more american soldiers killed needlessly today"
when those soldiers are trying to protect us and them and little iraqi children from becoming victims of religiously charged hate crimes.


dammit media, cover the real stories not your crybaby I want it my way stories!!!

[Crash]

Terrorist bombings don't justify the prisoner photos.

worse things happen at frat parties... big deal i say!

[DeathsHand]

just sick of the media saying:

"2 more american soldiers killed needlessly today"

What the hell media are you watching/reading/listening to?

[Professor S]

1) Terrorists are NOT covered under the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention SPECIFICALLY protects combatants representing a nation and garbed in that nation's uniform. Therefore Iraqi soldiers apprehended on the field of battle are covered under the Convention, but illegal plain clothes combatants that do not represent a sovreign nation receive absolutely ZERO PROTECTION. The fact that we respect the Geneva Convention in most cases is a priveledge we give these baby killers, it is not their right. In fact, these specifications were made in the convention so that those that fight in ways the terrorists do would NOT be protected, so the tactics used at Abu Graib do not even violate the spirit of the Geneva Convention.

2) What went on at Abu Graib is a joke. The only crime was that some idiot decided to e-mail the pictures back home so an eager media could blow it out of proportion. I don't know who would even be stupid enough to to ALLOW a camera in that place. Anyway, we are trying to interrogate these people who are FANATICS, and they hold information that can save lives. To properly interrogate someone you need to get information out of them, information that they do not want to give. Should we give them a cookie and say "please"? Of course not. You break down their spirit and basically reduce their self-esteem to a pile of dog crap. While doing this you do not let them sleep and make sure they are uncomfortable at all times. The when they are exhausted and believe they're worthless they will give you the information. Torture is not even a productive means of interrogation, much less a moral one, as the one being tortured will pretty much say anything at the breaking pojnt to avoid more pain. Just so you know, the information I am giving here was from a History Channel doc on interrogation tactics.

3) All muslim detainees, including those that we hold that were involved in the 9/11 attack, are given many priveledges including a Quran and food that is cooked and treated to Islamic specifications (in fact the meals that detainees receive are considerably more expensive than ones we feed our own troops). Detainees that have been cooperative have even been taken on boat trips and given BBQ dinners and other amenities.

[Xantar]

yeah, I agree... the geneva convention should not be broken.. because then americans would be hated more than ever.

but something has to be done... it is an unfair war, and its causing american lives (about 1700 as of now)

my dad's regiment - 3rd ACR out of colorado... has had a crapload of casualties for one post. why? roadside bombs, suicide bombs and plain "what-were-they-thinking"

how do you fight an enemy that doesn't fight like you do?

think brittish in revolutionary war... 'but they aren't fighting the way they are supposed to...., they are hiding and wearing camoflage'

what happened to them? well, they didn't get their job done, because they were too concerned with doing it like a gentleman.

now, we're too concerned with "doing it polically correct" and its not good for us. That's all I'm saying.

Don't look now, but all of that suggests that maybe, just maybe, some folks in the government didn't have a totally clear idea of how to carry the war in Iraq through to its conclusion.

So how do you fight an enemy that doesn't fight like you, Crash? Do you have some suggestions for our troops?

3) All muslim detainees, including those that we hold that were involved in the 9/11 attack, are given many priveledges including a Quran and food that is cooked and treated to Islamic specifications (in fact the meals that detainees receive are considerably more expensive than ones we feed our own troops). Detainees that have been cooperative have even been taken on boat trips and given BBQ dinners and other amenities.

Which is all beside the point because these detainees were imprisoned without a right to counsel nor reasonable expectation of a timely trial or even knowing what they are suspected of doing. Spare me all the talk about barbecue dinners and having surgical masks to hang the Quran off the ground because that's all just blowing smoke. What if there's somebody totally innocent in there? The problem with the way we're detaining people is there's no way we'd even know if there were innocent people in there. If I were detained without being able to talk to anybody or even face my accusers, somehow I don't think that having expensive food served to me would be much comfort.

[Professor S]

Which is all beside the point because these detainees were imprisoned without a right to counsel nor reasonable expectation of a timely trial or even knowing what they are suspected of doing. Spare me all the talk about barbecue dinners and having surgical masks to hang the Quran off the ground because that's all just blowing smoke. What if there's somebody totally innocent in there? The problem with the way we're detaining people is there's no way we'd even know if there were innocent people in there. If I were detained without being able to talk to anybody or even face my accusers, somehow I don't think that having expensive food served to me would be much comfort.

