Yup, this is strength and dignity all right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Abu_Ghraib_53.jpg

By Shaun Rotman on Apr 8, 2007

There’s also the fact that Saddam was feeding people into plastic shredders feet first before we got there. Making people pose naked for pictures is wrong, but people who can’t see the difference between the two are either being willfully obtuse or are just too goddamn stupid to bother having a conversation with.

By jvon on Apr 8, 2007

“the point is the US Armed Services has protected this country…”

I don’t think this applies to Iraq. The US invaded Iraq. It has nothing to do with protection. At other times yes, I don’t think so in this case.

But I agree with your sentiments though. These guys go through things which we can only imagine (and at times not even that). They are often put in to situations because of useless leaders which have their own interests at heart and not those of the soilders.

Trump nails exactly what the rest of the world thinks and I’m sure even some in the US think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a30rJQbDDno

By Diego on Apr 8, 2007

I agree with you Loren.

By Diego on Apr 8, 2007

The US invaded Iraq, as you say, in 1991 at the direction of the United Nations. This was to repel an invasion (at the direction of Saddam) of Kuwait.

From 1991 to 2003 we pursued a policy of containment towards Iraq. During this period Saddam continued to slaughter Iraqis, send $25k to every family of Palestinian suicide bombers, and offered a bounty of $1 million to anyone who managed to shoot down a US aircraft — which were there enforcing UN mandated no fly zones, intended to keep Saddam from engaging in genocide.

So yes, we invaded, like we have invaded many places before. I find it interesting that people have no problem with the invasion of, say, Germany, where we’ve had troops stationed since 1945. There are 70,000 troops there now. What is our timetable for withdrawal?

European opposition to this war is easy to understand; France and Germany were Saddam’s trade partners and we’ve cost them an enormous amount of money. US opposition of the war stems mostly from the intense dislike people have of George Bush. Much has been written about “Bush Derangement Syndrome” — google it.

But as much as the Dems would like it, the war in Iraq will NOT be over when 2008 rolls around, and it will become someone else’s problem. At that point, they will have to get realistic about dealing with the problem, or admit that their goal is for us to fail. (Which I believe it is — they just want it to happen on Bush’s watch.)

By jvon on Apr 8, 2007

“Should be ashamed of themselves”? What do you mean, “should”? They *are* ashamed.

To quote Leading Seaman Faye Turney - “When they wanted me to write what was written about the British and American troops I felt like a traitor to my own country.”

However, that doesn’t mean you comments aren’t out of line. In case you haven’t noticed, the the UK and the US are on the same side: their armed forces fighting for the same cause; giving up their lives and their good health for the same cause.

People should simply be thankful that those navy personnel made it home in one piece; not judging them.

By Simon Brocklehurst on Apr 9, 2007

I’m glad they made it home in one piece too. Instead of judging them I think the UK should be taking a good hard look at how their men (and women, I suppose) are trained to deal with being captured.

Of course, the Brits are out of practice with this. We are not:

http://www.usspueblo.org/v2f/captivity/goodluck.html

By jvon on Apr 9, 2007

I think that one of the saddest things about recent events is that it appears to have damaged the image of British armed forces in both the eyes the United States, and also in the eyes of unfriendly countries. There’s no doubt about it - this has made many people believe (mistakenly) that the British military is “soft”.

By Simon Brocklehurst on Apr 9, 2007

“At that point, they will have to get realistic about dealing with the problem, or admit that their goal is for us to fail.”

The problem Bush caused and lied to the UN to get their way and have a war. Oh come on. It’s already failed. The previous Iraq war failed. Vietnam failed. Give it up. As Trump clearly states, the whole world’s hatred for the US is building because of stupid actions such as these. Piss off Bush and get someone who’s not a warmongrer in the White House. Again, I have nothing against soldiers. It’s their useless leaders that cause the problems.

