The prison for “enemy combatants” may not be a Soviet gulag, as Amnesty International overstated it, but it’s a poorly conceived place that through a series of blunders and abuses has become a recruiting tool for jihadists everywhere.
Why not find a less controversial place to hold these “bad people,” as Vice President Dick Cheney recently referred to them, and also determine just how bad they are — some minors are being held at the camp, and many detainees have been characterized as lowly “foot soldiers” in the Taliban. Are they really worth the bother?
Gitmo already has been “branded,” fairly or not, in a way that makes it an ongoing public relations disaster for the United States. Nothing we can do will change that. Shut it down.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- sursum on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
92 Comments
Lets shut down the Sedgwick County Jail, since Rader can’t get a hair cut and some of his legal documents.
Randy,
I love the irony of what you are saying. The liberal media (you included) has been mischaracterizing Gitmo and attacking it for the past several years.
Now it is so sensationalized by people like you that it is being used as a recruiting tool against us and you come here with the gall to demand it be shut down?
Give me a break. I have an an idea!
Why dont we stop the bad reporting, hype, and intellectual dishonesty from the media types like yourself and see if we cant clean up the image of the place instead of shutting it down?
How about that Randy?
Randy, Since that hollow-minded moron Bush began acting on Ariel Sharon’s foreign policy commands, the White House has generally set aside US Constitutional guarantees. “Gitmo” is a carbon copy of “facility 1391″ in Israel { which has been carefully air-brushed off all maps including the road which leads up to it} where the torture techniques used on POW’s were first perfected on Palestinians. Closing “Gitmo” should be the beginning of series of behaviors restoring the United States to its “pre-Israeli” Constitutional principles.
The foster kids who come to my home never had it so good as the Gitmo prisoners. The whining about Gitmo shows that some people have no sense of proportion in this world or in their own backyard. Ask McCain. Ask my kids.
In wartime, prisoners should be released after the enemy gives up, not before. This is doubly true for jihadists. Some of the detainees we have already released have turned up again fighting our troops. The prisoners have given up considerable useful information that has likely saved the lives of our troops.
Sure, close Gitmo and send them to “facility 1391.” Better yet, stop taking prisoners.
Randy, buddy, you’re losing it.
Minors at the camp? Why not send them to Michael Jackson’s Neverland, that liberal sanctuary of childhood safety and joy, certified safe by the California justice system. They’ll be treated very, very well there, I’m sure.
When Prosecuting a war it’s best to understand your “enemy.” Arab fighters are known as the Muhjahadeen. You can give them other names, as may suit your fancy, but the simple fact is that they will fight, using any means at hand, to the death {the same as our Special Forces}. You don’t need a “Gitmo” to discover that. The Russians, after 10 years, found that out the hard way, as we are doing now.
Example: Six Muhjahadeen on horseback would attack a Russian Tank, Knowing the Tank could get-off maybe three shots, perhaps killing half of them. The ones who made it would set charges to blow-up that Tank then ride off.
After 10 years and 60,000 dead the Russians left Afghanistan with their tails between their legs, as we finally did in Vietnam.
The problem is this: We are attacking them, on their land, first using the Israelis, now our Army. They are defending their countries and will never surrender or “give-up.” As with the Palestinians, mistreating them we only increases their resolve. They are 1 billion strong. The Palestinians have been fighting-back for 60 years, even though they are completely surrounded.
9/11 was a retaliation attack, which the Israelis used as an excuse to involve us in their land-grabbing. Saddam had the only standing Army between Israel and the oil fields, so Ariel Sharon ordered Bush to attack Iraq. That’s why he needed to lie about the reasons.
Randy is right.
This “thing” needs to be tuned-back beginning with closing “Gitmo.” If the Muhjahadeen decide to bring this fight to our open borders and target-rich environment, our economy and way of life cannot survive.
Clear heads need to prevail in the United States before it’s too late.
Word. On this issue, I sign on to Ed Friedemann’s conclusion.
It’s a sad day for America that we’ve come to the point of having to discuss a travesty like Gitmo. Human rights aren’t just reserved for Americans. It’s an issue of humanity. I have no problem with locking up prisoners of war, but a large portion of the people at Gitmo are simply guilty of having the misfortune to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. If we have charges to bring against the people being held at Guantanimo, then by all means, bring charges. Otherwise, let them go.
We weren’t just attacked on 9/11, we were beaten. In one act of terrorism, those who attacked us frightened us into shredding our Constitution. It says, “all men are created equal” and that doesn’t just mean Americans. When we sit idly by and let the chickenhawks that are in control of this country mistreat and torture any human, we forfit all that makes this country great. We’ve lost the moral high ground. How can we criticize China, Sudan, et al for human rights violations, when we torture or kidnap people or spirit them away to other countries for torture? We were so outraged by Saddam’s “torture rooms”. Looks like now, we’re the torturers.
The Afghans didn’t stand a chance against the Soviets, if it weren’t for them using US weapons and intelligence.
Joe, Oh, I see, and did the Vietnamese have US weapons and Intelligence?
Is the War on “Terrorism” Winnable?
No. Why? You cannot win something that you keep creating. Nobody knows more about how to create “terrorism” than the Israelis. All they need to do is kill some Palestinians and wait for the retaliation, then call that retaliation “terrorism.” Now they have some “terrorists” to kill, which, in fact are just plain Palestinians fighting back. But the Israelis insist that they are killing “terrorists.” And that cycle has continued year after year after year, 60 in all.
The United States is now doing exactly the same thing in Iraq. America started by bombing Iraq, killing over 100,000 Iraqis and then the retaliation began. America has tried calling the Iraqi defenders “terrorists” “militants” or “insurgents.” None of those names has worked. The fact that they are just Iraqis defending their homeland hasn’t changed, no matter what they are called.
An American general said: “Every time we kill one, we create three more.”
