it is too bad, there's much else they could focus on, and that's sort of the point of the original article and thread, RMT's gratuitous abu grahib shot notwithstanding.
AG is a legitimate story. What I would like to see some more coverage of though is the one hero of AG. The soldier who reported the wrongdoings there should receive a medal just like the troops talked about in Basso's article. It takes real guts to stand up to your own folks when they are doing wrong. It is too bad that this soldier's good deeds haven't been lauded more. It took courage, and what he did is something the armed forces can be proud of. I really wish the media would have done more about him.
I think its good that our soldiers are free to express their opinions for or against the war and those who hold those viewpoints. If their job is to defend a free society then by all means they should express their opinions. Just remember that this guy has his opinion and there are many other people in the military who think differently also.
My nephew is in the 82nd Airborne and was critically wounded on Iraqi election day during his second tour of duty over there. He's had 17 surgeries to date, including the amputation of his right leg below the knee. More surgeries are coming on his leg and hand. Shrapnel is working it's way to the surface on a regular basis from the grenade he took, resulting in constant infections on his stump. He was awarded the Army Commendation Medal and Purple Heart for his service. RMT's snotty, gratuitous depiction of "the army" leaves me sadly shaking my head.
Maybe we should give him a cool code name like "Deep Throat" Actually, in this day and age we'd have to call him "Young Backdoor Teen Lolitas 5"
Basso, read my sig and tell me why you believe George Bush and MLK are wrong, because quite obviously you do.
At the heart of a soldier he is trained to defend. To defend his nation. But it is more than that, it is the defense of his family, friends, and fellow Americans. It becomes a matter of honor, duty and loyalty. The good soldier has offered the ultimate, his life. This is the risk calculated to make it a deep heart decision. The bad soldier may have other motives, bravado, anger, meanness. But a good soldier is a defender. Assuming a lot of American soldiers are good soldiers they are in the worst of situations in Iraq. They believe in their code. They fight under our flag. They are defenders. They have somewhere in their hearts a sense of duty and honor. So when they are deployed into a no win situation and the defense of our nation is not at stake most will cling to the very ideals that have been ingrained- honor, defense, duty, loyalty, bravery, justice. We should pray for the soldier in the field. They are being pressed beyond reason in a place that is hard beyond reason. The enemies look no different from those they believe they are defending and those they are defending are so different from those they were trained to defend on American soil. Michael Moore may attack the president but the soldiers in the field are no weapon in this attack. That is a disgrace to each one of us who could be in that position. Others may attack Michael Moore (or others) by using the soldier in the field to justify a very bad situation. It is like setting a trap and throwing someone into a pit of rattlesnakes and coming up with reasons like- look how well he handles it. Nobody should be more confused and yet respected as a good soldier fighting under our flag. They cannot win. They didn't win in Viet Nam and they will not win in Iraq. And yet the irony is that in themselves every good soldier is a winner because of the honor and courage and loyalty of their own actions. If they were on our shores repelling invaders we would esteem them the truest heroes. If they fought for our homes and children's safety we would honor them beyond measure for their sacrifice and commitment. And many of us would stand right along side them. I prefer the good soldier be left out of this political stupidity. I long for the day our good soldiers come home to our shores.
I don't understand the notion that fighting terrorists in Iraq is not "defending America." Not a single WWII skirmish took place on our shores, but WWII was certainly universally regaled as "defending" America. What's the difference? That the enemy doesn't wear a uniform? That, in fact, makes it even more important. That these enemies brought down the WTC? That only affirms the real threat that this enemy poses. I can understand the crticism of fighting the war in Viet Nam... who's afraid of communists in America by the 1960s.... so who is afrad of them halfway around the world? I see WWII in Iraq but not Viet Nam.
In WWII we asked to fight by our allies to stop a dictator who was actively engaged in genocide, and bent on world domination. We were attacked in WWII. Saddam was neither actively engaged in genocide, nor bent on or capable of world domination. Saddam wasn't a threat to our allies, his neighbors or anyone. He was boxed in, and contained, with a weak military, and little means to change those conditions. We are the ones that attacked Iraq. At that time there were no terrorists there. The terrorists are the ones that went to Iraq to fight us, not the other way around. We went to Afghanistan to fight terrorists, and there was nothing wrong with that. No enemy from Iraq brought down the WTC. Why are you confusing WTC with Iraq. The two were unrelated. After the enemy brought down the WTC we went after them, he was a threat. Saddam Hussein had zero connection to 9/11, and thus those attacks did not at all show that he was a threat. Maybe you should look at the facts a little harder. In your own argument listed above you said that 9/11 proves the threat. But Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Saddam didn't have terrorists running around in Iraq. The terrorists were elsewhere.
WEll said. The chickenhawks, Bush, Cheney, Wolfwowitz etc. should be ashamed of themselves for what they have done to our soldiers.
1. Terrorists are global- they are based across the globe and Iraq wasn't involved in the terrorist attacks against the U.S. In fact Iraq was no threat to our country until we sent Americans into Iraq. Today Iraq is a threat to American lives, but never before today. 2. One WWII skirmish took place on our shores in Hawaii. We had information that could have prevented the great loss of life we suffered but none the less it was the point of attack that placed us in harms way. We could have stayed out of WWII, but we didn't and we had sovereign nations sending their navies off our coastland. Now why we went and fought for England and France????? Call it one ally standing for another ally. 3. The enemies who attacked the WTC are terrorist groups who cannot be defeated by military attack. They must be and can be covertly identified and defeated. The CIA can stop terrorism, they have the money, the technology and the force to do it. The CIA has worked very closely with al-Queda for years. Professor Michel Chossudovsky of the University of Ottawa has done extensive investigation of this. Link Professor Chossudovsky is not the only researcher who has documented CIA operations/assets with terrorists, there are many, but don't expect to hear about it in the media or from Washington. Pakistani Journalist Amir Mateen has worked hard to document the CIA ties to the ISI and al-Queda. (He may be dead already over this) link That's about all I want to say about this... too deep for me.