Useless leaders that hold people like David Hicks for years without trial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks

In Guantanamo the US does what it wants with people without answering to anyone. It’s like their own little playground where rules don’t apply.

So much for freedom, justice, blah blah blah.

By Diego on Apr 9, 2007

Again, I have nothing whatsoever but high praise for any solider. Just want to be clear. Now if you’re a Bush lover and disagree, then that’s different.

By Diego on Apr 9, 2007

Diego your attitude is exactly why people like bin Laden think they can push us around. You’re a defeatist. Nothing we do can go right, so we should just hunker down and let people kick us. They can’t really hurt us anyway, right?

Bush didn’t lie to the UN. Every credible intelligence report leading up to the war stated that Iraq had WMD. Bush’s mistake was believing these reports, along with every member of Congress who reviewed the same information he was given — and voted overwhelmingly to authorize the war.

Of course, now that the war has become unpopular, the people who were for it before they were against it would like you to forget about that, or for you to believe it was because Bush lied to them, but the fact is he’s the only one involved with the spine to keep doing what is right even though others are uncomfortable with it.

As for the Guantanamo Bay issue, the left is again dead wrong. The trouble isn’t that these people’s rights are being violated, but that we are assigning them a status (that of POWs) that they do not deserve. POWs are enemy soldiers captured in uniform.

This is probably the closest precedent to what we are dealing with now:

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq114-2.htm

They were tried by military tribunal and executed.

By jvon on Apr 9, 2007

Oh and Simon, I believe it did damage the perception of the British military, no doubt about it. I also believe that the British military is still quite capable of setting everyone straight, and I think it’s likely that the Iranians will give them that chance soon.

By jvon on Apr 9, 2007

jvon, to me bin Laden (in Afghanistan) and Iraq are two different things. Iraq is a separate issue and the two should not be lumped together. Afghanistan was a convenient stepping stone for Bush’s ulterior motives. Maybe wanting to capture Hessian, since his daddy failed. Bin Laden was kicking you around, not Iraq.

Is the “war on terror” is just a term of convenience to attack anyone the US wants? In fact wasn’t some declaration made by the US that it will attack anyone believed to have WMDs? Why then isn’t the US invading North Korea? I guess to have to pick your fights carefully. You can’t declare “war on terror”. Terror is not a country. Iraq didn’t even invade another country like they did during Bush senior’s administration. What is the US doing there?

“Every credible intelligence report leading up to the war stated that Iraq had WMD” Really? That’s what the US and British governments wanted people to believe. There were even doubts within various US intelligence agencies as to the accuracy of the reports. In fact the said documents were actually forgeries. This is what the whole invasion was based on. The warmongers by then were too worked up about the whole thing to put a stop to it. No WMDs were found. Surprise, surprise.

As for Guantanamo. I can only image the uproar coming from the US if the roles were reversed and these were US soldiers held captive for years without trial.

Going back to where it all began. The US still hasn’t found Bin Laden.

By Diego on Apr 9, 2007

George W. Bush has no honor and he is not worthy to kiss the sandy boots of our soldiers in Iraq.

By Vince Williams on Apr 9, 2007

Generalisations are unwise. Collectively, United States soldiers do not have any more strength and dignity than British soldiers.

By Dave on Apr 10, 2007

Re: the 1991 Iraq war

Why should American solders EVER be asked to die to put a king back on his throne?

US soldiers dying for a monarch, our founding fathers would be appalled

By Erik on Apr 10, 2007

It’s actually a good question whether we should be the enforcement arm of the UN at all, when it is so openly hostile to us. (We also pay a quarter of its operating budget).

Saddam had to be stopped though. His goal was a pan-Arab state that controlled the regional oil fields. We don’t steal people’s oil (which is too bad, gas prices suck), but it is certainly in our best interest to keep trade open and prevent a repeat of 1973.

I have to say though I am amazed at the sudden concern that leftists have for the well-being of our troops. It’s touching, it really is. Of course many of them are volunteering to return for second or third tours.