1) We don't have to let them face their accusers and and they are not protected under US or any other law that I am aware of, as I pointed out with my bit about the Geneva Convention.

2) We have released many detainees that we have captured and kept in Abu Graib and GITMO. In fact I believe that 6 (maybe more) detainees that have been released by the US have been RE-CAPTURED or killed in Iraq. They were released and then went back to kill more troop/civilians/kids/kittens. Oh those poor poor detainees. I feel so sorry for them.

Spare me all your sympathy and indignation. We aren't keeping pick pockets in GITMO. These are bad people that do the kind of things that Crash posted above. Sorry if you can't stomach what needs to be done.

The whole problem is that no one has a damn clue about what needs to be done, besides the people whose JOB IT IS TO DO IT. So until someone comes up with a better idea on how to gain intelligence from illegal combatants and killers, I'll trust those that are trained to do so and their methods.

[gekko]

I'm glad you guys get the luxury of spewing your **** from a ****ing keyboard on the other side of the world. Maybe if your ass had to walk down those same streets, you might find this to be a little bit bigger deal.

As for the Geneva convention, I am not against it, but the insurgents are, so **** em. It's like signing a peace treaty and then getting attacked. Are you still going to ****ing sit there and get killed, or will you fight back? You ****ing fight back. The geneva convention was never intended to be one-sided. We did the right thing, we followed it, but now they didn't. All is fair in love and ****ing war, and this is war.

Now how do you fight an enemy that doesn't fight like you? You adapt, and you fight like them. Holy ****, is this a new concept? Does anybody learn anything about Vietnam other than the politics of it? To fight guerillas, you fight like guerillas. It's that simple. I'll kill every mother****er in that city if I have to. These ****s know who doesn't belong in their neighborhood, they know who is an Iraqi, and who isn't. They got two choices, tell us where the **** they are, or get wiped out along with em. **** these guys, I have no remorse. I'm not about to go back and be a human ****ing target just waiting to be shot at again. Cut it close this time, the first week after we were relieved, they lost 6 to IEDs on the same routes we would've been taking. After only 2 months, they were up to 27 lost. I'm sick of this political-driven bull**** that we are putting up with being fueled by *****-ass bitches sitting online causing controversy over stupid **** that they can never relate to.

We're at war. Grab a weapon, or shut the **** up and let someone else fight for you.

[Professor S]

Gekko, could you let us know who that was targeted at? Because I agree with you and yet I just feel like I received quite the tongue-lashing :D

[Xantar]

You can't tell me that there aren't innocent people being detained in prison. People on death row go through a decade long process and we know that there are still innocent people occasionally getting executed for one reason or another. Not that I want to get into a capital punishment argument as well, but are you going to seriously tell me that every single person in Guantanamo is plotting the next 9/11? No system is that perfect. You can tell me that some people were released and then went back to bombing innocent civilians, and certainly I think that's a terrible thing. On the other hand, I also know for a fact that some innocent people were detained. Five of them in particular were detained for two years and then released after it became clear that they were innocent of anything related to terrorism. I'm not one of the liberals who decries rough interrogation in itself, but I have to wonder what we're supposed to say to people who received that treatment every day for two years without really knowing why. Oops, sorry?

And how do we know that these detainments "need to be done" or that they're producing results anyway? I thought conservatism was supposed to be founded on distrust of a powerful, unanswerable government. The problem with this whole line of argument is it basically means we should all just sit back, relax and shut up while we wait for results which could be a few decades from now since the War on Terror is long and secretive. Sorry if I'm not willing to do that. We have a system here in which some people are released because they were thought to pose little threat and went right back to trying to kill infidels and others are released and go back to being law abiding citizens missing two years of their lives. Either way, we lose, so it seems to me that there's just a little something wrong here. This is a system handled by a bureaucracy, and bureaucracies always screw up even if it's their job to handle it.

Now gekko, I understand you feel very strongly about this, and I'm not going to pretend that I understand what it's like to be in Iraq. But your idea doesn't work. First of all, you can't really compare Iraq to Vietnam. True, they're both guerilla wars, but the Viet Cong weren't accustomed to blowing up Vietnamese children. But if you want to draw a lesson from Vietnam, consider that the most effective units in that war were Combined Action Platoons. Marines in the CAPs themselves said it best: "CAP villages were no longer targets of the indiscriminate Search and Destroy mentality so prevalent during the Vietnam War. We shared the risk of living in the villages 24 hours a day, thereby earning the love and respect of thousands of our villagers who simply wanted to survive a war they didn't want."

