Subj : Re: BSG To : alt.tv.farscape From : TNW7Z7Z7Z12345 Date : Wed Sep 28 2005 16:34:00 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape Ken McElhaney wrote: > > TNW7Z7Z7Z12345 wrote: > > Ken McElhaney wrote: > > > > > > TNW7Z7Z7Z12345 wrote: > > > > Ken McElhaney wrote: > > > > > > > > > > TNW7Z7Z7Z12345 wrote: > > > > > > Ken McElhaney wrote: > > > > > > > John I wrote: [much snipped througout] > > The incompetence I refer to are all of our missteps - lack of sufficient > > troops, lack of planning for "nation building," etc. that has resulted > > in the massive increase in insurgents (now estimated at 18,000) and > > foreign fighters (now estimated at 900), etc. > > Which shows that the foreign fighters and terrorists recognize that > Iraq becoming a democracy is something they want to prevent at all > costs. > > There may come a day when > > the average Iraqi feels that the slaughter of innocent civilians by the > > insurgents and foreign fighters and the general chaos in Iraq makes life > > as miserable as it was under Saddam. > Oh puh-leeeeze! These terrorists are concentrating their efforts > against Sunnis to keep them from participating in the new government. > So far, the Kurds have been vitually left alone and only random attacks > against the Shia in Basra. And since the Kurds 'n Shia represent 80% > of the population, I doubt that any of them will wish for the days when > Saddam was in power and killing hundreds of thousands of their people. Zarqawi is targeting the Shia. Here is a good article. The success or failure of the entire endeavor may hinge on whether we can stop him. Shame Rummy didn't listen 3 yrs. ago to the people who told him that securing the borders was of crucial importance. http://tinyurl.com/9ynpk > > I never said that our moral authority would stop evil countries from > > mistreating prisoners. Losing our moral authority means we can no longer > > credibly complain about/criticize the way other countries treat > > prisoners of war. > > Could you please cite one example of where our "moral authority" has > successfully stopped prisoner abuse? Did our "moral authority" under > Bush 41 or Clinton successfully stop Saddam from killing Kurds 'n Shia? I just said (see above), "I never said that our moral authority would stop evil countires from mistreating prisoners." You can have a free for all or you can have rules (e.g., the Geneva Conventions). Some countries will follow the rules, others will ignore them. But if even a small number of countries observe them (for fear of war crimes trials, or that their own prisoners will be abused in retaliation) that makes life better for at least some POWs. If you observe no rules yourself, you've lost the ability to criticize or gain support for sanctioning anyone else's behavior. And then there's that little issue of what kind of country we want to be. Rumsfeld said the treatment of Iraqi prisoners would follow the Geneva Conventions. However, at Abu Ghraib, they were told by their superiors to treat Iraqi detainees (70 to 90% of whom were later found to have been picked up by mistake, according to military intelligence) according to the Guantanamo Bay rules, not the Geneva Conventions. McCain, Warner, and Graham (all Republicans who have been in the military) think this is damaging the U.S. and worldwide opinion of us. And that it's simply wrong. The White House disagrees. What I would give to see a poll of the entire military on this matter. And the Army stalled on investigating Fishback's claims for *17 months!* until he went to Human Rights Watch and ultimately to McCain. Here's a column from the conservative Washington Times: http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050918-101526-8443r.htm Here's a straight news article (nearly all papers are reporting on this - I happened to pick the Hartford Courant because it summarized things nicely): http://tinyurl.com/9blx5 More quotes from McCain from the LA Times: http://tinyurl.com/7l4c2 > > You're missing my point. I don't want more people to be outraged. I want > > the *superiors* who allowed this to happen to be punished, not just the > > lowly grunt who was doing what he/she was allowed to. > > How do you define *superiors*? Are you talking about the Captains 'n > Colonels who were in charge of those portions of the facilities? Or do > you want to go higher up? Say the General who was in charge? Or is that > not good enough? > > > And I don't > > equate what happens in a prison (an environment we have control over) > > with things that happen out in the field (e.g., Mi Lai). > > Funny, the Mi Lai massacre was a result of superiors allowing such an > event to happen, even if they didn't order it. In war, all sorts of > terrible things happen in all types of environments, including prisons. See my response to John on this point. > > > > The only way to regain credibility and moral authority in the eyes of > > > > the world is to go after the superiors who allowed this to happen. And > > > > that is not happening. > > > > > Considering the vast amount of crimes committed by every country during > > > warfare is at least equal, if not much greater than we have ever > > > committed (Germany, Japan, Russia, shall I go on?), I'm less concerned > > > with our "moral authority" standing as I am with staying on the path > > > that will eventually bring down Islamic-based terrorism. The Kurds 'n > > > Shia who will run Iraq is a start in a decades-long struggle in this > > > conflict. Even if we do everything "perfectly",it will take decades to > > > rid the world of the kind of terrorism. > > > Ken > > > > Yes, all sorts of bad things happen in the chaos of war. > > Thank you. You know, that "Thank you" is really condescending and insulting. It implies that you've been telling me bad things happen in war and I've disagreed until this point. Please re-read all of my posts; you are implying a position I have never taken. > > But as I said > > above, the one place where we actually have the power to stop those > > things from happening is in the controlled atmosphere of a prison. > This assumes that prisons in war zones operate just like prison > stateside. Lack of command and control leads to abuses and violations > in any war environment, including prisons. I trust that all those > directly involved will be punished in some form. Wasn't the general in > charge of Abu Ghraib relieved of her command? > Ken The Army cleared four of the five top officers responsible for prison policies in Iraq. The woman relieved of duty, Karpinski, has complained she was a scapegoat. Fishback's new allegations (which were at a facility completely separate from Abu Ghraib) now reveal that these policies were widespread and practiced by both reservists and the regular Army. That lends dramatic support to Karpinski's claim that the policies came from above her level. I hope you can get this column (not sure if the public can get it), but give it a try. If you can't get it, I'll post some excerpts. It's by Jeff Jacoby who is *extremely* conservative. I typically disagree with him on nearly everything, so this article stunned me. http://tinyurl.com/3ow5r In the end this is not going to be a right wing vs. left wing issue. It won't even be military vs. civilians. It's going to be the good guys versus those trying to cover up for stupidity and incompetence. - TNW [To e-mail me, remove 12345 from my address.] .