2,500
2,500 more reasons to agree with Kelsey’s piece earlier and push for safer, better energy alternatives to Oil. If we don’t need it, we won’t kill and send people to die for it.
Horrific. From the AP wire:
”It’s a number,” White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters at the White House.”Any president who goes through a time of war feels very deeply the responsibility for sending men and women into harm’s way, feels very deeply the pain that the families feel. This president is no different,” he said.
It may just be a number to Tony Snow, but this illegal and immoral war the American people were lied into which was supposed to have extremely low casualties and low cost to me, my kids and my grandkids (ie American taxpayers) has now hit 2500. Why2K, a poem I wrote when we crossed 2,000, seems sadly irrelevant.
I know this number doesn’t include the numbers the Pentagon doesn’t care about, including how many Iraqis have been killed, or tortured, how many servicewomen and men from other countries have died, and how many tens of thousands of young Americans have been severely damaged, physically and mentally, for the rest of their lives. They go off to war soldiers, the Right’s best public opinion stirrers, best PR props, and come back veterans, where their benefits and health benefits get cut repeatedly after serving this country. “They fight them over there” so we don’t have to pay their health benefits over here. It’s absolutely disgusting.
It’s very similar to some people’s pro-life stance, really. When its a fetus, abortion is murder, but once that baby is born, cut public school funding, affordable housing, welfare, and foodstamps, take the opportunities away. When a young person is a soldier, calling for an end to the war is an insult to their bravery; when the person returns a veteran, we insult them by cutting health funding and benefits.
Once they’ve served their pr purpose, they are no longer useful and are ignored.
You want to show how much you care about the troops? Demand veteran benefits, health benefits and death benefits be returned to decent levels. Make sure they get the proper equipment and meals in the field. Because the soldier you wave a flag for today is the veteran you will ignore when they ask for help tomorrow. And most of all, bring them all home. Now.
“I know this number doesn’t include the numbers the Pentagon doesn’t care about, including how many Iraqis have been killed, or tortured, how many servicewomen and men from other countries have died, and how many tens of thousands of young Americans have been severely damaged, physically and mentally, for the rest of their lives.”
The Pentagon just called. They said that Ruby K doesn’t care about the number of Iraqis killed and tortured under Saddam, but that they’d be happy to make him care by demonstrating how Saddam did business. I think they mentioned plastic shredders and rape squads. Sounded unpleasant, so I told them that I would try to get Ruby to stop demonizing the people he disagrees with. I think they’ll take the deal. They were also very, very touched at the tender concern for American soldiers, which they pointed out has been a hallmark of “Progressives” since the Vietnam War.
Also, Ruby K doesn’t care about all the Americans whom Saddam killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11!
Nor does he care about Saddam’s stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
Shame on you, Ruby! Shame!
Illegal and immoral- better rethink that one.
hey ruby, cheer up, the war has its benefits:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150355504174&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
According to Mekel, Israel’s image in the American press had been positive lately, with much of the American public focused on the war in Iraq.
“When people used to say ‘Middle East conflict,’ you immediately thought of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Now they think of Iraq,” he said. “Israel is on the back burner, and this is a good thing.”
Nor does Ruby recognize how hard the US worked to keep Saddam from gassing the Kurds, and to block all weapons sales. Back in the 80’s, when human rights groups were all clamoring to arm Saddam’s regime, it was lone voices of morality like Don Rumsfeld who warned us what a dangerous man he ws. So how dare Ruby question the current Pentagon leader’s morals??
BZ and the Donkey choose to change the subject. Smart move, if you have no answers.
Mister Goat forgets the all-important context. Iraq in the 80’s? Hmm. Was Iraq at war at the time? With which country? Come on, you can figure it out. Even if you don’t agree with the policy, it’s nothing like the way you present it.
What, J, you think that I was keeping it a secret? iraq was at war with Iran. Everyone knows that–I hardly think that I “forgot the all-important context.”
But yes, in case anyone who didn’t know that was reading this, there is it. Context. In what way does that context absolve us of national responsibility for building up a major WMD program for a military dictator who then–unsurprisingly–used those weapons on Kurdish villages?