George W. Bush thinks that he can “get away” with what Ariel Sharon has been “getting away” with for 60 years, but that isn’t happening. People, that is the American people, are wising-up to his tricks. And in that process they are also wising-up to Israel’s tricks.
The Europeans know what Bush is doing and consider the man to be a fool. Make no mistake about that.
Is the war on terrorism winnable? No, you really can’t win something that really doesn’t exist.
Terrorism has been around since mankind first emerged and will likely continue until no humans are left on this planet. Thus, the idea of the war on terror (which is a tactic, rather than an identifiable group) is ludicrous. And it follows from this line of reasoning that there can be no end to the “war on terror”.
I agree with not setting a withdrawal date for leaving Iraq. However, describing objectives/goals for when we can leave seems to make sense to me. As another objective, the war on jihadists might be able to end when we capture or kill Osama bin Laden. I think the Bush administration could be helped by specifying more clearly what it is we need accomplish. This of course would not make everyone happy, but polls are suggesting that Bush, et al. are starting to lose people in terms of its foreign policy endeavors.
Good point, Ed. Bush was a mediocre president at best till 9/11. The “war on terror” is a Bush construct so he could be a war president. All the neocons are so proud of their brave leader…let’s not forget that on 9/11, Bush spent the day hiding. A brave president would have been leading our country, not hiding out. I’ve always said conservatives are happiest when they’re killing somebody. Problem is, our kids are dying, too.
There was a lesson to be learned from the Russians in Afghanistan. Sadly, we didn’t learn from it. I wonder how many thousands of American lives and billions of dollars it will take before we realize we’ve gotten into a situation that can’t be won (again).
Mike, Bush was reading a book about a goat, while in some Kindergarden class, when he was told about the attack. He froze, without Ariel Sharon there to tell him what to do. Since then Bush has followed Sharon’s instructions to the letter. Therein lies the problem: We have an Israeli puppet in the White House. We need an American President.
Mike, Let me try again. Suppose the Iraqis woke-up tomorrow and we were no where to be found. How would that adversely affect America? The Truth: It wouldn’t.
Ed,
North Vietnam lost the war militaryily. They won the war politically.
It had nothing to do with the weapons they did or did not have. It had everything to do with the Politics involved and the peace loving hippies in the Democratic Party…
Nathan, General Gaip of North Vietnam may be the greatest military strategist of all time. He studied General Westmoreland tactics and defeated him. Yes, public opinion in the US helped the North Vietnamese, but that is not what defeated General Westmoreland. One Example: General Gaip would gather maybe 30,000 troops and allow US recon planes to spot them as they were digging-in. He knew it would take Westmoreland three days to drag all his armor and artillery into place. Meanwhile he would move back all but 1000 snipers from the combat zone, then retreat them from where the artillery bombardment would cover. As our troops advanced after a through bombardment, those 1000 snipers would set booby-traps as they retreated. A series of tunnels would place VC behind our troops and the body-bags kept coming home. General Gaip never allowed Westmoreland the decisive battle he wanted, that his Westpoint training had taught him. General Gaip anticipated every move that Westmoreland made. That won the war. The rest is our Government’s hype. The key to any victory is understanding the enemy. Westmoreland’s bungling cost us 58,000 dead and 250,000 disabled.
This is tough, who do I address first? Ed, I think there’d be a major run on Prozac if we left Iraq tomorrow, mostly by one political party (as I said earlier, they’re not happy unless they’re killing somebody). But I agree, Iraq serves no purpose, at least American.
Um, Nathan…you say the North Vietnamese lost militarily? Mind if I ask what you base that opinion on? Unquestionably, we blew up and burned a lot of realestate, but after 1968, the war went pretty much downhill for us militarily. I was there in 71 with the Marines, can’t say as we accomplished much (besides burying a lot of my friends). As for those darned hippies and Democrats, seems they were pretty irate about the military/industrial complex making an obscene fortune on the blood of American soldiers. Go figure. Blame the Democrats if you want. As I recall, it had a lot to do with moms geting tired of sacrificing their sons so a lot of rich people could get richer, kind of like what’s going on now. By the way Nathan, when did you serve? Just curious.
Mike, Let’s make them very unhappy. Let the Prozac roll. We still need an American President. Goof-ball needs to go away. Maybe go back to drinking?
Do you think drinking would do it? I suggest he return to “powdering his nose”, if you get my drift.
GITMO is practically irreverent. POWs are kept till the war is over. Heinous acts by individuals cause trials. POWs that attack or throw ’stuff’ at guards or violate rules are punished. Not tortured. (Head butting a Marine guard may get one a bruise or two) Big Deal. These are not drug dealers or shop lifters.
There is a lot of Sedition in the Media and in the Democratic Party. OK, I am a bit conservative but I started voting as a Democrat. I am still deeply ashamed that I allowed the Media to convince me to vote for Kennedy resulting in his cowardly handling of the Bay-Of-Pigs. I finally gave up on the party of lies and politics. But in 2000 I looked George Bush in the eye and proudly voted for him. I am still proud of him.
Those Democrats that are featured daily repeating and expounding on outrageous charges based on rumors, forgeries and foreign media sources are giving AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY! The constant drumbeat of negative stories based on half-truths do as much damage. Why would any American believe any of it?
But it worked in Nam. I guess because Roosevelt and Truman got us into some pretty dumb treaties with the communists and the Kennedy/Johnson administrations botched it badly thanks to the Sedition that was the far left. The Media loved it and promoted the hippies relentlessly. The American people chickened out (per the polls) and Nixon, the politician, walked out. Our troops were spit on. Millions of our allies died.
Now Randy and half this BLOG want to do it again! It ain’t based on stupid treaties. We were attacked! Repeatedly! WE ARE AT WAR! It sounds like half this blog is ready to chicken out again! I am deeply ashamed of the anti-American attitude expressed herein and by the editorial staff.