I don't know how well that kind of thing could work in Iraq, but I'm pretty sure it would work better than what you propose. You want to just scare the civilians as much as possible until they cooperate, and there are two problems with that. First of all is that we simply aren't as scary as terrorrists. We never will be. Secondly, this war is supposed to be to spread democracy in Iraq and the Middle East. You're not going to do that by terrorizing all the civilians and getting them to hate us.

You might say we have something like CAP going on in Iraq, and that would be fair enough although the comparison isn't perfect. But the thing about CAPs is they take a really long time. So why is President Bush acting as if the war is going to be over any day now? I don't think everybody would be happy about it, but I do think that people would complain about the war in Iraq a bit less if Bush had never said anything on an aircraft carrier two years ago. Either he's spinning the truth or he doesn't really understand what's going on. Both of those worry me.

[Professor S]

You can't tell me that there aren't innocent people being detained in prison. People on death row go through a decade long process and we know that there are still innocent people occasionally getting executed for one reason or another. Not that I want to get into a capital punishment argument as well, but are you going to seriously tell me that every single person in Guantanamo is plotting the next 9/11? No system is that perfect. You can tell me that some people were released and then went back to bombing innocent civilians, and certainly I think that's a terrible thing. On the other hand, I also know for a fact that some innocent people were detained. Five of them in particular were detained for two years and then released after it became clear that they were innocent of anything related to terrorism. I'm not one of the liberals who decries rough interrogation in itself, but I have to wonder what we're supposed to say to people who received that treatment every day for two years without really knowing why. Oops, sorry?

Yes, thats exactly what we say. If a few inncocents are detained along the way, I'd rather have that happen then we release the next Osama because we didn't afford him legal rights that don't exist. I;m not going to start redefining the way we treat this war and those held during it because it falsely detains a few inncoent people. I am prepared to to do that. I understand where you are not, but that is just a difference of opinion.

And how do we know that these detainments "need to be done" or that they're producing results anyway?

Thats an unfair question and you KNOW it. There may never be tangible proof that they are working as the very fact that they are working may prevent anything from ever happening again. We have not been attacked since 9/11. I'm prepared to call it a success so far.

I thought conservatism was supposed to be founded on distrust of a powerful, unanswerable government.

How is this government unanswerable? This administration is rediculed everyday in the press and through political adversaries. The Bush administration was RE-ELECETED by Anerican citizens who agree with his policies. I know that is a hard pill to swallow and you'd rather paint him as another fascist dictator, but his policies are under constant evaluation by those that are his constituency. If they agree, they will vote for you. Apparently they agree. Also, the effects of this "powerful, unanswerable" government are not putting its foot down on American citizens. That is the very big part of this.

The problem with this whole line of argument is it basically means we should all just sit back, relax and shut up while we wait for results which could be a few decades from now since the War on Terror is long and secretive. Sorry if I'm not willing to do that.

Then you are willing to be attacked again. To think that a war of ideaology will be short is absurd, To think that it shouldn't be secretive and we should just lay everything out on the table is laughable and would endanger everyone we have fighting right now.

We have a system here in which some people are released because they were thought to pose little threat and went right back to trying to kill infidels and others are released and go back to being law abiding citizens missing two years of their lives. Either way, we lose, so it seems to me that there's just a little something wrong here. This is a system handled by a bureaucracy, and bureaucracies always screw up even if it's their job to handle it.

You don't know whether or not its working, and thats what bothers you. You default distrust of those whose job it is to run this effort. I'm a little more positive than that and I'm prepared to trust those that have been TRAINED to do so and let them make the hard decisions and not let my civilian ethics get in the way of WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. If it sounds severe, than I believe it nees to be severe. The more we analyze and attempt to civilize soemthing as barabaric as war, the longer it will take and the less chance of success we will have. I find it no coincidence that the wars that we have had the hardest time completing have been the post WW2 wars where the government has not had the copperation (and honestly control) of the press. No war can survive such scrutiny. In WW2 over 1,000 servicemen were killed in an EXCERCISE preparing for the european invasion. Something like that could never be tolerated by the public, so it was kept SECRET so that what needed to be done WOULD be done.

