Marinerhodes
Active member
Semper Fidelis Chief Bones.
09-11-01 ... 4 1/2 years and counting
Rob Henderson
Banned
Ted said:
of course it does. this is a major point that President George Washington tried to make to us in his farewell address. He stated that we should avoid sectionalism,or the dividing of the nation east vs. west, north vs. south...etc. Issues like this cannot be avoided. America will go to war as long as there are countries to oppose it. As long as there is a country to disagree with what we say, or provoke us, or in some way hurt our country in any way, shape, or form, we can expect to fight. Ever since Adam and Eve(not a religious discussion)took from the forbidden tree, utopias have been impossible. Humans arent perfect, and in our imperfection, we have these faults that cause us to disagree. And we will, in my humble opinion, always have these faults. People who promote world peace are simply fighting an uphill battle. There is no way that everyone in the world can agree on every thing.
Airborne Eagle
Active member
Don't make the mistake of putting your likely reason for suicide along with theirs. To the radical Islamo-facists, for example, there is more to gain from suicide that from dying by the hands of infidels (even from other "children of the Book).Ted said:
I'd counter with, "How did we learn about the IRC's report?" That is, those reports are supposed to be confidential. I think the prevailing attitude of the human rights groups is decidedly anti-government in any form. In other words, I don't think there was much chance in satisfying them and I don't put it past the members to let naked political bias interfere with their observations.Ted said:
Now, this is not to say Gitmo is perfect. I would ask any critic to view it in comparison to prison systems in past wars and judge it first by that standard and then by US standards.
Two things. First, the population in Gitmo is a revolving population for the most part. That is, new ones are brought in as others as re-patriated to their country of origin. Some detainees, of course, remain. Even after thir case is heard, there are reasons to hold some of the terrorists if the evidence shows they will remain a danger to the US and our allies.Ted said:
Next, from whom? Well, again, let's look at the history of POW camps. Who typically had access to outside representation? There are very good reasons to limit the interference of outside agencies. First and foremost, there's OPSEC. Sensitive operations and methodologies may be discussed. Next, you cannot be certain that the outside agencies would be honest partners. Again, if the IRC leaks their reports in an attempt to embarrass the US, who's to say Amnesty wouldn'y do the same? Also, who's to say that the IRC and AI wouldn't take an irrational position and, through their subjective prism, paint the situation inaccurately or unfairly towards the US?
In the end, there have been 200+ detainees returned to their country of origin. This speaks to a process that allows for an end to indefinite release and should be viewed with a degree of credibility and respect. After all, it's not as if the German or Japanese or Vietnamese (to use historic examples) courts in POW camps set our POWs free prior to the end of conflict (without a quid pro quo exchange, that is).
The people representing the detainees are Western trained legal experts. If those same law schools produce lawyers that will defend the Ted Kazinsky's and the Oklahoma City bombers, I think we owe them the benfit of the doubt that those same lawyers can act in the interest of their clients.
Its an ugly stain because I think people aren't putting it in context.Ted said:
Further, there's a bigger point to be made that can't be casually overlooked. During the Cold War, the US was constantly under bombardment by the same rights groups, even when there would be praise of Castro. The point is, just because the Cold War ended and the veil of secrecy finally fell on the Soviet's regime of repression, the same activists didn't pack up their tents and call it quits.
Let's remember that many of those people will still work furiously against our efforts and will mask themselves in groups that, on the surface, seem to have a somewhat neutral agenda. One such example is International ANSWER.
Ted said:
Airborne Eagle
Active member
Well, I'm all for constant monitoring of the Gitmo situation and wouldn't think of closing it to international inspection. I don't want it to spiral out of control. I just think folks should remember to keep it in perspective and to give the US the benefit of the doubt and not believe every bad story that the media hypes (like the flushing of a Koran that never happened, but you can't put that toothpaste back in the tube).
The fact that the goodwill vanished is not so much a measure of George W. Considering the initial cynical reaction of those on the Left to the attacks of 9/11, I believe that sentiment to pillory the US was present prior to Bush. They hated Reagan, after all, and wouldn't hear of his policies being anything short of pushing the world toward nuclear war.
Anyway, I appreciate you voicing your concerns and making them known. Reasoned pressure, such as yours, toward policies a person finds objectionable will often have greater effect than hysterical rants.
The fact that the goodwill vanished is not so much a measure of George W. Considering the initial cynical reaction of those on the Left to the attacks of 9/11, I believe that sentiment to pillory the US was present prior to Bush. They hated Reagan, after all, and wouldn't hear of his policies being anything short of pushing the world toward nuclear war.
Anyway, I appreciate you voicing your concerns and making them known. Reasoned pressure, such as yours, toward policies a person finds objectionable will often have greater effect than hysterical rants.
USAFAUX2004
Active member
Any one else feel that Osama is dead of natural causes by now?
Marinerhodes
Active member
I think he is dead for what it's worth. It is real easy with today's technology to fake tapes made by him etc.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
If he were dead and the tapes WERE faked ... the CIA etc would know, and GW and the boys would be screaming it from the rooftops all across this nation ... GW needs ALL of the help he can get ... his numbers are in the sub sub sub basement .......Marinerhodes said:
PJ24
Active member
Marinerhodes said:
Yeah, but he's more of a benefit to the terrorists cause dead than he is alive now. Remember, martyrdom is like the "ultimate" thing in their culture. I think if he were dead, they'd definitely use it as a plus and they'd have no problems rallying even more of the ignorant masses to his cause.
The only way I could see him dead would be if WE did it, and didn't tell anyone. But, I don't see that happening.