The “horrific number” is taken completely out of context – in fact the level of American casualties is unprecedently low considering the scope of the operation. Much higher figures by those who planned this mission. To subdue a country of this size, and fend off guerrilla warfare, usually takes much more time and entails far more casualties.
Same thing with Afghanistan – unprecendently low figures compared with WWII and Vietnam.
We lost 58,000 troops over 7 years in Vietnam – that’s 8,000 killed per year.
We’ve been in Iraq for around 4 years and have only 2,500 casualties.
(insert smarmy/self-righteous remark here about how “it doesn’t matter to the grieving parents” – sorry, bleeding hearts, we are talking about a volunteer army, and a nation at war. Deaths are unfortunate by unavoidable and expected – and if you really care about those bereaved parents, why not avoid using their children’s deaths to further your OWN political agendas, hrrrmm?)
The Left and the media are desperately trying to portray Iraq as another Vietnam/quagmire/failure/ when in fact it is a comparative success.
“a comparative success”. When a war has no objective in the first place, anything is a comparative success.
The easiest and most immediate alternative to oil? Leave your car in the driveway. Or better yet, sell your car, move into the city, live in an apartment (you’ll use less heating oil and electricity), and take the bus (or walk or bike) to work. Yeah, you’ll have to send your kids to school with the black kids, but if enough suburban families did it, the schools would be better, and it would benefit everybody.
When I changed jobs to a new one where I could use transit for commuting, my gasoline use dropped by 1/3. And that was keeoing the same old 1990 model SUV I had at the time.
Who, exactly, did Sadam kill on 9/11? Wasn’t that Osama? I mean, I know all arabs look alike… but damn, people!
I’m strongly against this war, but bringing everyone home now won’t solve much. We need to leave a little more gracefully than that.
And to J & company – do you display such strength of conviction against dictators who have no oil? Against murders with whom we are not at war? How do you feel about, say, Darfur?
Does anyone else find fault with the logic: Sadam is a terrible person and a murder; thus, we are justified in waging war against him and his country. Even if many innocent people will die, it’s okay because many innocent people died under Sadam’s regime.
http://www.toughjews.blogspot.com/
check it out !
Wow, check a friend into a hosptial, see a concert, come back, and look at all the commentary! Where to start?
Hi J,
You said:
The Pentagon just called. They said that Ruby K doesn’t care about the number of Iraqis killed and tortured under Saddam, but that they’d be happy to make him care by demonstrating how Saddam did business. I think they mentioned plastic shredders and rape squads. Sounded unpleasant, so I told them that I would try to get Ruby to stop demonizing the people he disagrees with. I think they’ll take the deal. They were also very, very touched at the tender concern for American soldiers, which they pointed out has been a hallmark of “Progressives†since the Vietnam War.
J,
Unfortunately, the Pentagon doesn’t need to demonstrate for me to get how torture works, the mercenaries they’ve contracted out to have been doing plenty of thaton their own. And come to think of it, so have the despicable deportations and renderings that have been going on. And really, I can just go to some of the force feeding and interrogation methods used in Guantanamo to get a clear picture, thanks.
J, it’s hard not to demonize these folks when they do it themselves. Shit, I just have to quote them and show the facts: We leave our soldiers’ identities lying around in someone’s house to be stolen and used for fraud, cut their benefits, underfund public education, pass regressive bankruptcy legislation (who do you think is being hardest by being away at war?), and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
I’m glad the Pentagon was touched by my concern for the working class and poor people that had to sign up for the armed forces in the hopes that it would help them earn a decent living. Next time you talk to them, ask them if they got the scrap metal I sent them so they can actually put body armor on people instead of overpaying contractors to serve our troops rotten food.
Hi Ben-David,
You said: The “horrific number†is taken completely out of context – in fact the level of American casualties is unprecedently low considering the scope of the operation. Much higher figures by those who planned this mission. To subdue a country of this size, and fend off guerrilla warfare, usually takes much more time and entails far more casualties.
I say: I’m sorry, I have to disagree with you there. The drumbeat to this war was sold as minimal casualties, in the hundreds if that, we’d be greeted as liberators and rainbows would shine the light of democracy into Iraq. Now, if the planners had actually been realistic about what this war was and what it needed, maybe they would’ve predicted higher numbers
And that’s my biggest problem with these lying criminals. They lied about everything, and were able to sell us this war on the basis of those lies. They told us
1) Saddam had weapons of mass destruction
2) Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda
3) This war would be quick
4) This war would involve minimal US and Iraqi civilian casualties.