Mike, I get your drift. Watch out for steppin’ in sedition. Sounds like bad stuff.
Sedition is such an ugly term. D, I guess we really went opposite directions. I used to vote Republican. Twice for Nixon, twice for Regan, I even voted once for Bush senior. I’m not ashamed of it, nothing to be ashamed of because I learned from my mistakes. Aid and comfort to the enemy? Problem with conservatives is, everyone that’s not rich, or white, or American is “the enemy”. Right now, I’m not real sure who the enemy is. Is it Iraq, which had no WMD, no connection with bin Lauden, no bio weapons, and no intention of attacking the US, or is the enemy a bunch of thugs who have run this country into the ground, started a war against a country that did nothing to us, wiped out a tidy surplus and replaced it with an unimanagable deficit, wants to wipe out Social security and any kind of social safety net so the wealthiest 1% of the country can get wealthier, and has caused the deaths of over 1600 American kids and God knows how many innocent Iraqis? I know, I know…kill them all and let God sort them out. Trouble is, I’ll bet that’s not the way God sees it at all. But that’s just my opinion. Of course, you’re entitled to yours. Notice how I avoid calling anybody a seditious traitor when they dissagree with me? That’s a republican thing. I wouldn’t worry. When we leave Iraq in chaos, I suppose we can always attack the French.
Ya know, I try to stay away from ad-hominem attacks in debate. But every now and then I get angry. And nothing makes me angrier than a liar. So before I take on the issue at hand:
D Collins? YOU are a LIAR. YOu were NEVER a Democrat. No person who has been on both sides ( as Ed and I have) could use such hateful vitriolic terms like “sedition” and “hippies” among others that you do. And as you ARE a LIAR, I will regard any further posts by you with all the merit they deserve.
As to GITMO, my real problem with it is that once you begin to deny rights, without any standard of proof, to the “enemy” it becomes convenient, and even desirable to expand the definition of enemy. What better way to dispose of those with whom you disagee? Right now “enemy” is defined as those taken prisoner on foreign soil under questionable circumstances. Given the rah rah “you are with us or against us” of Bush or Rumsfeldt, or D collins; how long is it before simply disagreeing with the powers that be defines one as an enemy? History shows that once a society condones one injustice it is all to easy for that society to condone another and another.
This “war” was promulgated by an administration that needed the unity of war to disguise the domestic destruction they so eagerly have given us. GITMO is held forth as the symbol of “us” against “them”.
With that I would remind the right that America is always evolving ( I know evolution is a problem for some of you) And given the state of America under your direction, I think it will not be long before you folks find yourselves properly in the minority again. And when that day comes, you may suffer the same justice (or lack thereof) that you now meter out in your quest for your own political agenda.
Hoboy! We got us three bona-fide, card carrying members of the angry left here. They love to argue even when they have nothing important or factual to say. They’re as pathetic as self-inflicted lunacy gets, and it suits me fine that such unmanly examples of neanderthal genetics are on the wrong side of history. One of them can’t even use his etch-a-sketch right. So much for the elitist image. You guys make rednecks look like geniuses.
I like this comment so much I think it bears repeating, only in my case it’s on purpose.
We got us three bona-fide, card carrying members of the angry left here. They love to argue even when they have nothing important or factual to say. They’re as pathetic as self-inflicted lunacy gets, and it suits me fine that such unmanly examples of neanderthal genetics are on the wrong side of history. One of them can’t even use his etch-a-sketch right. So much for the elitist image. You guys make rednecks look like geniuses.
I like this comment so much I think it bears repeating, only in my case it’s on purpose.
Tricia,
So, does a trivial comment like yours become twice as trivial for having been repeated?
Tricia,
In order to gloat, you have to actually make an argument, and then actually win it. At the moment, you’re 0-2.
Tricia, I notice you don’t offer any ideas, you just attack. The only shrill anger I’m seeing here seems to come from the right. So what is it that upsets you so? The idea that brown people who aren’t American might have rights? Don’t worry…when you grow up and have kids, you’ll understand that children aren’t for killing in sensless wars.
Meanwhile…guys, do you suppose if we all went to the clinic together, we could get a discount on frontal lobotimies so we can be good republican zombies? Tricia, please take your meds and stay away from the knife drawer.
Did this turn into a flame war? What we need is a good web forum so we can post our own topics. :)
I’m itching for some more comments, civil and constructive preferably. Why not go a step further? Close Gitmo, AND give that real estate back to Cuba? Now that’s an idea that sure will generate heat! Or use it as the replacement for Vieques Isle shooting range…
Gee, I disagree with the shameful left. So let the name calling begin!
Well, since none of you lefties gave anything but the false Democratic talking points, there is nothing to debate.
D. Collins,
Sigh! O.K., I take the bait: what ‘false’ talking points? You mean that factual ones that cast W, Rummy, and Gonzalez in a bad light for authorizing torture? Things that hurt your side aren’t factually incorrect just because you disagree with them, D. Collins. Refute them if you can. But I bet that if you can’t, your recourse is to attack some detail about the person making the accusation. We see this again and again, and so we call it out again and again.
Oh, and just to clarify, Tricia started this by running her mouth and offering no argument. Is there a more trite and shopworn ‘talking point’ than the vintage Limbaugh meme of the ‘loony angry Left’?
So much for polite discourse between the right and the left. The left discusses, the right gets mad, hurls insults, and storms off in a huff.
Mike, if you want polite discourse, why did you make these comments?
“chickenhawks…are in control of this country”
“I’ve always said conservatives are happiest when they’re killing somebody.”
“there’d be a major run on Prozac if we left Iraq tomorrow, mostly by one political party (as I said earlier, they’re not happy unless they’re killing somebody)”
“Problem with conservatives is, everyone that’s not rich, or white, or American is “the enemy”.”