Rob Henderson
Banned
PJ24 said:
Exactly. Which is why Im worried about killing Sadam Hussein... He would instantly become a martyr would do the same thing PJ is describing would happen with osama. He would rally more people in defence of his cause and would become more popular dead than he is alive...
PJ24
Active member
C/2Lt Henderson said:
Hm, it's a little different. Outside of Iraq, not many care much for or about Hussein. He isn't an icon like Bin Laden is. If anything, that would most likely spur a little more violence within certain communities in Iraq, but I don't think it would have any other far-reaching consequences.
Hussein didn't really have any 'cause' and he was pretty moderate when it came to religion, ruling down any fanatics with a hard fist. Mostly, he was just a brutal dictator/political figure.
Rob Henderson
Banned
But as a martyr, his "harbored" terrorists and the people who did support him before the war would become much more radical and violent and might join Bin Ladin...Thus making it harder and harder for the troops over there.. Just like in the American Revolution, when people are united by a common goal, fighting on home soil, with knowledge of terrain, you instantly become very tough to beat, and in the case of the Revolution, unbeatable. The goal might not be Hussein's but if he dies a martyr, more people will just have the goal to go against the United States...Wether they had a cause besides the death of Saddam or not...
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
Maybe ... but ...
IF the trial is viewed as a 'just' trial, then his execution will have very limited consequences. IF, on the other hand, his trial is viewed as just another case of the United States imposing its will on Iraq ... then the devil will be loose in the desert again.
There is a great deal riding on how Saddam's trial is conducted ... the assigned judges have a thankless job in front of them and Saddam is definitely not making their job any easier.
That may be partially true ... but ... it depende on how the Hussein's trial is viewed by his own people.C/2Lt Henderson said:
IF the trial is viewed as a 'just' trial, then his execution will have very limited consequences. IF, on the other hand, his trial is viewed as just another case of the United States imposing its will on Iraq ... then the devil will be loose in the desert again.
There is a great deal riding on how Saddam's trial is conducted ... the assigned judges have a thankless job in front of them and Saddam is definitely not making their job any easier.
Rob Henderson
Banned
True, but most of the people know that Saddam had nothing to do with the original reason we went over there. We just happened to be over there and GW said that while he was there, he might as well finish his daddy's job...He probably figured he was killing two birds with one stone..I agree it does depend on the trial views but like I said, the majority of the Iraqi people know that the original reason was to find Osama Bin Ladin; not to attack Hussein.I hate to admit it but we did kindof impose our own will on Iraq...Its just a matter of wether or not the people view it that way...and if they do, how many of them will go to Al Queda for revenge?
Rob Henderson
Banned
Not just Muslims over there though...even if the majority are..
PJ24
Active member
C/2Lt Henderson said:
The point I'm trying to make is that outside of his supporters within Iraq, he wasn't really any type of figure head for Moslems, he was pretty anti-religion. There wouldn't be any terrorist rallying for him, but you might see the insurgency pick up a little.
Marinerhodes
Active member
PJ24 said:
I dunno PJ. It seems to me that many of the radicals are using any excuse they can to promote violence. If they can say that Saddam was secretly a devout closet Muslim and had to do what he did in the name of politics etc then they can probably make a case for martyrdom. Hard to say. A charismatic and intelligent person would be able to turn this to their advantage. Unfortunately OBL or his cronies may be just those type of people.
Airborne Eagle
Active member
What?C/2Lt Henderson said:
Are you talking about why we went into Iraq?
Here's the Iraq Resolution authorizing military force:
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686
It lists several reasons why we decided that force had become neccessary. Among them were the WMD programs and stockpiles, the human rights abuses, and his ties to terrorist organizations.
Given that the official policy toward Iraq, under Clinton, was changed to "regime change" in 1998 (http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm) and given the government structure in Iraq (totalitarian dictatorship), toppling the regime and breaking Saddam were one in the same.
I don't think that was their view.C/2Lt Henderson said:
The US shifted its strategy in Iraq about a year or so ago when the elections started in January 2005. The emphasis went from trying to break the Sunni (i.e. Saddam loyalist) insurgency by dividing and co-opting. That is, they started to peel of various factions and cut deals with them to bring them into the electoral process and to cut the ties that drew various anti-Coalition factions together.C/2Lt Henderson said:
This has left the non-Iraqi terrorists (i.e. the al Qaeda elements)increasingly isolated. As a result, we've seen a gradual, but very noticeable, shift in targets. Last year, the US and our allies were heavily targetted. Now, the targets are police stations, recruiting centers, civilian institutions. That is, the non-Iraqi terrorists and the Baathist holdouts have come to see the Iraqi people in the predominantly Sunni provinces as the bigger threat.
The Saddam trial will not rally the people for a number of reasons. First, its being done by an Iraqi court and done after the Iraqi people have legitimized a government via voting. Next, Saddam was popular with his tribe and a select group of Sunnis in Iraq. He was despised by over 70% of the population (Kurds, Shiites). Those that rallied to Saddam's defense did so already. His departure will only reduce the numbers as their hope dwindles and the country moves forward without them. Remember, the Iraqi people fighting the US and our allies used to be in power and desire to be in power again. When they see seats being filled and they can't stop the process, they will feel the pressure to join the process of be permanently left behind/outside.
Finally, when he's put to death, it will be after the Iraqi people have read off his long, long, long list of abuses against the Iraqi and coincidentily Muslim people. They may have admired him for standing up against the US, but there was no admiration for his brutality against fellow Muslims, except by extremists (and they're already enraged by the US).