5) This war would be relatively inexpensive and reconstruction would be financed by Iraqi oil.
All of these statements turned out to be complete lies. No WMDs, no ties to Al Qaeda, we’re there three years with no signs of leaving, and it’s going to cost us as much as one trillion dollars. Let’s put that in perspective, shall we?
Here’s what 1.5 billion dollars, the cuts to No Child Left Behind for last year and this year’s proposed budget alone, look like:
1,500,000,000
Here’s what 1 trillion dollars looks like:
1,000,000,000,000
And Ben-David, we’re going to be paying that back for the rest of our lives. And who’s that burden going to fall on harder than most? That’s right, the working poor of this country, who, surprise surprise, happen to make up a large percentage of our army.
You said: Same thing with Afghanistan – unprecendently low figures compared with WWII and Vietnam.
We lost 58,000 troops over 7 years in Vietnam – that’s 8,000 killed per year.
We’ve been in Iraq for around 4 years and have only 2,500 casualties.
I say: Please, don’t get me started about Afghanistan, which is currently having its highest level of suicide bombings and outbreaks of violence since 2003. Osama was there, we waited two months to go and sent a force smaller than the size of the NYPD. To compare these wars in terms of casualties to WWII and Vietnam seems completely disengenous to me. Isn’t the rhetoric of the right this is “the war on terror”? That we’re not fighting large standing armies in giant battlefields? So how can we compare the two?
And since you accussed me of being smarmy and self righteous, let me let you add sarcastic to that. We’ve racked up an awful lot of casualties since “major combat operations have ended” haven’t we? I mean, if you listen to Bush, we haven’t been at war with Iraq for 3 years now.
(insert smarmy/self-righteous remark here about how “it doesn’t matter to the grieving parents†– sorry, bleeding hearts, we are talking about a volunteer army, and a nation at war. Deaths are unfortunate by unavoidable and expected – and if you really care about those bereaved parents, why not avoid using their children’s deaths to further your OWN political agendas, hrrrmm?)
First: We’re talking about a volunteer army in a society that has a massive divide between the haves and the have nots, where the have nots don’t have a lot of options in terms of how they’re going to pay for college or what work they’ll be able to get and so they sign up. This is why recruiting officers hit up lots of public schools in poor areas.
Second: see above for sarcastic remark about us no longer being at war. But seriously, these deaths can be avoided; if we didn’t go to war in the first place, these women and men would not be dead. I refuse to accept the logic of, “Oh well, now we’re at war, guess i should just be quiet and wave a flag” because it’s gone from an illegal and immoral war to an illegal and immoral war that is bleeding a whole generation of Americans. If anything, I think we need to be louder now, as more of our kids come home in zipper bags and have funerals that Bush won’t attend or allow shown on TV.
As for my political agenda with regard to the war, I’m not using anyone for anything. I’d rather those young women and men have their courage, conviction, and/or financial situations be taken advantage of and sent to their deaths needlessly. I’d rather we take a trillion dollars and invest it in education (public and higher), health care, public transportation, more affordable housing, in short, all the things many of these young women and men need and are among the reasons they joined up.
Lastly, you say: The Left and the media are desperately trying to portray Iraq as another Vietnam/quagmire/failure/ when in fact it is a comparative success.
Let’s get one thing straight, Ben-David. The media wanted this war. They gushed about how strong the President was, they were embedded and excited about it. They wanted Saddam, they pushed forward this war, they silenced critics and ignored the millions that protested to try to stop it. Now, when they see what this war has done, they don’t have a lot of choice but to report what’s going on. It’s hard to put a happy spin on Iraqi civilians being murdered, our soldiers dying, and violence, which was supposed to be minimal, boiling over for three yars. If this is your idea of relative success, I would hate to see your idea of failure.
DT wrote:
Who, exactly, did Sadam kill on 9/11? Wasn’t that Osama? I mean, I know all arabs look alike… but damn, people!
DAMN! Thanks for clearing that up.