This listing doesn’t include your many other immflamatory and unsubstantiated assertions.
Ed,
You focus on one instance or one particular battle. The fact still remains that military vs. military we won all and if not all almost every single military engagement we fought.
Is there some battle I am not thinking of where we were defeated?
I believe the numbers were our 50,000+ to thier 900,000+ dead.
Of course the numbers dont always tell who won, but since you brought them up…
Mike,
I have served in the Marines for almost 8 years now and will continue to do so.
Ed,
Do you have some sort of proof that Ariel Sharon is giving bush the orders you speak of?
Perhaps some conspiracy theory paper you are reading from?
CF,
Where did anyone in this administration authorize “torture” and exactly what is your definition of “torture?”
E. Ireland, My comments may be inflamatory to you, but unsubstantiated? Lets discuss that.
Chickenhawks ARE in charge. Bush joined the TANG. Anybody who was around during Viet Nam knows that a lot of rich and well connected people got their kids into the Air National Guard (and I’m not denegrating the ANG). It was a good way to avoid combat. I’m not going to go through the whole sorry story, but the upshot is, Bush didn’t perform his duty. The record is clear. A chickenhawk.
Cheney didn’t serve his country because he had “other priorities”. Another chickenhawk (the only priority I and my friends had was to keep from getting shot).
Delay didn’t serve because all the positions were taken up by Blacks and Hispanics. Oh come now! And it kind of reflects on the rich and white thing. But none the less, another chickenhawk.
Hassert didn’t serve because he had a bad knee. He was able to wrestle in college, though. Another chickenhawk.
Rush is the one I like best. Granted, he’s not a high government official, but I don’t think there’s any doubt he has a lot of influence with conservatives. He got a deferment for “anal warts”. Excuse me for a moment while I laugh myself silly. But still, another chickenhawk.
I could list 50-60 republican leaders who found some pretty questionable reasond to avoid serving their country, but I’m sure you can do a google search.
E. Ireland, I have no problem with people avoiding service in Viet Nam. What I do have a problem with is all these chickenhawks that didn’t have the courage to serve themselves, but now are hellbent to start WWIII. Old men start wars and kids do the dying. Those of you who are so hot for war need to get down to the recruiting station and put your money where your mouth is.
“They’re not happy unless they’re killing somebody”. Why are we in Iraq? Your stock answer is, “WE WUZ ATTACKED!!!!” Right you are. On 9/11, 3000 of our countrymen, yours and mine, were killed in an attack on this country. 3/4 of the people involved and bin Lauden were Saudis. Saudi Arabia is the country that’s exporting and bankrolling the extreme Islam that’s causing us so much trouble. Why didn’t we attack them?
I was all for going after Afghanistan, because bin Lauden was there, and that guy needs to die…very slowly. But then this Iraq thing came up. And we were lied to over and over again. No WMD, no chemical or bio weapons, no threat to us. But we attacked Iraq anyway. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but we’re killing them by the scores. Why? There’s no logical reason unless you just enjoy killing for killing’s sake. Of course they’re brown, not Americans, mostly poor, and a different religion. Deny it all you want, but the action speaks for itself.
The Prozac comment was fun, but probably bad form and I appoligize. But it might help. There seems to be a lot of pent-up hate on the right. You hate me because I’m liberal and don’t agree with you. you hate the French because they wouldn’t support an unjust and illegal war. You hate the Iraqis (at least it looks that way considering you condone killing so many of them) for whatever reason. Unsubstantiated? Hardly. You have a nice day.
Nathan,as a Marine you have my deepest respect and gratitude for your service to our country. Please accept my best wishes and prayers for you and your brothers in arms.
Fox News Fox News reports from Gitmo (6/27)
Detainees playing soccer, chicken in orange sauce for lunch, trying to “wear down” a prisoner by reading him a Harry Potter book.
The horror…the horror.
Mike,
Further on your call for polite discourse… in your last piece we have (just a sample):
“rich and well connected people got their kids into the Air National Guard (and I’m not denegrating the ANG)”
Right. Class envy, bitterness, a touch of damning by association maybe, but no denigration there, by golly.
“Bush didn’t perform his duty.”
He has an honorable discharge. Or are you using Dan Rather and his 4 years of abortive muckraking as your reference?
“Delay didn’t serve because all the positions were taken up by Blacks and Hispanics.”
Huh?
“chickenhawks that didn’t have the courage to serve themselves, but now are hellbent to start WWIII”
Oh? Those are settled facts ae they?
“There’s no logical reason [for attacking Iraq] unless you just enjoy killing for killing’s sake.”
There you go again.
“You hate… (three times)”
Sigh……such politeness!
Um, E. I didn’t call for polite discourse, just pointed out that it was absent (like George during his last 2 years of duty). Delay didn’t serve because all the positions were taken by Blacks and Hispanics. His own words, not mine. You support a war that is unjust, serves no purpose, has killed 1600 of our kids and who knows how many Iraqis, and I’m hateful? Whatever.
Randy:
It appears we have at least 4 reporters from aljazeera infiltrating your blog. Time to shut it down?
Mike,
Exactly how was bush absent from his last 2 years of duty? What is your evidence?
Last time I checked recieving an Honorable Discharge meant that he fullfilled all his requirements.
Unless you have some other pentagon documents which say otherwise?
Mike,
I can’t blame you if you’re bitter about Vietnam. That conflict had a lot of rough edges, including the way the draft was handled, the way Washington micromanaged the war instead of letting the generals fight it their way, and the way people like Kerry got off with only 4 months duty. Maybe Westmoreland was a poor tactician, too, as Ed F. mentions above. I never liked the way the Americans made sitting ducks of themselves in Vietnam. It seemed too stupid for words.
