The US secret war

[TAE]

@

 

[ViolentPanda]

@

You enquired if he's harbouring these sentiments deep down, did you not?

I happen to think he harbours them rather nearer the surface than that.

 

[TAE]

 

[rogue yam]

You all flatter yourselves.

You've been on Urban before - haven't you, rogue yam?

No. I first heard of this site a day or two ago, on Craig's List - S.F. Heard it was rife with fanatical America-bashing. True that!

 

[rogue yam]

Fuck me - where do you start? The US has been 'co-operating with tyrants' for 50 years.

Longer than that. The entire West has. That was implicit in my post. (VERY poor intellectual skills by many on this site, unfortunately.) GWB has explicitly and repeatedly pointed to this in his speaches, and proposed a new way forward. Of course, it can't be done perfectly anywhere, nor begun everywhere (to address the obvious, which is sure to be overlooked by some shrieking fool on this thread) but one has to start somewhere. We have started in Afghanistan and Iraq. What have other major countries done?

And - for your information - the US has killed many thousands more civilians since sept 11 than the jihadis (tens of thousands killed by the US in iraq alone - and thats by the most conservative estimates). If you want a longer historical pespective we're probably talking millions.

I addressed this precise point above. Respond to my arguments or sod off.

 

[rogue yam]

John Paul II??

The eastern block fell from the inside, but I guess if you don't know your history....

The fall of the Eastern bloc was largely led by Poland, the Solidarity movement, and Lech Walesa. It is widely known that JPII was a great inspiration to them. Google is your friend. Arrogance combined with ignorance shrinks your world to nothing. "Be not afraid."

 

[rogue yam]

I think your approach to dismissing the views of a professor of constitutional law at one of your most prestigious universities, on a matter of his expertise, is kind of interesting.

Would you dismiss the views of a professor of theoretical physics on a matter of quantum electrodynamics say, by calling him an 'infantile leftist'?

If you don't understand the leftist cast of the American academy, then there is little I can do to enlighten you on this subject. If you don't understand the difference in the inherent objectivity of physics as compared to public policy, then there is little that anyone can do to enlighten you on any subject.

 

[Pickman's model]

If you don't understand the leftist cast of the American academy, then there is little I can do to enlighten you on this subject. If you don't understand the difference in the inherent objectivity of physics as compared to public policy, then there is little that anyone can do to enlighten you on any subject.

& in english?

 

[ViolentPanda]

No. I first heard of this site a day or two ago, on Craig's List - S.F. Heard it was rife with fanatical America-bashing. True that!

You mistake AMERICA-bashing (which very few of us do) for AMERICAN-bashing, which many of us are glad to do, but generally only of wind-inflated sadsacks such as yourself.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Arrogance combined with ignorance shrinks your world to nothing.

Ah, the irony of you saying such a thing. It would be hilarious if it weren't quite so sad.

 

[TAE]

GWB has explicitly and repeatedly pointed to this in his speaches, and proposed a new way forward.

Yes he has, but not for the good of humanity, but the wellbeing of the US.
And yet even now, when it suits him, he is perfectly willing to be friends with military dictatorships.

We have started in Afghanistan and Iraq. What have other major countries done?

Do you think all countries should invade each other and impose their idea of the ideal society on each other?
Or do you think that all countries should abide by the expressed will of the united nations security council?

 

[ViolentPanda]

If you don't understand the leftist cast of the American academy, then there is little I can do to enlighten you on this subject.

Is this the "leftist cast" as promulgated by conspiranoid rightists everywhere, or do you mean the "we're slightly less right than those guys over there" cast that actually exists in the real world?

If you don't understand the difference in the inherent objectivity of physics as compared to public policy, then there is little that anyone can do to enlighten you on any subject.

Mr Gunther mentioned a professor of theoretical physics. Are you claiming that theoretical physics is an inherently objective discipline?

 

[rogue yam]

Not at all. It is your government's mixing of these terms which is objectionable.

If they are terrorists, put them on trial.
If they are POWs, treat them as such.

We are distinguishing between the terms. Others are mixing the terms. The terrorists are not POWs. (There have been some POWs in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and generally they have been treated according to the various treaties that we have signed.) It all boils down to your demand to put terrorists on trial. We have chosen not to, and repeatedly explained why not. Some leftists don't like this (big suprise...not!) and so they shriek incoherently about "international law" (we are complying with all treaties) and "world opinion" (which is just too rich for many reasons, some of which I've given above). But it really does boil down to that one point. You want American-style criminal justice procedures to be applied to terrorists whatever they've done, wherever they're captured, and wherever they're held. You will not get such from the U.S. so long as GWB is President.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

If you don't understand the leftist cast of the American academy, then there is little I can do to enlighten you on this subject. If you don't understand the difference in the inherent objectivity of physics as compared to public policy, then there is little that anyone can do to enlighten you on any subject.