Briefly:
Mister Goat: Policies involving arming and aiding one’s enemies’ enemy, even if that entity is slimy, have been around for thousands of years. It’s nice that you are such a moral purist, but consider what the effect on the more moral countries could be if that option is closed off. Also remember that much of the good we have today results from centuries’ worth of our ancestors and predecessors pursuing such policies. And, yes, it would have been proper for you to have acknowledged that the aid to Iraq had to do with Iran.
DT: Your comment touches on a subject in itself. But try this concept: Imagine a chart with four possibilities concerning whether to intervene militarily- (1) in our interest and moral; (2) in our interest but immoral; (3) not in our interest but moral; and (4) not in our interest and immoral. I would say that there’s no contradiction in choosing to intervene in cases of category (1), while not doing so re category (3). (Obviously we would not intervene in cases of categories (2) and (4).) (And note that category (2) does not include cases of self-defense, which would turn it into a category (1).)
Ruby: You somehow manage to evade my points. Guess you have no answer. No surprise.
“J, it’s hard not to demonize these folks when they do it themselves. Shit, I just have to quote them and show the facts:
We leave our soldiers’ identities lying around in someone’s house to be stolen and used for fraud”
“We”? What’s the magnitude of this? How many people were harmed? Was it deliberate or just a screw-up? Why do you have no sense of proportion??
” cut their benefits,”
Is that the Pentagon, or Congress?
” underfund public education, pass regressive bankruptcy legislation (who do you think is being hardest by being away at war?)”
Definitely not the Pentagon. Instead of addressing the issues, you simply spew every grievance that’s on your mind. Try to focus. I brought up the state of Iraq and Iraqis under Saddam. Do you honestly think Iraqis (as a whole) are worse off because of our intervention? If not, how would the war be immoral?
J,
Unless you have a very different definition of “avoid” in mind, I don’t see what you’re saying about avoiding your point, so i will continue to rebut.
The Pentagon certainly didn’t care about the Iraqis that were killed under Saddam, and why should they? After all, he was using US weaponry to attack those folks. To suggest that I view Iraqi lives ended by Saddam or by this war better/worse than each other is foolish. Why did we prop up Saddam in the first place? He’s a strongman that would do our bidding, until he wouldn’t anymore, like many strongmen the US support(s/ed) (and I will provide a list if you would like one, but I don’t want you to think I’m avoiding your point, and shabbas is approaching).
And speaking of points, you didn’t seem to address any of mine:
1) the US gov’ts own torture methods in Iraq, Gitmo, and flying prisoners to be rendered elsewhere
2) how the money being wasted on this war could be much better spent supporting the people of this country, particularly those who feel they must join the armed forces because they fear not having other opportunities for self improvement.
3) how US troops are not being equipt properly or being taking care of properly.
Now, it’s true, as you point out, that the Pentagon and Congress are two distinct gov’t entities. And Tony Snow (Press Secretary for the President) is also a separate entity. A quote from him was the one that started this piece, by the way. I only mentioned the Pentagon as one example of the thoughtlessness involved in this war, but you’re right, J, there are other structures of government that must shoulder huge amounts of responsibility.
I do blame Congress. And it is their fault, in part, that the war has gone on that long. Since you seem concerned with my pointing out governmental quirks, I will say that the President, as commander in chief, has 90 days under the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, if they were put a limit on the powers extended to him when the war was first started (albeit undeclared). Now, if you would allow that the government of the united states has limited financial resources, certainly a project costing ONE TRILLION DOLLARS has some impact on funding for other programs, right? So when talking about programs that aren’t funded, it’s not a question of “simply spew every grievance that’s on your mind,” but addressing the poor priorities and poor choices of this government.
I do admit, my use of “they” was broad when talking about demonization, but in fairness, you did say “the people I disagree with” which includes, but is not limited to the President, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Justice Department, the Supreme Court, the CIA, the NSA, and scores of others. So “they” is a pretty big group. And with many of those people, they really do demonize themselves because they take morally reprehensible positions (and this goes back to the funding priorites and policy positions).
You said: “We� What’s the magnitude of this? How many people were harmed? Was it deliberate or just a screw-up? Why do you have no sense of proportion??