A lot of people agreed. Some men disappeared to Canada or elsewhere, some got deferments, some went into the Guard, but some got caught in the draft. Overall, a very small percentage of Americans was involved in that conflict, so most of them don’t identify with service issues. Nevertheless, Vietnam showed that an educated populace will no longer stand for a military that unnecessarily risks the lives of the troops. Not that Vietnam was anything as bad as WW2 with its 400,000 dead American soldiers in less than four years, most of them needlessly wasted by FDR’s directives and the occasional bungling military “leadership” of that era.
War is messy and not to be taken lightly, even though our casualties in Iraq are many times fewer than what happened in Vietnam. After all, 1600 is not 58,000. Nor does 1600 come close to the numbers murdered by jihadists in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. Nevertheless, I draw no conclusions from body counts of our honored dead.
That does not mean I agree that the Iraq war was unjust. If justice means anything, then it was entirely just to remove Saddam from power. Mass graves, unspeakable torture chambers, sadistic police gangs, rape rooms, and the systematic pillaging of his country’s wealth were a few of the hallmarks of Saddam’s rule. For the world to let such things happen under the guise of sovereignty was entirely unjust; but the world did, even as the UN helped Saddam plunder his people.
You have to give no value to Saddam’s victims in order to call the Iraq war unjust. Why is it proper to grieve for our 1600 dead, but not for the millions killed by Saddam? Is it their dark skin, as you like to ask? People are people. Dead is dead. Removing Saddam was just. Untold lives have been saved because of it.
That’s why it doesn’t matter how we got there. After the fact, it’s always easy to claim lies were told and distortions happened, especially when things don’t turn out as expected, as with WMD. I think the evidence of outright lies is weak, but the evidence of an incompetent worldwide intelligence community is strong. Most importantly, it doesn’t matter.
It doesn’t matter because many valid reasons were given for deposing Saddam, not just WMD.
Bush was well aware of the risk that WMD (which includes bio. & chem. weapons) might not be found, but his CIA director insisted it was a “slam dunk”. The world’s entire intelligence community thought Saddam had WMD. Saddam acted like he had WMD and was developing the means to deliver them. He had not followed the rules of the Gulf War cease fire. He was brutalizing his country. So we had lots of good reasons to depose him. Eventually, most people latched onto his WMD capability as the BEST reason to depose him. We fooled around a year trying to get the UN to honor its duty to no avail and finally took action WITH THE APPROVAL of the US Congress and the assistance of other countries. It turns out that Saddam had spirited away his WMD, if he had them, which shouldn’t have been hard in the year’s time that the UN gave him; or maybe he really didn’t have any WMD. It really doesn’t matter, because getting rid of Saddam was the RIGHT thing to do for many reasons. If it turns out that WMD are never found, all it means is that we did the RIGHT thing for the wrong BEST reason.
This is why the WMD dustup is a non-issue, and all the claims about lies and such are also non-issues.
The only way you can say that the Iraq war was unjust or unjustified was to assign zero value to the dark-skinned people Saddam brutalized and killed.
Now, who are the bigots here?
E Ireland, if it’s that important to remove a dictator who brutalizes his people, why is Castro still in power?, He only lives 90 miles away. What about North Korea? Talk about a madman! He has hundreds of thousands of his own people in torture camps AND he has nuclear weapons. What about China? They have the worst human rights abuses on record, and we welcome trade with them and we’re sending them all the business that we can. What about Darfur? Mass genocide taking place right now under the watchful eye of the Sudan government, and we sit back and do nothing.
Why was Saddam so important to us? According to the Duelfer report (written by the top weapons inspector), the sanctions placed against Iraq were working and Saddam’s infrastructure was becoming weaker and weaker. It also stated that Iraq’s WMDs were destroyed shortly after the Gulf War, and that Saddam had not the means nor the materials to develop nuclear weapons. Saddam was also starting to seriously lose touch with reality. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that it was about controling the Middle East and keeping the oil flowing. I believe that Bush also had a personal vendetta against Saddam because of his plot to assassinate George Sr. By initiating this war with Iraq, we’ve lost so much respect in the world, plus we’ve made ourselves more vulnurable to terrorists attacks both at home an abroad. The really sad part is that there is no end in sight.
Nathan,check out this link, just as an example. Better yet, just do a google search. Keep in mind, Bush’s daddy was a very powerful man. No suprise the little cowboy got an honorable discharge. Bush has spent his whole life getting what he didn’t deserve or have to work for. http://web.archive.org/web/20010107212300/http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Questions_remain_on_Bush_s_service_as_Guard_pilot+.shtml
Mike,
Did you see the date on that article? Bush has shown all the paperwork which has shown that her served his required time.
He recieved an Honorable Discharge.
Giving me a link to another person saying the same things you do is not proof. It is just another left wing attack cronie with the same agenda and no proof.
He recieved an Honorable Discharge.
Give me proof not more testimony from people like you.
Damoon,
As soon as you show me all the evidence you have of how this war was just to keep the oil flowing then you will have some bit of credibility above and beyond that of some conspiracy theory nut on the street corner…
Oh yeah, and for you comment on the vendetta too.
In a reational debate we like to use this wonderful thing called evidence.
When you get some, let me know.
Where was the evidence of Saddam’s nuclear weapons? We went to war with no “evidence” whatsoever. If we wanted to “free” the Iraq people, why don’t we do the same favor for everyone living under a brutal regime, why do we ignore their suffering? There is no “evidence” that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. The arguement to go to war based on what Saddam “might” have done if given the chance seems pretty weak for such a committment and sacrifice on our part. The reasons for this war are as clear as the nose on your face. It’s all about oil, dear. Go read your bible, Nathan. Didn’t one of the 10 commandments state “Thou Shall Not Kill”? Do you honestly think Jesus would approve of GW’s war? Please answer this, I really want to know what you think. Do you “walk the walk”? Or do you just “talk the talk”?