But we'll still have people like Durbin undermining the effort and increasing the danger that our troops are in, and the media will continue to report only horrible news, and combined they will do everything possible to help destroy what is going on in Iraq. An effort that could achieve no less than world peace if successful. But no, I'm a horrible person for believing that the freedom of a small percentage of innocent GITMO detainees is worth something that insignificant.

And before you say all that is hogwash, why do we KNOW that Al Quieda trains their murderers to manipulate our media? Its because its their belief that we cannot stomach a war on their terms and that if enough pressure is put on the US government by those listed above, we will tuck our tail between our legs and leave. Why do you think Saddam never left or even put up much of a resistance? His plan was to wait out the US and take back power once they ran from their own media and public opinion, not Iraqi troops. It's turning out he may be right. We may be just that weak.

[Xantar]

Strangler, just because I dare to suggest the Bush Administration is doing something wrong, don't lump me in with liberal howlers who have no idea what they're talking about. Within that post alone, you assumed that I think Bush is a fascist dictator (I don't, in fact I think his election is legitimate even if I disagree with the majority), that I am calling his supporters evil (I'm not and never did) and that I think we should lay out all our government secrets on the table (I don't). The only reason you don't see me picking apart Typhoid every once in a while is because you do that just fine on your own. I don't treat you as a Bible-thumping backwoods hick who wants to nuke the rest of the world while dressed in an American flag. Please have the courtesy to treat me as my own person.

Now, you're suggesting that because we haven't been attacked since 9/11, we've got a victory and everything the Bush Administration is doing is working. It reminds me of the story of the man who said that if you danced in a circle, tigers wouldn't attack you in Africa. When somebody pointed out that there are no tigers in Africa, he said, "See! It works!" You just can't use logic like that. When there is another attack, I suppose you'll tell me that we've only had one terrorist attack in several years and that therefore we are doing well.

It's not that I am willing to be attacked again but that I am realistic enough to know that we will be attacked again. The UK had terrorism on its soil for years even before 2001, and all the same, they were attacked. It's not that I think Tony Blair is incompetent. I just recognize that time is on the side of the terrorists and that it's a very long war we've got going here. Given that, the question is how are we going to react to it. Getting scared of the next attack seems a bit counter-productive given that they are called "terrorists." And the thing about the Constitution is it's not something we can just hide away when it's inconvenient for us. It's meaningless that way (and make no mistake, detaining people indefinitely without due process is unconstitutional and Justice Scalia himself wouldn't argue otherwise).

Al Qaeda and their ilk are twisted, but they aren't totally stupid. They know that they could inflict a 9/11 type disaster on us ten times over without coming close to bringing us to our knees. It would be painful, but the country would pick itself up and get going on its business again. In pure number terms, they can't win and they know it. But when we go back on the principles of liberty and freedom that we preach so loudly to the rest of the world, what message do you think that sends to terrorists?

Now, as for the detainees, there's nothing anybody can do to free an innocent person in there. They have no access to the outside world and there are no legal avenues at all to free someone even if there is evidence that he's innocent. Yeah, one could bring it to the attention of the authorities, but how much attention do you think they would pay to, say, an alibi? They had a suspicion of the person in the first place, and we all know they're not going to give up that suspicion easily. So all anybody can do is sit and wait for the long process to work itself out. That's what's so unaccountable about the whole thing.

In WW2 over 1,000 servicemen were killed in an EXCERCISE preparing for the european invasion. Something like that could never be tolerated by the public, so it was kept SECRET so that what needed to be done WOULD be done.

Had the public known about that, they would have gotten angry and demanded that somebody find out who was responsible for such a waste of lives. What they wouldn't have done is demand that we drop out of World War II altogether. Therein lies the difference. People back then were perfectly willing to see the war to its end. It's very simple: fascists represented a clear threat to us. It might not have been clear until one December 7th morning, but once we figured that out, nothing was going to stop us.

Or consider Afghanistan. That was also pretty straightforward. President Bush said, "Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11, and they are supported by the Taliban. We're going to get them." And the public agreed more or less that it ought to be done, and it was done. I'll have you know that I was in support of that war, much to the chagrin of some fellow Swarthmore students. Today, Afghanistan is struggling to set up a democracy while guerilla warfare continues outside of its capital, but you don't see very many people complaining. During the actual war in Afghanistan, I remember a lot of people saying, "This is going to be very hard" and "This is going to cost a lot of lives" and "President Bush is doing this wrong" but I saw very few people suggesting that we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan to begin with.