I'm intrigued by the new "actively engaged in genocide" standard, implying that sins of the past must quickly be forgotten. tell me, what's the statute of limitations on genocide? six months, a year, ten years? do you accept that, post 9/11, fighting terrorists, is justified? would you rather fight them in iraq, or on chambers street, because that's the choice. and saddam was harboring terrorists prior to the invasion- zarqawhi was there, under saddamite protection.
Please don't ascribe a position to me, especially when it isn't one that I don't hold. I never said that I felt sins of Saddam's past should be forgotten. I accurately stated that he wasn't actively engaged in genocide. I accurately stated that Hitler was actively engaged in genocide, and thus pointing out the difference. Were you a GOP supporter back when they were supporting Saddam, and keeping the UN from passing resolutions against him while those genocides were taking place? Or is your concern for the sins you are talking about, a recent development? I believed we should be taking action in Iraq, but action does not only mean military invasion, unless one's mind is so limited that it can't grasp any other concept. The man's army was only half of what it was during GWI. He was hemmed in tight, and Bush had done a great job initially of getting the weapons inspectors back in. Let's add to that other proposals that were on the table, investigate the sanctions, and corruption, and tighten the screws on Saddam, and that is the appropriate action. As you are concerned about the 'actively engaged' standard, I'm very concerned about the new America where military invasion and war are no longer the last resort, but an acceptable option based not on necessity, but the choice and desire of our nation's leader. That is a false choice. It wasn't either we fight them in Iraq or the U.S. Nor does it mean because we fight them in Iraq that we don't have to worry about them attacking the US. Your choice isn't legitimate, and you are wrong about Zarqawhi being in Iraq under Saddam's protection. He was in the portion not under control of Saddam, unless you want to believe Chalabi...lol
Basso, you either have a problem with truth or don't mind the fact that the USA sanctions torture for the first time in the country's history. Either way, I feel sorry for you. Living is easy with eyes closed.
<b>rhester: 1. Terrorists are global- they are based across the globe and Iraq wasn't involved in the terrorist attacks against the U.S. In fact Iraq was no threat to our country until we sent Americans into Iraq. Today Iraq is a threat to American lives, but never before today.</b> Iraq is no threat to America; their anti-American dictator is long-gone. The majority of the insurgents are not even Iraqi, so while the insugents are a threat to American soldiers, they are no threat to America- especially if we kill them fast enough. <b>2. One WWII skirmish took place on our shores in Hawaii. We had information that could have prevented the great loss of life we suffered but none the less it was the point of attack that placed us in harms way. We could have stayed out of WWII, but we didn't and we had sovereign nations sending their navies off our coastland. Now why we went and fought for England and France????? Call it one ally standing for another ally.</b> Pearl Harbor was our military base but Hawaii was not one of the United States. What about Kuwait? They were our ally. This war in Iraq is but the conclusion to Gulf War I which, with never fully resolved. <b>3. The enemies who attacked the WTC are terrorist groups who cannot be defeated by military attack. They must be and can be covertly identified and defeated. The CIA can stop terrorism, they have the money, the technology and the force to do it.</b> While you need to fight on both fronts, there is nothing wrong with luring the nutcases to a battleground (Iraq) and killing as many as possible. The roster of potential nutcases is limited. <b> The CIA has worked very closely with al-Queda for years. Professor Michel Chossudovsky of the University of Ottawa has done extensive investigation of this. Link Professor Chossudovsky is not the only researcher who has documented CIA operations/assets with terrorists, there are many, but don't expect to hear about it in the media or from Washington. Pakistani Journalist Amir Mateen has worked hard to document the CIA ties to the ISI and al-Queda. (He may be dead already over this) link </b> I'll have to look into this..
Well, tell the a$$holes to put on uniforms and fight like men instead of killling innocent men, women, and children deliberately...
It is wrong to say that most of the insurgents are not even Iraqi I had posted that before, but maybe you missed it. The fact that Kuwait is our ally is part of the problem. They are a dictatorship that is oppressive to its citizens. But as far as this being a conclusion to those hostilitie, that is bogus. The agreements at the end of that war were signed with the UN, and not the U.S. It is up to the UN to decide if there needs to be other conclusions to that conflict. That is like Portugal deciding today that Germany didn't really live up to its end of the bargain they made at teh end of WWII, so Portugal invades them, and claims that it is really just finishing WWII. There is not a finite number of terrorists and insurgents. It is like the one U.S. soldier said, for everyone he kills he creates 3 more. Until things change more will just keep coming, it's not like after we reach a certain number there will be no more.
I can't believe y'all are still bringing up rhetoric like this when even the Admin. has mostly stopped arguing that we were under threat from terrorists in Iraq.
i can see how being forced to listen to christina aguillera might constitute some form of torture, i just don't see it rising to the level of your average beheading. in fact, i'd say we need to get a little more medieval on their ass.