Damoon,
I still see no evidence in your statement. I can debate with you on the evidence for WMD’s, but that is not what we are discussing at this moment.
Where is your evidence for how this war is just about oil or for vendetta purposes?
I see that you would like to learn about the Bible! This is wonderful news! I would love to share with you the great truths which the Bible speaks of. I am glad you brought it up.
You see, the commandment you refer to is more accurately translated to mean:
Exodus 20:13(NASB)
You shall not murder.
I dont support murder, nor do I think this war is going against the commandments.
Have you read any of Jesus teachings or the truths of the New Testament? If you have I would love to see why/where you draw any conclusions on what you think Jesus would think of this war?
No true religion condones murder, nor approves of the cowardly failure to establish and prosecute justice. Natural law also requires justice. Ignoring it leads to chaos and social disintegration. Scrupulously avoiding war, no matter what the provocation, is neither wise nor just.
Nathan, listen honey, I ASKED you if YOU thought Jesus would support this war. Well? I never asked you to “teach me about the bible”, I grew up with the bible, thank you, and I believe Jesus was a man of peace who would never condone war for any reason, much less for oil. I don’t have any EVIDENCE of this, it’s just a simple conclusion I’ve drawn from going to church and reading the bible the whole time I was growing up. I just wanted a simple answer to my question, not a sermon. God bless your sweet little heart!!
And for you, Joseph, I realize that war can’t always be avoided, or should be. It’s just that it should ALWAYS be the very last resort when every other solution hasn’t succeeded. GW really jumped the gun on this one, it may not have been necessary to go to war in order to remove Saddam from power. We should have stayed focused on Osma and not diverted our attention to Iraq. We gave Osma a big fat present when we invaded Iraq, nothing like pissing off the whole Arab world to further his agenda against the infidels!! Good job George!!!!
Nathan,
I think you just got handed your head. But I guess that’s what happens when you play “holier than thou”.
All I do is ask questions. I must admit it is fun to watch all of you do everything but answer them.
It really is pricless the way you all make your assertions, but when it comes time to explain them…
All I get is the evasions and personal references.
Damoon, Your condescending “honey child” routine doesn’t answer any of Nathan’s points. You have nothing to prove the war was about oil or a vendetta, so you just dump on him and make more unsupported assertions.
Then you answer joseph with yet another bald assertion that “it may not have been necessary to go to war in order to remove Saddam from power.” Where’s the proof of that? Who had a credible, non-military plan to depose Saddam? The alternatives amounted to calls for endless and useless debates at the UN while Iraqi children continued to die at the hands of the UN/French/Russian/Iraqi “Oil-for-Fraud” program? Bush haters say it was the embargo that caused starvation, but the UN Oil-for-Food program was established specifically to avoid that. Naturally, the UN let Saddam and his allies skim off the money while Iraqi children died.
And why do Bush haters always forget that the Congress also approved military action against Iraq. It wasn’t just a Bush war. Congress approved it. Did the Congress have a vendetta and crave oil, too? For that matter, did Tony Blair and the British Parliament also have a vendetta and crave oil? What a stunning string of coincidences that would be!
You say that war should be “the very last resort.” Of course. But I strongly suspect that your strict interpretation of that concept would have Saddam still living large in his palaces while continuing to murder his people and leading Hans Blix around by the nose. No thanks. That mass murdering kleptocrat had been allowed to hold power too long.
Well, Damoon, at least you provided us with a good review of the tired, anti-war litany. First, claim the war was unjust. Failing that argument, then claim that Bush’s motives weren’t pure, as if you knew or as if it mattered at all. Left empty-handed there, then say the war should have been the last resort, proving that you wouldn’t recognize a war if it bombed New York and Washington on the same day.
E. Ireland, I don’t see you producing any proof that the war isn’t about oil.
I’m going to have to agree with Damoon about war being a last resort. Over the years, I’ve noticed that mostly, those who are so quick to want to go to war are the ones who have never been in combat. Not an iron-clad rule, but close. Most (but not all) vets are very circumspect about reasons to go to war.
E. Ireland, I noticed in another post, someone suggested that being such a warhawk, you should enlist and support our troops, or something to that effect. I suppose it’s much easier to just be a member of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders. Blogging is much safer than really supporting “the cause”.
W.R. Locke,
When you make an assertion the burden of proof is on you to back it up, not on us to prove it wrong.
Debate 101…
Although, your continued pattern of refusing to back up your assertions shows me why you would take such an approach.
Seeing that you are now the expert on who supports war and who doesn’t, I suppose it would be asking too much of you to provide some sort of evidence to back up your claims?
I wont hold my breath.
Nathan,
when you dispute an observation, it’s up to you to show how it’s flawed.
Debate 201
Please hold your breath.
Nathan, you STILL haven’t answered my question! Do you think Jesus would approve of GW’s war?
E Ireland, I don’t believe that invasion of Iraq was about WMD’s, or freeing the Iraqis from a brutal dictator, or even establishing democracy, and I have given the reasons why I believe this in my earlier posts. I’m not going to repeat myself over and over again. In my opinion, this war was not justified. It’s turning into another Vietnam, and will most likely have the same result. GW’s big adventure has caused us to be more vulnerable to terrorism, lost us the respect of our allys, put us into huge debt and cost us 1700 young lives so far.
If this country wasn’t so dependant on Middle Eastern oil, we wouldn’t be paying any attention to what’s going on over there. It’s common sense. Just look around the world, genocide goes on eveyday and we look the other way because we have nothing to lose.
If you read the Duelfer report, there are experts who believe that Saddam WAS on his way out, his infastructure was becoming weaker and weaker. War may not have been necessary for him to fall from power, it was starting to happen from within.