But then consider Iraq. Remember how that started? Back in 2002, President Bush was saying that we had to get in there to get rid of WMDs. He and his administration presented evidence that Iraq had a weapons program and that it had ties to Al Qaeda and so on. It was called a pre-emptive war to stop further terrorist attacks. There was no talk back then of establishing a democracy in the Middle East so that it would spread freedom and change the entire region and strike at the very root of the culture that spawns terrorism. That's all well and good, but it's not why we went to war. This was one case where the media was actually spreading the message that President Bush wanted. The Washington Post was even in support of the war because its columnists were convinced by the evidence that Saddam had WMDs.

Now here we are two years later, and the reason we're in Iraq is suddenly to spread democracy? Frankly, that looks more to me like trying to make the best out of a messy situation. And as noble as the idea is, the public is discontented because they feel just a bit cheated in the whole matter. Even red staters are turning against the war. After all, that's where most soldiers come from, and they prefer to have a straightforward reason for going to war. What if President Bush had said, right from the beginning, that the main goal was to establish a democracy, free millions of Iraqis and hopefully change the entire Middle East in the process? It would have been a hard sell, but I guarantee Bush would have much less of a problem at home (to say nothing of getting Congress to approve funding for soldiers and so on). And if he couldn't manage that, maybe he should have been willing to wait. Or maybe he should have started his democratic project in Afghanistan just to prove it could work.

Surely I'm not the only one who notices that we are perfectly willing to see the conflict in Afghanistan through to the end.

[gekko]

Gekko, could you let us know who that was targeted at? Because I agree with you and yet I just feel like I received quite the tongue-lashing :D

It wasn't directed at you, specifically, but there is still part of it that applies to you, and everyone else, regardless of their position on the war.

There is a time for politics, and there is a time for everyone to sit back, and shut the **** up. We are at war because diplomacy has failed. So now all the political leaders need to sit back, and let the military fix their problem. Instead, everyone who knows nothing about how to fight a war seems to want to preach their opinion on the issue.

If you know so much about this ****ing war, then grab a rifle and go fight. If not, don't open your ****ing mouth about how we're fighting it, we're fighting it because you don't want to. How about just saying Thank You, since it's not your life on the line. Instead, you want to criticizes how we do it? **** you.

If you don't want to fight, then fine, don't. Just sit here silently in the corner knowing someone else will fight your battles. Stop acting like you've been to Iraq, that you've seen the faces of the people, know how they react, know how the insurgents fight, know what works and what doesn't when trying to catch them. You don't know ****.

I'm sick of everyone thinking they can read a book and watch the news and they know the best way to fight a war. I know you all watched Black Hawk Down, so maybe you remember the line "Once the first bullet hits, politics and all that ****... goes right out the window." There is no plan, no rules going through your head, you act on instinct. It's a fight, it's a battle to the death, a battle for existence. You don't know how the enemy will react, you can't be certain you are even fighting the enemy, you just act.

Xantar, when will reality set in? When will you realize this isn't a ****ing game? How about you grow some ****ing balls, and go over there and join in the fight. Let's see how well you do walking the streets of Fallujah. Let's see how well your compassion for Iraqis rains through when IEDs are blowing up, rockets are flying by your head, and it's raining bullets. Go look the guy who almost killed you in the eye, and be sure to be gentle. Don't hurt him in any way, and make sure he gets a luxury suite at the Hilton. Then watch him get released, because some stupid bitch back in America with a keyboard is emailing his congressman to the point where we're not allowed to interrogate our detainees.

[Professor S]

Gekko, what I have been saying is that we shoiuld let the friggin' military handle the situation. You seem to be spewing your anger at anyone who would dare talk about the war without actually being in it. Well thats plain stupid and you are attacking those that are trying to support you over in the states as well as those that are working against you. I'm trying to fight the growing public opinion fed by the media and democratic leaders that not only is our administration wrong, but that now our servicemen are brutal, torturing animals. And for this I get "**** you". Your anger is all over the place, when maybe you are really only angry at yourself.

As for Xantar...