By jvon on Apr 10, 2007

I’d take a secular tyrant like Saddam over the theocrats that are running the rest of the region any day.

Pan-arabism has failed every time it’s been tried.

As for the west not stealing oil… Why do you think Kuwait exists? Why was it not rolled into Iraq when the Brits carved up the region? British Petroleum.

By Erik on Apr 10, 2007

I don’t think the guy’s religion or lack thereof would have mattered a whole lot when he was carving up your relatives. But maybe I’m wrong.

By jvon on Apr 10, 2007

Are you kidding?

Saddam carved people up because of their political opposition to his rule.

In Saudi you can get cut up for believing that only the heirs of the fourth caliph, Ali, are the legitimate successors of Mohammed.

Saddam was easy to understand and manage. He like money, booze, guns and porn. Make him rich and feeling powerful and he’s as happy as a pig in shit.

The theocrats running the rest of the region think they’re in charge because god said they should be. That makes them very hard to deal with.

By Erik on Apr 10, 2007

Where was the tender concern for truth, justice, and liberty when the U.S. was doing business with Saddam?

U.S. companies were among those who supplied him with the raw materials to manufacture chemical weapons.

In 1992 the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs issued reports that U.S. companies during the Reagan and Bush administrations sold Iraq anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever, and botulism.

The American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control sent biological samples to Iraq, which it claimed were needed for medical research, through 1989.

The U.S. exported to Iraq dual-use materials, approved by the Department of Commerce, including computers used in Iraq’s nuclear program.

The U.S. actively supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War– Donald Rumsfeld met cordially with Saddam Hussein to ensure that Iraq received enough weapons, ammunition, and vehicles to not lose its war with Iran.

The U.S. supplied the Iraqis with billions of dollars in credits, and the U.S. military provided them intelligence and advice.

The CIA itself delivered intelligence to the Iraqi Army, and CIA director William J. Casey wanted to give Saddam cluster bombs.

Where was the tender concern of the consecutive Reagan and Bush administrations for human rights, not to mention simple human decency?

The political right in the U.S. enabled the tyrant Saddam Hussein to commit his greatest crimes.

By Vince Williams on Apr 10, 2007

Josh: I don’t find this argument compelling, that there are other bad regimes so we shouldn’t act against any of them. Should we attack them all at once?

Obviously that isn’t your point. So we shouldn’t attack any of them at all. We must tolerate every kind of evil because it’s unfair to discriminate between different kinds. I couldn’t disagree with that idea more strongly.

Personally, I think we should be looking for ways to stop doing business with the Saudis. They’re a bunch of thugs and no friends of ours. It doesn’t make toppling Saddam wrong though.

By jvon on Apr 10, 2007

Jvon, the only reason we went into Saudi in 1991 was a personal relationship between the Bush family and the House of Saud. The US pushed the UN resolutions through.

If we hadn’t defended Saudi Arabia, if we had let the Saudis and the mujahadeen defend the Kingdom against Saddam, 9/11 never would have happened.

By Erik on Apr 10, 2007

I’ve heard this “personal relationship” nonsense before. The Saudis pay millions of dollars a year for lobbyists in the US to promote their interests. Bill Clinton has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from them. Expect that to come up next year.

I agree that our cozy relationship with the Saudis is foolish. But I disagree with your assessment of the cause of 9/11. The existence of secular Western culture, and the inability of radical Islam to compete with the in the absence of coercive violence, is the reason for the violence. It will not stop until our culture has changed or we have made it so painful for the people carrying out the attacks that they are dissuaded from continuing them.

I think you can guess which option I prefer.

By jvon on Apr 10, 2007

Give me a break.

George W. is a two-bit piker who never made a dollar on his own.

The Bush family takes their shoes off when they visit Saudi territory.

By Vince Williams on Apr 10, 2007

No Bush has ever accepted money from the Saudi government to represent their interests in the US, as far as I know. Personally I think there ought to be a law against it.