Iraq didn’t cause 9/11, Osama did, there is where our focus needs to be. You say I keep changing my rational for my opinions, not so. It’s just that I have lots of different reasons for what I believe. George Bush is the one keeps changing his rational for his decision to invade Iraq. He can’t admit that he made a mistake. I don’t “hate” GW, I just think he’s an incompetent leader who’s gotten us into one hell of a mess.
As for Natan, I honestly do find him charming, it wasn’t my intention to “dump” on him. I just wish he wouldn’t keep avoiding my questions, because I’m really interested in what he has to say.
W.R. Locke,
It is not my job to dispute your claim when you have yet to show anything to support it.
I might as well say I have a pink elephant farm in my backyard. You dont believe me? Prove me wrong…
Give me a break.
Damoon,
First of all your question is loaded. I dont consider this to be “GW’s War” as you say.
You say I am avoiding your “questions?”
I saw only one question which is where you asked me if Jesus would condone this war.
My answer is that I can find no scriptural basis to think he wouldnt.
My answer to a question like that can only come from God’s word. Which is why I asked you to show me the scripture you are referencing when talking about Jesus.
There is no clear cut scripture in the New Testament that would prove suffucient to say Jesus would or would not support a particular war in my opinion.
No more than trying to ask me if Jesus would or would not watch TV if he were alive today? I dont know. Perhaps, Perhaps not. I can only speak of what God has told us, not speculate on whether or not God may or may not approve of this war.
I could go through the reasons why I think it is not an “UnGodly” war… but I am not here to do that.
I just want to know how/why you came to the conclusions you did and based on what evidence.
Basically, I dont think you can prove it or back up those assertions of yours, which is why I asked you to do so.
You are (like many others here) just proving me to be correct by continuing to avoid answering the questions…
How is this war just for oil or for a vendetta purpose?
Nathan, read any book by Trudy Ruban (a journalist with the Philadelphia Enquirer who has studied the Middle East and Eastern Europe for over 30 yrs) or watch News World International, which is based out of Canada, Japan, and Germany, it’s the most unbiased news reporting I can find. George would never admit that he made the decision to invade Iraq to control the oil, but there are plenty of experts who believe it’s the main reason we went to war. WMDs and the human rights spin just don’t cut it. The Duelfur report (which George Bush fought to keep under wraps) and the fact that there are so many brutal dictators that we totally ignore (example: S. Korea, Cuba, China) and the mass genocide that’s going on in Sudan right now, for some weird reason, make me think that unless we have something big to lose (like oil) we just don’t give a damn what other countries do to their people. Like I said before, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out, and over half of the American people already have. This IS Vietnam all over again. What do you want to bet that when we pull out of Iraq, it will collapse into civil war and there will be another dictator to take Saddam’s place? Maybe this doesn’t answer your question as to what I base my opinions on, it’s the best I can do. But let me tell you something, Jesus said (and I quote) “Blessed be the peacemakers”, and when He was hanging on the cross, He asked God to forgive His persecuters. He also talked of loving your fellow human (I can quote you LOTS of scripture if you want “proof” that Jesus was an advocate for peace), so doesn’t take a rocket scientist either to figure out that Jesus probably wouldn’t agree with the war. Not that it even matters, but I’m always amazed at how many Christians talk out of both sides of their mouth.
Good luck on your career in the Marine Core, I will pray for your safety every day and wish you Godspeed. I’m done with this discussion!!!!!
Irritating little troll, aint he?
Damoon,
just maybe, do you think that there are others out there that might think that this war is just for oil?
It is nothing but speculation with no proof. Which is all I have asked you for.
Yes Jesus did say “Blessed be the peacemakers.” Which leads me back to my statement earlier:
That is not enough to say if Jesus does or does not condone war.
Do I think that we should be peacemakers? Of course.
The next question is what is meant by peacemaker? Could I say that being a peacemaker is someone who stops a brutal tyrant like Hitler from continuing to mass murder millions of people?
Or is being a peacemaker not doing anything to stop someone like Hitler?
The point is that it is not definitive enough for either you or I to make the bold statement that Jesus does or does not support this war.
What we can do is argue about what we both say the reasons for this war are and then judge those to see if they are more or less in line with what the scripture says.
However, you have yet to show any evidence for the reasons you say this war was about.
I am fuly willing and ready to discuss the scripture with you. Please quote the verses you cite and lets look at them!
Now, what I really fail to see is how your snide comment:
“I’m always amazed at how many Christians talk out of both sides of their mouth.”
has any place in this discussion.
Are you talking about me when you say that?(I ask becuase it has taken me many many posts to go round and round with D.A. Rider about this…)
W.R. Locke,
I see you still have time to insult me, but not enough time to back up your assertions…
I insulted you?
W.R. Locke,
Still have enough time to ask me questions, but not enough time to back up your assertions?
How are you insulted? Tell me all about it.
insulted:(dictionary.com)
-treated with insolent and rude language especially openly and intentionally.
“Irritating little troll, aint he?”
I guess I should be clear. I dont “feel” insulted, although you did attempt to do so.
And yet again, you focus on me instead of defending your assertions.
Why is that?
I can only come to a couple of conclusions:
1. You dont know how to prove your claims, you just like to make them because it makes what you disagree with sound worse.
2. You cant prove your claims, so you dont.
I guess it doesnt matter either way. you are the one who has to live with that kind of an additude not me.
I jus like to see if people like you can actually back up the things they say. And most of the time, like you, they cant.
So what’s your point here? You say you don’t feel insulted, yet you accuse me of insulting you. You sure seem confused.
You sons and daughters of pigs and monkeys will learn that the entire earth must be subjected to Islam. Yet we were made to suffer humiliation and inferiority by Americans discovering the oil under our feet, developing our oil fields and ports, and establishing the comforts that shame us. We did not steal your oil companies, we nationalized them because infidels have no right to invade the holy Islamic moon with obscene rockets.