Strangler, just because I dare to suggest the Bush Administration is doing something wrong, don't lump me in with liberal howlers who have no idea what they're talking about. Within that post alone, you assumed that I think Bush is a fascist dictator (I don't, in fact I think his election is legitimate even if I disagree with the majority), that I am calling his supporters evil (I'm not and never did) and that I think we should lay out all our government secrets on the table (I don't). The only reason you don't see me picking apart Typhoid every once in a while is because you do that just fine on your own. I don't treat you as a Bible-thumping backwoods hick who wants to nuke the rest of the world while dressed in an American flag. Please have the courtesy to treat me as my own person.

I was treating as your own person, as I was reacting to your implications of the Bush administration being a "powerful, unquestionable government". That sounds awfully fascist to me. You may have not come out and said that you view Bush as a Fascist, but that is what I took away from the comment. If I misunderstood, I apologize, but I also think others probably took it the same way.

Now, you're suggesting that because we haven't been attacked since 9/11, we've got a victory and everything the Bush Administration is doing is working. It reminds me of the story of the man who said that if you danced in a circle, tigers wouldn't attack you in Africa. When somebody pointed out that there are no tigers in Africa, he said, "See! It works!" You just can't use logic like that. When there is another attack, I suppose you'll tell me that we've only had one terrorist attack in several years and that therefore we are doing well.

I never said that everything he does has been a a victory, I am saying that overall I believe he is succeeding. I realize that my first comments didn't reflect that, and I apologize. It is an ugly and bloody overall success that probably could have been run better in places, but I'm not willing to completely change the way that we extract information during war time because some people want to extend rights to those who do not get them.

Your tiger metaphor goes for you too. You are assuming that what we are doing is not working and needs to be completely revamped with no evidence to support that it is failing. You assume that it is not working without knowing anything about it and distrusting those that are trained to do and have experience in the process. I don't know for sure that it is working either. All I know is that we have not been attacked since 9/11, that 2 terrorist attacks on the US have been thwarted since 9/11 (a nuclear plant in New England and a planned attack on the Brooklyn Bridge), and that we have experienced people in charge of the extraction. The circumstantial evidence supports my theory. Yours seems to be the African dancing around in circles while mine has a spear and a war party.

And the thing about the Constitution is it's not something we can just hide away when it's inconvenient for us. It's meaningless that way (and make no mistake, detaining people indefinitely without due process is unconstitutional and Justice Scalia himself wouldn't argue otherwise).

THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES ONLY TO AMERICAN CITIZENS. I already went over this. We are under no obligation to extend the Constitution to our enemies. We even extend the Geneva Convention to our enemies when we don't have too, lets not go so far as to give them the Constitution too. If that sounds harsh, so be it.

Al Qaeda and their ilk are twisted, but they aren't totally stupid. They know that they could inflict a 9/11 type disaster on us ten times over without coming close to bringing us to our knees.

I think you are giving them WAY too much credit.

But when we go back on the principles of liberty and freedom that we preach so loudly to the rest of the world, what message do you think that sends to terrorists?

We just freed a country of 50 million people, and before that we took down the Taliban. I don't see that accidentally imprisoning a few inncocent people even comes close to outweighing those accomplishments. The terrorists found hate toward us for Brittany Spears and the fallacy of "cultural imperialism", our military fighting for the majority of people in Iraq who want democracy is just another excuse to continue their fighting. The reason doesn't matter as long as it gives them something to point their rage towards. Rage that is from the perpetual mismanagement of nearly unlimited resources by their leaders. leaders who they cannot fault as most of them either rule with a gun or the Quran. Leaders who have done an excellent job of paint the West a giant scapegoat.

Had the public known about that, they would have gotten angry and demanded that somebody find out who was responsible for such a waste of lives. What they wouldn't have done is demand that we drop out of World War II altogether.

Um, there is a good chance we would have. There were many politicians that were very much against our involvement in the war, and the country at large was split as to whether or not we should get involved in the European theater. There were even many Nazi sympathizers in our country at the time. Roosevelt had to start the "lend/lease" program to England because he knew that the Congress would NEVER vote to sell England weapons and equipment. Japan was a common enemy, but many many people were against being involved in Europe.

Or consider Afghanistan. That was also pretty straightforward. President Bush said, "Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11, and they are supported by the Taliban.

He also said that this is a war on terrorism wherever it is and in an countries that protect it. I remember the speeech every well as it was right after 9/11.