Hmm, about 26 million veterans had their identities stolen, does that reach your sense of magnitude and proportion?
http://www.systemsmanagementpipeline.com/news/188101564
http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_financial_services/003476.html
And was it deliberate or a screwup? Well, they deliberately had the data in devices that could be taken out of the office. And someone deliberately stolen. It’s an example of the careless attitude that is pervasive in the Bush administration.
Do I think Iraqis are better off right now? I don’t know, honestly. I don’t want to say no, they’re not better just because I’m opposed to the war, and I don’t want to say yes just because I’m glad to know Saddam is out of there. I think right now, they’re in a war ravaged country with hundreds of people dying weekly.
Rubyleh – you got me with the comment about how the media really wanted this war.
Thanks very much – I haven’t laughed so hard in ages!
But it’s obvious to most of us that the press – like many Democrats in Congress who should know better – are trying to relive their own glory days of Vietnam, and are desperately trying to make our struggle with global Islamic terror fit that outdated template.
The fact that you claim this – while simultaneously recited a catechism of trumped up “lies” about the war that the media itself has rehearsed in your brain – well, that just indicates that further rational dicussion would be pointless at this juncture…
But thanks for giving me a great LOL!
“sorry, bleeding hearts, we are talking about a volunteer army and a nation at war”
Wow. I guess if people volunteer to serve their country, screw them. I thought that the government, and those who remain in civilian life, owe it to the people who put their lives on the line a solemn vow that we will not send them into battle unless it is absolutely necessary. Not for lies (already listed in prior posts), not for lining the pockets of war profiteers (Halliburton, etc.).
Not to mention, as others have said, people are “volunteering” because our economy provides fewer and fewer opportunities for the poor and working class. In past generations, even the children of the privileged served in the military. The first President Bush was a combat pilot in World War II and his son sleazed his way through the Vietnam War (which he supported) by token participation in the National Guard. Dick Cheney said that he had other priorities than serving in the military during Vietnam. But he, too, was in favor of that war. Now Bush II and Cheney send other people’s kids to fight a war for them. Those fools who volunteered! Why aren’t they sitting at home collecting their tax cuts? Oops, I forgot. Tax cuts are for the rich. Military service is for the poor.
I apologize for my sharp tone, but I just read another local news story about an American soldier’s death. My bleeding heart hurts, even though he was a volunteer. My Jewish guilt tells me that those of us against this war should be trying harder to end it. Any ideas, Yiddn?
“sorry, bleeding hearts, we are talking about a volunteer army and a nation at war”
Wow. I guess if people volunteer to serve their country, screw them. I thought that the government, and those who remain in civilian life, owe it to the people who put their lives on the line a solemn vow that we will not send them into battle unless it is absolutely necessary. Not for lies (already listed in prior posts), not for lining the pockets of war profiteers (Halliburton, etc.).
Not to mention, as others have said, people are “volunteering” because our economy provides fewer and fewer opportunities for the poor and working class. In past generations, even the children of the privileged served in the military. The first President Bush was a combat pilot in World War II and his son sleazed his way through the Vietnam War (which he supported) by token participation in the National Guard. Dick Cheney said that he had other priorities than serving in the military during Vietnam. But he, too, was in favor of that war. Now Bush II and Cheney send other people’s kids to fight a war for them. Those fools who volunteered! Why aren’t they sitting at home collecting their tax cuts? Oops, I forgot. Tax cuts are for the rich. Military service is for the poor.
I apologize for my sharp tone, but I just read another local news story about an American soldier’s death. My bleeding heart hurts, even though he was a volunteer. My Jewish guilt tells me that those of us against this war should be trying harder to end it. Any ideas, Yiddn?
Hi Ben-David,
You said:
Rubyleh – you got me with the comment about how the media really wanted this war.
Thanks very much – I haven’t laughed so hard in ages!
But it’s obvious to most of us that the press – like many Democrats in Congress who should know better – are trying to relive their own glory days of Vietnam, and are desperately trying to make our struggle with global Islamic terror fit that outdated template.
I say: I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here: is the press reliving its glory days by not holding the president’s feet to the fire, not questioning any of our reasons for going to war, or being injured or killed in numbers unseen by previous wars?