Did you infidels think we would sit still while you broadcast your filthy culture of Hollywood to our lands? America, with the collaboration of the Jews, is the leader of corruption and the breakdown of values, whether moral, ideological, political, or economic corruption. It disseminates abomination and licentiousness among the people via the cheap media and the vile, easy curricula of its schools and universities. After we avenge the blood of the crusades, Muslim domination will subject America to the rule of Sharia.
The U.S standing against the Muslims has stripped the camouflage from its face. Much can be said about this regarding Muslims in the Sudan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Kashmir, Macedonia, Bosnia, and Vietnam. America’s siege on these Islamic countries has transgressed all limits.
The Muslim is peaceful. We are desired for peace but you are in our country occupants and our beliefs are insulted by your women soldiers without hijab. I say we do not accept this for us and for you and for all who wish for peace and Brotherhood.
By now you must know that you will never find our Mother Of All Islamic weapons for the destruction of America. We would have no honor if we allowed infidels to find it and prevent us from avenging the corruption of our brothers everywhere.
Your weakling appeasers only prove the softness of your decadence. Even your media are our puppets, but their unwitting helpfulness is unworthy of praise. They remain unclean. Jihad will teach them the strength of Islam by drenching them in the blood of their treachery.
And a cheery good morning to you too, Ali. My, that was quite a post. Judging by the time on your post, you must not have slept well. Sometimes I have that problem too. Might I suggest you try prune juice and pork fritters?
(oh, by the way “Ali”, I cheched your email address…Saddamspoof?)
Ali! Do I know you?!? You sound very similar to someone I hold near and dear to my heart. Your witty sarcasism is much appreciated!
Vile infidels! Do you not know that my ISP is crawling with government spies, and the library where I enter these comments has been infiltrated with fascist librarians? How can an honorable woman of Islam be safe if her true identity is laid bare by fascist pigs?
Though all I do is cut and paste from the sacred words of the esteemed leaders of our beloved Religion of Peace, you accuse me of cheap sarcasm. You only further dishonor us with your blasphemous lies. Woe to the unclean infidel who threatens to intimidate us with pork. We will impale your fritters on the tips of our lances!
You’re going to “impale my fritters”? Oh, Baby!!!
Personally, I like fritters. After you impale them, will you dip em in ranch dressing? I am also a fan of ranch dressing.
One explanation, please (Okay, maybe a few): How does “treachery” bleed, and where does it bleed from? Is it related to fritters? Does it go with ranch dressing and red or white w(h)ine?
That’s easy enough for you to say, JM. Your “fritters” aren’t the ones in eminent danger of being impaled.
Looks like Ali has left the house. Did you note the comment about using the computer at the library? do you suppose he might be an associate of our friend, Bob Boudelang? I notice his latest post is up on DU.
Since we don’t seem to have Ali on hand, maybe we should watch the skys for small planes.
“Vile infidels!” Yo, W R, unless there are more than one of you, Ali, the impaler, suggests his comrades will impale every infidels fritters. It will truly be a fritter fest. We can have it down by the river? Maybe during the chili cookoff?
After reading all the responses in this blog I have some comments to make:
Damoon…Your question about would Jesus support this war really bothers me. We have become a people in this country that will use anybody and anything to get our particular point across, as in, “What would Jesus do?”, “What would Jesus drive?” Get the picture? How about, “What person would Jesus vote for, what would Jesus eat, what shoes would Jesus wear, yadda, yadda…I’m not a religious person, but I find the use of His name in that manner ill contributes to the argument of this blog.
In fact, I can find little that contributes to whether or not Gitmo should remain open or close. I’ve read a lot of pillow fights here, but little backed-up facts. Debate 101 (or 201 for that matter) could use a few new students.
Me? I’m a male pig…I like to throw stones. Trouble is, I’m too old and blind to hit anything!
J.M.
I’d like to point out that Ali used the singular term, hence my taking it personal.
JW, I only posed the question to Nathan because he kept referring to the bible. I’m sorry my question “bothered” you, but I do think it’s a valid question for all the consevative Christians who blindly support GW’s war. Christians are supposed to emulate Jesus, so to me it seems pretty hypocritical. Jesus said to love our enemies, does that mean we’re supposed to kill them? By the way, I’m not a Christian.
PS What DO you think Jesus would drive?
Damoon,
I guess using “Bushthink”, the Christian thing is to love them to death.
Damoon, I understand your reasoning, I just don’t agree with it. Why lower yourself to the level of the Christian fanatics to get a point across? From what I’ve read of your posts, you’re much to in tune to fall in that trap. I don’t presume to know what so-called Christians are supposed to emulate, since there doesn’t appear to be a defining factor that would or could coalesce their reasoning; Jesus obviously not being one of them.
PS who cares? Whatever he decided drive would tick off somebody :-)
W.R. Since when did (or can) Bush think?
Damoon, I understand your reasoning, I just don’t agree with it. Why lower yourself to the level of the Christian fanatics to get a point across? From what I’ve read of your posts, you’re much to in tune to fall in that trap. I don’t presume to know what so-called Christians are supposed to emulate, since there doesn’t appear to be a defining factor that would or could coalesce their reasoning; Jesus obviously not being one of them.
PS who cares? Whatever he decided drive would tick off somebody :-)
W.R. Since when did (or can) Bush think?
Point taken, JM. And everybody knows Jesus would ride a Harley.
Happy July 4th everyone!!! Let’s all celebrate the freedom of speech that our great country and this blog allows us! We are SO lucky to be livin’ in the USA!!!!
Damoon,
Again, if you want to talk about what Jesus would think or why Christians who support war are hypocritical then let me see the scripture you are using.
You cant have it both ways. You cant both claim that you dont believe in Jesus and then try to tell us what it is Jesus would do.