But then consider Iraq. Remember how that started? Back in 2002, President Bush was saying that we had to get in there to get rid of WMDs. He and his administration presented evidence that Iraq had a weapons program and that it had ties to Al Qaeda and so on. It was called a pre-emptive war to stop further terrorist attacks. There was no talk back then of establishing a democracy in the Middle East so that it would spread freedom and change the entire region and strike at the very root of the culture that spawns terrorism. That's all well and good, but it's not why we went to war. This was one case where the media was actually spreading the message that President Bush wanted. The Washington Post was even in support of the war because its columnists were convinced by the evidence that Saddam had WMDs.

Now here we are two years later, and the reason we're in Iraq is suddenly to spread democracy? Frankly, that looks more to me like trying to make the best out of a messy situation. And as noble as the idea is, the public is discontented because they feel just a bit cheated in the whole matter. Even red staters are turning against the war. After all, that's where most soldiers come from, and they prefer to have a straightforward reason for going to war. What if President Bush had said, right from the beginning, that the main goal was to establish a democracy, free millions of Iraqis and hopefully change the entire Middle East in the process? It would have been a hard sell, but I guarantee Bush would have much less of a problem at home (to say nothing of getting Congress to approve funding for soldiers and so on). And if he couldn't manage that, maybe he should have been willing to wait. Or maybe he should have started his democratic project in Afghanistan just to prove it could work.

My biggest pronlem with the Bush administration is their inability to defend their own policies.

1) The whole world thought there were WMD's. The Clinton Administration thought there were WMD's. Iraq HAD WMD's numbering in thousands of pounds that were found in 1998 which miraculously dissappeared. Before the war the question wasn't whether or not he HAD them, but whether or not we should stick with diplomacy or go to war. Saddam Hussein did everything in his power to make people think he had the WMD's by refusing the cooperate with the inspectors to basically taunting the UN.

2) Installing a democracy. What did you think the US was going to do after they overthrew Saddam regardless of WMD's? Were they just going to allow chaos to take over? Of course not, they were going to do what they did in Germany: build a government. In Afghanistan we also worked to install a democracy, but their was already an interim government waiting in the wings in the northern Rebel Alliance.

What frustrates me about your last two paragraphs is that you are relying on talking points that aren't your own, but that your repeating from the television set. Everything I've said in response to those I've said numerous times before and its all factual, and you knew them before you wrote about the WMD's. So I'm going to leave this conversation before I start repeating myself again. This has all become so very redundant.

[gekko]

Gekko, what I have been saying is that we shoiuld let the friggin' military handle the situation. You seem to be spewing your anger at anyone who would dare talk about the war without actually being in it. Well thats plain stupid and you are attacking those that are trying to support you over in the states as well as those that are working against you. I'm trying to fight the growing public opinion fed by the media and democratic leaders that not only is our administration wrong, but that now our servicemen are brutal, torturing animals. And for this I get "**** you". Your anger is all over the place, when maybe you are really only angry at yourself.

I know what you've been saying, and I've never said I disagree with any of your points, have I? I'm sick of politics, and politics is two-sided. You know what that means? I'm sick of the people arguing for the war, just as I'm sick of the people arguing against.

I'd rather everyone shut up, and let the military handle it as they see fit. It's politics that got us into the mess, but politics is only going to get us into a deeper mess. There was a time for everyone to say they agree/disagree, now it's a time to sit back, and wait it out.

As for the animals... I have some great pictures ;)

[Teuthida]

Those kids would still be alive if we never went to war in the first place...which was why again?

[Xantar]

Your tiger metaphor goes for you too. You are assuming that what we are doing is not working and needs to be completely revamped with no evidence to support that it is failing. You assume that it is not working without knowing anything about it and distrusting those that are trained to do and have experience in the process. I don't know for sure that it is working either. All I know is that we have not been attacked since 9/11, that 2 terrorist attacks on the US have been thwarted since 9/11 (a nuclear plant in New England and a planned attack on the Brooklyn Bridge), and that we have experienced people in charge of the extraction. The circumstantial evidence supports my theory. Yours seems to be the African dancing around in circles while mine has a spear and a war party.

No, I don't know that the system is failing. What I do know is that power given to a bureaucracy inevitably gets twisted and abused. Isn't that why we didn't join in the International Criminal Court? It's not as if we really believed some evil international judge with an agenda would start rounding up random Americans and charging them with acts of war. It was just a matter of distrusting power placed in the hands of a few. I feel the same way about the authorities being able to detain people like this without due process (incidentally, Administration lawyers are trying to argue that Americans can be detained as illegal combatants just like non-citizens, so I'm not so sure that your distinction U.S. and non-U.S. citizens really works).