You say:
The fact that you claim this – while simultaneously recited a catechism of trumped up “lies†about the war that the media itself has rehearsed in your brain – well, that just indicates that further rational dicussion would be pointless at this juncture…
I say:
If I’m using a list of “trumped up ‘lies'” by all means, please let me know what they are? Did we find WMDs there? Were there ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda that were revealed while I was away from my computer? Is this war suddenly not costing us hundreds of billions of dollas on the way to a trillion? Have US soldiers sprung back to life to reduce our casualty number?
Feel free to point out the trumped up points I make. Otherwise, feel free to withdraw yourself from rational discussion. You may be laughing at this Iraq debacle, but I’m not.
Ruby:
Responding to your post (#18):
“Do I think Iraqis are better off right now? I don’t know, honestly. I don’t want to say no, they’re not better just because I’m opposed to the war, and I don’t want to say yes just because I’m glad to know Saddam is out of there. I think right now, they’re in a war ravaged country with hundreds of people dying weekly.”
You don’t know, honestly? Honestly? Unfortunate choice of words. Maybe you should do a little research. Find the estimates of the number of those murdered by Saddam. Then find estimates of those killed in the last 3 years. Then compare (on an annual basis or any other reasonable method). It’s not so hard. Am I supposed to believe that this never occurred to you? That you aren’t capable of this simple excercise? No, I think your’e just trying to weasel out of acknowledging the very central and obvious point that makes your position untenable. The bottom line is that when a mass-murdering tyrant was deposed, something one would think would be particularly appealing to Jews, as the fullfilment of the dreams of the Prophets, you were against it.
Now the rest:
“The Pentagon certainly didn’t care about the Iraqis that were killed under Saddam, and why should they? After all, he was using US weaponry to attack those folks.”
Context, please? Iran? Bueller?
” To suggest that I view Iraqi lives ended by Saddam or by this war better/worse than each other is foolish.”
Yes, unless you consider the disparity in numbers. Or do you call a car crash that kills three another Holocaust?
” Why did we prop up Saddam in the first place? He’s a strongman that would do our bidding, until he wouldn’t anymore, like many strongmen the US support(s/ed) (and I will provide a list if you would like one, but I don’t want you to think I’m avoiding your point, and shabbas is approaching).”
He was hitting Iran. Surely you can see the vaue in using proxies to wage war. Foe one thing, it saves the lives of US soldiers, which as we know are of paramount importance to you.
“And speaking of points, you didn’t seem to address any of mine:”
Yes, the first questioner should be answered first, not spammed with off-topic points. But here goes:
“1) the US gov’ts own torture methods in Iraq, Gitmo, and flying prisoners to be rendered elsewhere”
You assume this is a problem. Why? If a non-citizen (thus not constitutionally protected) engages in terror (thus not protected under the Geneva conventions) and has valuable information (and thus the torture isn’t for sadism’s sake), why NOT torture?
“2) how the money being wasted on this war could be much better spent supporting the people of this country, particularly those who feel they must join the armed forces because they fear not having other opportunities for self improvement.”
The second part of that is propaganda. The economy is doing very well, thank you. Did you ever consider that people might have many opportunities but feel that th emilitary offers the best? That all or part of the motivation might be to serve their country?
As for the first part, we’ll see if the expenditures were worth it. The war is part of a long-term effort, and that term is not yet up.
“3) how US troops are not being equipt properly or being taking care of properly.”
There’s some truth to that, but study any other war in the history of the world and tell me when you don’t find the same thing. People screw up, governments screw up, militaries screw up. It’s how the world works. You must be the guy who goes to a baseball game and boos the .333 hitter because he fails 2/3 of the time.
“And with many of those people, they really do demonize themselves because they take morally reprehensible positions (and this goes back to the funding priorites and policy positions).”
And which positions are those?
More generally, you can’t necessarily blame one person or one part of government for the overall inconsistent polices. Unlike in a dictatorship, many cooks prepare the dish. That’s democracy.
As for the “stolen identities”, I looked at your links. There’s a reason this story isn’t big. It’s a fairly routine government screw-up that happens under every Administration. If you are too young to remember any previous Administrations, we might give you a pass on this. Otherwise, you’ll look pretty foolish making an issue of this.
“It’s an example of the careless attitude that is pervasive in the Bush administration.”
Oh, really? Then how did the Administration prevent terror attacks for the last 4 years and 9 months, and counting?