As for your other comment, Bush never made any money, which is it? Is he getting rich off the Saudis or not? This is the recurring evil-or-stupid debate, whereby people insist that Bush is simultaneously so evil that he manipulates world events to his advantage AND so stupid and incompetent that he is unfit to hold office.

It’s no wonder that people are driven nuts by him when these kinds of mental gymnastics are involved in condemning the man.

Personally, I think his biggest failing (and it’s a serious one) has been a complete failure to get the country on a war footing, and to explain to people why this war matters. We actually have a sizeable chunk of the population who refuse to believe that we’re at war. They seriously believe that if we just withdraw all our troops from Iraq, this will end.

If that were the case, I’d be pushing for withdrawal myself. It isn’t. Pulling out of Vietnam was unethical, but it wasn’t suicidal. The Viet Cong had no plans to come to the US to attack us. Al Qaeda not only has those plans, they’ve done it already. If we don’t fight them there, they will come fight us here.
I think anyone who suggests that might be OK should go spend awhile in Israel and talk to people who are under threat of terrorist attacks every day of their lives. Then ask yourself if that’s what you want for yourself and your children. We’re VERY lucky that we have the option of choosing where to fight these people. We do not have the choice of chosing whether to fight though — they’ve made that decision for us.

By jvon on Apr 11, 2007

Bush ran every company he ever headed into the ground and his daddy’s connections bailed him out every time.

Bush is an exceedingly ignorant man, but he’s not stupid. He’s an astute politician who lets others do his dirty work, as the Bush family has always done, from Prescott on down.

Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose have detailed his shady real estate dealings in Texas.

Cheney and Rove are the brains in this most corrupt of any administration to ever occupy the White House.

These lying cowardly thugs have dishonored the office of the Executive.

There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before the Bush-Cheney cabal started this war.

And just ask any soldier in Afghanistan if the U.S. military is looking for bin Laden, whose family was so intimate with our ‘allies’, the royal dictatorship of Saudi Arabia.

The Bush family still has a warm and cordial relationship with the Saudi royal family, whose country has supported Islamic terrorists.

By Vince Williams on Apr 11, 2007

“But I disagree with your assessment of the cause of 9/11. ”

Not my assesment, Bin Laden says that the reason 9/11 happened was the presence of US troops in the Kingdom.

“If there are more than one duty to be carried out, then the most important one should receive priority. Clearly after Belief (Imaan) there is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy out of the holy land.” - 1996 Fatwa

There are facts here, the Bush apologists need to stop just making shit up.

By Erik on Apr 11, 2007

Ronald Reagan told us what he thought about facts:

“Facts are stupid things”.

It’s manifest that George W. Bush shares this sentiment.

By Vince Williams on Apr 11, 2007

The problem is not a lack of war footing but a lack of definition of what winning looks like and a total lack of understanding of the strategic situation, and what removing Saddam will do to that situation.

Question: Why did Saddam want WMD?

Answer: To fight the Iranians (who posess and have used chemical weapons).

Here’s another question: Why did Saddam never give chemical weapons to Palestinian terrorists?

Answer: MAD works. Saddam cared more about himself than Islam.

By removing Saddam (a secular dictator) we empowered Iran (a theocracy).

The biggest problem is that in removing Saddam we removed AQ’s biggest ENEMY in the region.

Bin Laden HATED Saddam because he was a secular leader. AQ was as unlikely to work with Saddam as they would do a joint operation with the JDL.

By Erik on Apr 11, 2007

On September 11, 2001, former President George H.W. Bush and former Secretary of State James Baker attended a meeting in Washington, D.C. of investors in the Carlyle Group at which Shafiq bin Laden, Osama’s half brother, was present as representative for the Saudi Binladin Group.

The SBG’s old corporate website expired the same day.

By Vince Williams on Apr 11, 2007