In the ideal world, this is the kind of power and authority we would grant during wartime and would then take away when it's no longer necessary. In reality, it's extremely difficult to take power away from a bureaucracy. Just ask the communists.

THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES ONLY TO AMERICAN CITIZENS. I already went over this. We are under no obligation to extend the Constitution to our enemies. We even extend the Geneva Convention to our enemies when we don't have too, lets not go so far as to give them the Constitution too. If that sounds harsh, so be it.

No, not harsh. Just hypocritical. Besides, why then are we seeing all these distinctions made between unlawful combatant detainees and prisoners of war? It's all just hairsplitting to get around the Geneva conventions. Let's not pretend the Bush Administration really does have all that much respect for them.

We just freed a country of 50 million people, and before that we took down the Taliban.

A point which doesn't necessarily get through to people on the ground. I'm not going to say that Iraqis hate us and long for the days of Saddam because that's clearly ludicrous. However, the truth is not so simple as saying that the majority of Iraqis want democracy either. Tom Clancy had an insightful line in one of his novels which said that the duty of the President is to ensure that everybody gets a steak dinner every once in a while and a football game on weekend nights. Provide that much and the vast majority of Americans will be content. Make a few substitutions in that statement and you'd have something that applies to Iraq. My guess is that the majority of Iraqis don't have terribly strong feelings one way or another towards democracy, but if they think it will get them fed and clothed, they'll give it a try.

Which in any case is beside the point. Yes, I understand that terrorism is rooted in a cancer on the culture and the society and not necessarily in something inherent to the American culture itself. My point, however, is that anyone can see that terrorism has gotten to us. Not just in the way we've bumped up security and tightened restrictions and so on. The way we're carrying on, anybody with eyes can see that we're scared. And that encourages terrorists to renew their efforts. Sure, they'd keep going regardless, but do we have to help them?

Um, there is a good chance we would have. There were many politicians that were very much against our involvement in the war, and the country at large was split as to whether or not we should get involved in the European theater. There were even many Nazi sympathizers in our country at the time. Roosevelt had to start the "lend/lease" program to England because he knew that the Congress would NEVER vote to sell England weapons and equipment. Japan was a common enemy, but many many people were against being involved in Europe.

Since you're the history major, I'll concede to your expertise. But I'd just like to point out that even supporters of the war here aren't rolling their used tires to collection yards to help in the war effort. Not that I'm saying Bush should go out and ask us for our tires because they won't mean much and never did. I'm just suggesting that some portion of the public really was invested in the war effort. Nowadays, the extent of anybody's support is watching footage on TV and making posts on the internet.

What frustrates me about your last two paragraphs is that you are relying on talking points that aren't your own, but that your repeating from the television set. Everything I've said in response to those I've said numerous times before and its all factual, and you knew them before you wrote about the WMD's. So I'm going to leave this conversation before I start repeating myself again. This has all become so very redundant.

I think your point in these last few paragraphs got muddled because I have no idea what you're arguing or what you're trying to say about my argument. You might want to note, however, that I hardly ever watch TV and so I'd have a very hard time getting my talking points from CNN. Maybe you just misunderstood me. My point in any case was never about whether it was right or wrong to go into Iraq or whether it's right or wrong now to try to establish a democracy. From the moment gunshots were fired, obviously we were set on a course to oust Saddam and establish a new government whether we liked it or not. And I could say that the Clinton Administration as well as the Bush Administration were dupes (despite being a liberal, I wasn't a fan of Clinton's foreign policy), but that's also beside the point.

All I'm saying now is that President Bush and his cabinet could have managed public support for the war so much better. Installing a democracy is a big deal, particularly if it is lasting and provides an example that spreads. As you said, it could lead to nothing less than peace for an entire region and for hundreds of millions of people. Whether I believe that would work or not, those are grand dreams, and Bush would have done well to trumpet them. Sure, you and I understand that a democratic government would have to be established and that it would take a really long time (and I assume back in 2003 that you were prepared to wait however long it took). But did the public at large understand that? I think they didn't, and I think Bush should have made sure that they did. Maybe you and I actually agree on this since you say your biggest criticism is that Bush can't seem to defend his own policies. In any case, I hope that clarifies thing because I'm about ready to give it a rest, too.