Oh, really? Then how did the Administration prevent terror attacks for the last 4 years and 9 months, and counting?
“What’s that powder?”
“It’s tiger powder, to keep tigers away.”
“But there aren’t any tigers within hundreds of miles from here!”
“See how effective it is?”
J bleats: “You assume this is a problem. Why? If a non-citizen (thus not constitutionally protected) engages in terror (thus not protected under the Geneva conventions) and has valuable information (and thus the torture isn’t for sadism’s sake), why NOT torture?”
Come on, J. You consistently accuse others of “sleaze” and of being “frauds,” and yet you can write a sentence like that and sleep at night? How much Ambien are you taking? If anybody else used logic like yours, you’d insist they were engaging in deliberate, pernicious, evil-lefty obfuscation.
Let’s clear this up quickly: The people the US has tortured and/or has asked others to torture in the past five years includes people who have not engaged in terror and/or might not have any valuable information. Since they are given zero access to the American system of due process, there’s no way to sift the innocent people from genuine terrorists. Such police tactics are common in the tyrranies we all despise, but for the US government to be engaging in them is unconscionable. Besides, as you certainly must know, torture does not work as a method of obtaining factual information. It’s great for obtaining falsehoods that justify preconceived hypotheses though, which must be why you seem to be such a vociferous advocate of it.
There’s your cue to call me sleazy, fraudulent, etc. Go, my man! The clock is ticking!
J,
Leaving aside claims of success in Iraq itself, which quite frankly, I fear are at best, temporary, as we are going to have to leave sometime, I feel this war has kept us from being able to protect ourselves elsewhere. I am fearful of how this has weakened our position with regards to Iran, who I suspect may be the biggest victor of this war at the end of the day.
Additionally, I think we could have really rebuilt Afghanistan properly, and been loved for doing so. Now we are simply too stretched, and also do not have the same support there we would have if we had not acted unilaterally in Iraq.
Also, you are underestimating the toll this is taking on our economy. The Fed is reacting to very real fears of inflation, which always surfaces when in war where the nation is attempting to produce both “guns and butter,” and assumes too much debt. And we are taking on way, way too much debt.
You wrote,
“People screw up, governments screw up, militaries screw up. It’s how the world works.”
J,
Yes, everyone makes mistakes, but this administration took years to figure out that teaching officers Arabic might be helpful. This is not an understandable mistake. I think any of us in this conversation would have figured that one out earlier. This is emblematic of an administration that seemed unable to understand where they are fighting for too long. It just isn’t a normal screw up.
EV:
1. I don’t bleat.
2. I usually don’t accuse people of being frauds or sleazy because I give them the benefit of the doubt. I have accused you of this several times for the valid reasons that accompanied my accusations.
3. “The people the US has tortured and/or has asked others to torture in the past five years includes people who have not engaged in terror and/or might not have any valuable information. ”
Yes, and some of the people in prison may be innocent. That doesn’t mean we shut down the prisons.
“Since they are given zero access to the American system of due process, there’s no way to sift the innocent people from genuine terrorists.”
Sadly, in the context of a war, we can’t have a full trial for each prisoner. It’s always been this way (including during the Civil War, when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus). You are inventing absurdly unrealistic new standards which surely make you feel good about yourself but just as surely can’t be implemented.
” Besides, as you certainly must know, torture does not work as a method of obtaining factual information.”
Source, please? And how come governments (i.e., the entities with actual experience of torturing) don’t seem to agree? See also the Atlantic Monthly cover story a couple years ago which discusses this issue.
DK-
Re success in Iraq, it’s certainly arguable as to what will happen long-term. But if things are better than they were under Saddam (both concerning Iraqi and US interests), I would call the war a success.
I very much share your concern over Iran, but I think the notion that Iraq has consumed too high a percentage of our military resources for us to fight Iran is erroneous (check the troop numbers in Iraq vs. overall numbers). Also, consider the advantages of being stationed in Iraq if an attack on Iran should become necessary.
Re Afghanistan, maybe I’m a bit cynical about being loved. I also doubt that we’d have spent so much more there absent the Iraq war.
Re the economy, I’m well aware of the negative effects. It comes down to a judgment call as to whether the costs were worthwhile.