Ah, but this wasn't some wooly issue of public policy was it? It was a professor of law, talking about what is and is not legal. I found your approach to dealing with his statements kind of interesting. You didn't attempt to challenge any legal facts or details. Instead you applied some perjoratives and dismissed the whole question.

The day that Yale professors stop slagging the U.S. from a leftist viewpoint will be the day that America has been taken over by a fascist, right-wing dictatorship. Contrary to the views of infantile leftists everywhere, such a day will never come. It is not the job of sensible citizens to try to change the minds of persons chosen for academic positions and offered advancement in large part because of their leftist views. Here in America, we've decided to let the leftists run the universities, and have the conservatives running the government.

Which I take to mean, that you think obeying the law has nothing much to do with 'running the government' a view that your president rather too evidently shares.

Which raises once again the question of morality. So far I'm not seeing any morality here beyond that vividly portrayed by Al Pacino in "Scarface"

 

[snadge]

We are distinguishing between the terms. Others are mixing the terms. The terrorists are not POWs. (There have been some POWs in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and generally they have been treated according to the various treaties that we have signed.) It all boils down to your demand to put terrorists on trial. We have chosen not to, and repeatedly explained why not. Some leftists don't like this (big suprise...not!) and so they shriek incoherently about "international law" (we are complying with all treaties) and "world opinion" (which is just too rich for many reasons, some of which I've given above). But it really does boil down to that one point. You want American-style criminal justice procedures to be applied to terrorists whatever they've done, wherever they're captured, and wherever they're held. You will not get such from the U.S. so long as GWB is President.

you are a nasty man and I claim my £5

are you really practising for NK?

 

[TAE]

We have chosen not to, and repeatedly explained why not.

Not good enough. If another nation was holding american citizens like that you'd be screaming blue murder.

"We don't want to" is not good enough when you are talking about citizens of other countries.

Put them on trial or release them.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The other side of this of course, quite apart from morality, is competence.

It's been a long time since we've had anyone here even try to argue that Iraq could be described as a success, rather than one of the most startling and bloody-minded examples of shocking military incompetence since Spion Kop.

 

[rogue yam]

Yes he has, but not for the good of humanity, but the wellbeing of the US.

I don't think that this is true, but even if it is, I'm o.k. with that. But isn't it rather foolish to presume to read others' motivations at such a remove? Actions are what counts. GWB said he was invading Iraq to rid them of a tyrant and help them create a democratic, pluralistic republic. And that is what is happening. Who cares what lies in GWB's heart-of-hearts?

And yet even now, when it suits him, he is perfectly willing to be friends with military dictatorships.

What counts, ultimately, is results. One must be realistic. Syria, Iran and N.K. are big problems that have been held at arm's length (though some disingenuous lefties demanded otherwise). Saudi Arabia is a highly problematic regime with whow we are still playing ball, for obvious reasons. Pakistan is a cesspool of hatred and tyranny with whom we are trying to cooperate. What can you do? If we simultaneously tried to resolve all of these situations, we would accomplish nothing, so we choose some order in which to address them. It's simple realism.

Do you think all countries should invade each other and impose their idea of the ideal society on each other?

No. Only some countries, and sometimes.

Or do you think that all countries should abide by the expressed will of the united nations security council?

Yes. And when they don't (e.g. Iraq) I think that the other countries (e.g. the U.S., the U.K., Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland, etc., etc.) should have the stones to step up and do something about it rather that blather on endlessly (e.g. France, Germany, etc., etc.)

 

[rogue yam]

Not good enough. If another nation was holding american citizens like that you'd be screaming blue murder.

I'm not so sure. After all, GWB has taken a lot of heat for introducing the concept of an "enemy combatant" to apply to American citizens held by us and charged with terrorism. (There have only been two so treated thus far: Jose Padilla, who has since (I believe) been handed over to the court system, and some Saudi guy (Hamdi?) who happened to be born here. He was stripped of his citizenship and handed over to the Saudis.) But anyway, I'm really not sure. I have a hard time imagining an American (a real one, rather than someone who managed to scam citizenship somehow) being a terrorist somewhere else, against some other country. I guess we will just have to wait for that to happen for the first time in history, and then see.

"We don't want to" is not good enough when you are talking about citizens of other countries.

Says who? Seriously. Everyone is a citizen somewhere, presumably. If we capture Bin Laden, why is it not "good enough" that we take him to Gitmo, get whatever info we can out of him, and then execute him, all based on procedures we determine to be appropriate. Under what treaty have we agreed to do otherwise? Or does this "good enough" refer to your specific, oh-so-tender sensibilities around which the entire world is obliged to revolve?

 

[rogue yam]

It's been a long time since we've had anyone here even try to argue that Iraq could be described as a success, rather than one of the most startling and bloody-minded examples of shocking military incompetence since Spion Kop.