Re screwing up, I have no problem with your example. I’m sure we could find several more in that category. But even screw-ups of the more egregious kind, such as in your example, happen in all wars and such errors are made by every Administration. As you say, each of us here would (or did) figure it out earlier. But there’s a long road between figuring something out and implementing it. And there’s usually no particular person in an Administration or the military whose specific job it is to implement X program (until it’s assigned). So many worthwhile projects fall through the cracks. This doesn’t excuse the Administration (or the several before it, which could have implemented more comprehensive instruction in those foreign languages likely to be necessary). I’m saying that such mistakes should be seen as errors in baseball are – inexcusable when considered by themselves, but inevitable (if few) across the course of a season. Administrations should be judged in comparison to other Administrations, not on an impossible standard that demands no mistakes.
J gasps: “Source, please?”
Okay, here’s a quickie:
Most authorities on interrogation, in and out of government, agree that torture and lesser forms of physical coercion succeed in producing confessions. The problem is that these confessions aren’t necessarily true. Three of the Guantánamo detainees released by the U.S. to Great Britain last year, for example, had confessed that they had appeared in a blurry video, obtained by American investigators, that documented a group of acolytes meeting with bin Laden in Afghanistan. As reported in the London Observer, British intelligence officials arrived at Guantánamo with evidence that the accused men had been living in England at the time the video was made. The detainees told British authorities that they had been coerced into making false confessions.
As for why governments “don’t seem to agree,” torture is considered expedient by those under desperate pressure, regardless of its efficacy. As for Bush himself, I don’t think it’s desperate pressure so much as stunted adolescence, mixed with an endemic strain of electric-chair sadism, that compels him to instruct people to torture even as he publicly lies about how the US “does not torture.”
As a point of clarification: You have called me sleazy after I’ve ripped apart your arguments with such awe-inspiring intensity, it was as if you were being tortured. I can understand why this would motivate you to start in with ad hominem epithets. As we know, victims of torture will say anything.
EV mewls about a New Yorker article on torture. But even if the New Yorker had the final word on this or any other subject, it seems EV didn’t bother to read the article. The article quotes some authorities regarding confessions under torture. Not about obtaining factual information, which is the topic of discussion here. And the difference is significant.
And sorry, EV, your’e just not in the league of torturers. A nuisance at best.
J,
This is a common line of attack from you — when you aren’t wheezing about how your opponents are guilty of sleaze, fraud, or treason — the cant about “not reading the article.” You do that All. The. Time. But I’m not letting you go. You’re in my tentacles, young J, and I have you right where I want you. So here it is: Did you read the article? Because if you had, surely you would have seen this:
Years of experience in interrogation have led them to doubt the effectiveness of physical coercion as a means of extracting reliable information.
That’s information, not confession, young J. You read the article, right? I’m guessing you read it yourself, but if not, just click the link, hit ctrl-F, and type in “information.” Look at all the goodies that come up!
Then come back to me and apologize, and I’ll give you your toys back.
Um, no, EV. I haven’t accused anyone of treason. You just made that up. And of the many people here I take issue with, you are one of the few that I call sleazy. That’s because most of the others at least try to argue in good faith.
As for the “information” line, I did indeed see it. But it’s a long article, and most of the negative attitude was toward confessions. As well, there was this:
“Administration officials declined to discuss the rendition program. But Rohan Gunaratna, a Sri Lankan expert on terrorist interrogations who has consulted with several intelligence agencies, argued that rough tactics “can save hundreds of lives.†He said, “When you capture a terrorist, he may know when the next operation will be staged, so it may be necessary to put a detainee under physical or psychological pressure. I disagree with physical torture, but sometimes the threat of it must be used.
Hardly what you promised, which was , and I quote: “Besides, as you certainly must know, torture does not work as a method of obtaining factual information. It’s great for obtaining falsehoods that justify preconceived hypotheses though”
Your own article has mixed feelings about this. (And, if there were biases, which biases would the New Yorker have…?) Clearly, the matter isn’t settled. See, as I said, the Atlantic Monthly article (which included a senior Israeli interrogator) regarding the current state of thought on the matter.
I disagree with physical torture, but sometimes the threat of it must be used.
That doesn’t sound like a very firm case for torture to me, J. I’d pick your quotes more carefully.