The past week has seen remarkable advances in democracy in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Success doesn't come all at once in an undertaking such as this. However it goes, some will cry failure and doom at every turn. That's life.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

So a pro-Iranian Islamic Republic of Iraq is a big success for US interests?

Pull the other one chum ...

 

[rogue yam]

So a pro-Iranian Islamic Republic of Iraq is a big success for US interests?

Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else knows where Iraq will be politically in ten years. The same hold true for Iran as well. The United States is making a courageous, risky, and costly attempt to help tens of millions of souls seize and secure their own liberty. Who else is doing one tenth so much?

 

[Kaka Tim]

(VERY poor intellectual skills by many on this site, unfortunately.) GWB has explicitly and repeatedly pointed to this in his speaches, and proposed a new way forward.

You really are a charmer aren't you?

And the 'new way forward' Looks like the same old way thats been practised by rich and countries over poor and weak ones for thousands of years - especially if they have large supplies of vital resources. And every empire in history has justified its actions as a moral casue - bringing civilisation to the savages etc. Mussolini 'liberated' Ethiopia from tyranny as well dont you know?

Nobody outside Italy believed him then and nobody out side the US believes Bush is driven by concern for the people of Iraq either. Least of all the Iraqis.

By the way - speaking of moral crusades - are you happy to terrify naked prsioners with dogs yourself or do you prefer to have someone else do it on your behalf?

 

[snadge]

the beauty of christianity as a religion is that you can do what the fuck you want all your life with moral bankrupcy, then get absolved

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else knows where Iraq will be politically in ten years. The same hold true for Iran as well. The United States is making a courageous, risky, and costly attempt to help tens of millions of souls seize and secure their own liberty. Who else is doing one tenth so much?

You've turned the Sunni parts of Iraq into Disneyland for wanna-be-jihadis, you've turned the Shiia bits over to Iranian controlled militias. You're sitting there like a bunch of big, fat, blind, deaf and dumb targets while various groups of people who think you're the "Great Satan" are laughing at your predicament and either taking turns to blow you and your hapless stooges up, or simply keeping their powder dry while you're still being useful to them.

Smooth moves Ex-Lax

 

[Kaka Tim]

The people of the United States are making a courageous, risky, and costly attempt to help senior members of the bush administration, oil executives and defensive contractors seize and secure their own financial future. QUOTE]


would be more accurate.

Please can the moral grandstanding. Its making me want to vomit. In fact if you feel so great about it - why dont you get out to Iraqiland yourself and go maim a few kids for dubya?

 

[rogue yam]

Nobody outside Italy believed him then and nobody out side the US believes Bush is driven by concern for the people of Iraq either. Least of all the Iraqis.

Bush's motivations are unimportant, as are people's perceptions of his motivations. What counts are the facts on the ground. It is my opinion, and I am not alone, that many Iraqis were delighted by their election last week, and are eager to see their government form and get to work improving their lives. Does this count for nothing to you? Did Mussolini do this in Ethiopia?

 

[rogue yam]

You're sitting there like a bunch of big, fat, blind, deaf and dumb targets...

Most of the people in Iraq who hold this opinion of the United States military, and who have acted on it, are already dead. The truly dangerous ones over there realize you are talking bollocks and are carefully trying to stage photogenic pinpricks while hoping that you will use these militarily useless acts to propagandize for terrorist victory on the real battlefield: the Western political sphere.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Most of the people in Iraq who hold this opinion of the United States military, and who have acted on it, are already dead. The truly dangerous ones over there realize you are talking bollocks and are carefully trying to stage photogenic pinpricks while hoping that you will use these militarily useless acts to propagandize for terrorist victory on the real battlefield: the Western political sphere.

Well, I certainly wouldn't claim that the western political sphere is irrelevant, but you should have thought about that before alienating most of your allies shouldn't you?

Meanwhile though, the typical pattern of the insurgency in the Sunni triangle is that an IED goes off, leaving the US or the hapless Iraqi stooges whose pals just got vapourised with nobody to shoot at. Unless of course they're feeling particularly demoralised and undisciplined that day, in which case they may open up on some handy civilians or otherwise vent their understandable frustration. Meanwhile, the guy who set off the IED is long gone and because you are at least passively opposed by most of the civilian population in those areas, you aren't going to find him, barring miracles.

“We were hit 3000 times and in only fifteen of those attacks did we have anyone to shoot back at,”

source

 

[TAE]

rogue yam, thanks for your answers.

You seem to jump back and forth between "we are the good guys" and "there's nothing wrong with doing whatever we want".

For instance:
On the one hand you agree that countries should abide by the expressed will of the UN security council, on the other hand you say you were right to invade Iraq - despite the fact that you tried and failed to get an explicit go-ahead from the UN.

Now don't get me wrong, Blair is just as bad, so this is not America-bashing as you call it.