idrankwhat

Did I jump threads again? Sorry. All this defending of the indefensible sounds the same. Ok, Padilla then.

As soon as the pro-war types finally admit that their actions in fighting this "war" are creating more enemies than they're destroying THEN we might make some progress. We are pissing on everthing that this country is supposed to stand for while simultaneously saying that we should be a model for the rest of the world. The whole notion of a "war on terror" is just plain stupid and is completely unwinnable. You might as well declare it a "war on anger". Like I pointed out before, this administration's strategy basically boils down to the notion that "the beatings will continue until morale improves". That's funny when it's on a T-shirt, but not when it's an official foreign policy.

Your support is based on an inaccurate premise. There's plenty of evidence to refute that claim and with the internet as a resource it's easier to find than it was during the last half century. Both sides are just as guilty of propagating the violence just as both sides are guilty of war crimes in 2006.

Are you condemning their actions based on the AI report? Or were they simply defending themselves?

Who says that they actually shot at anyone, or aided anyone? That's what we were talking about in the other thread. Essentially, there is no burden of proof required to get a one way trip to Gitmo. The only requirements are that you are captured in the theater. That narrows down the area to all of the middle east and Asia. You could be shooting at US troops or simply delivering a goat cheese pizza. Doesn't matter. All you have to do is be captured. So basically, we have to just trust their judgement. Screw that nonsense.

Not trying to hijack the thread but I think that the ACLU wants to make sure that the people who are being tried, convicted and executed as terrorists are actually terrorists. Right now the bar has been lowered to the level of "because Bush or his justice dept said so". That's pretty low. Here's an example. Gonzales says "Gravitymaster was involved in a plot to yadayadayada". Now Gravitymaster is in prison but is not actually charged with anything and if Gravitymaster is allowed a lawyer that lawyer can't get access to the justice dept's files. Now the court/tribunal date shows up and Gravitymaster and his lawyer have to leave the courtroom (or maybe they weren't even required to attend because Gravitymaster is in some secret detention facility overseas getting waterboarded) while Gonzales goes in a back room with the judge to show him/her some "evidence" of Gravitymaster's crime. Everyone gets called back into the courtroom, a guilty verdict is read and "Justice" is served. Now GM's siblings, neighbors and friends are pissed off and swear that they'll do everything in their power to see that real justice is served and vow to organize and undo the great wrong and make sure that this sort of thing never happens to anyone else. Here's a few questions to think about. Is the word of the Executive branch sufficient to capture, incarcerate and convict a person? What if that executive was Hillary, still ok? How do you think the justice dept will categorize GM's supporters' jihad....I mean struggle? And how many "terrorists" were created through the "justice" meted out against GM? Is the world safer? Should I have moved this to another thread?

Eustis chief: Iraq post-war plan muzzled Army Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, an early planner of the war, tells about challenges of invasion and rebuilding. BY STEPHANIE HEINATZ September 8, 2006 FORT EUSTIS -- Months before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists from developing plans for securing a post-war Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday. In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a post-war plan. Rumsfeld did replace Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff in 2003, after Shinseki told Congress that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to secure post-war Iraq. Scheid, who is also the commander of Fort Eustis in Newport News, made his comments in an interview with the Daily Press. He retires in about three weeks. Scheid doesn't go so far as calling for Rumsfeld to resign. He's listened as other retired generals have done so. "Everybody has a right to their opinion," he said. "But what good did it do?" Scheid's comments are further confirmation of the version of events reported in "Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq," the book by New York Times reporter Michael R. Gordon and retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Bernard E. Trainor. In 2001, Scheid was a colonel with the Central Command, the unit that oversees U.S. military operations in the Mideast. On Sept. 10, 2001, he was selected to be the chief of logistics war plans. On Sept. 11, 2001, he said, "life just went to hell." That day, Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander of Central Command, told his planners, including Scheid, to "get ready to go to war." A day or two later, Rumsfeld was "telling us we were going to war in Afghanistan and to start building the war plan. We were going to go fast. "Then, just as we were barely into Afghanistan ... Rumsfeld came and told us to get ready for Iraq." Scheid said he remembers everyone thinking, "My gosh, we're in the middle of Afghanistan, how can we possibly be doing two at one time? How can we pull this off? It's just going to be too much." Planning was kept very hush-hush in those early days. "There was only a handful of people, maybe five or six, that were involved with that plan because it had to be kept very, very quiet." There was already an offensive plan in place for Iraq, Scheid said. And in the beginning, the planners were just expanding on it. "Whether we were going to execute it, we had no idea," Scheid said. Eventually other military agencies - like the transportation and Army materiel commands - had to get involved. They couldn't just "keep planning this in the dark," Scheid said. Planning continued to be a challenge. "The secretary of defense continued to push on us ... that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay." Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation. Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Scheid said. "I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today. "He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war." Why did Rumsfeld think that? Scheid doesn't know. "But think back to those times. We had done Bosnia. We said we were going into Bosnia and stop the fighting and come right out. And we stayed." Was Rumsfeld right or wrong? Scheid said he doesn't know that either. "In his own mind he thought we could go in and fight and take out the regime and come out. But a lot of us planners were having a real hard time with it because we were also thinking we can't do this. Once you tear up a country you have to stay and rebuild it. It was very challenging." Even if the people who laid out the initial war plans had fleshed out post-invasion missions, the fighting and insurgent attacks going on today would have been hard to predict, Scheid said. "We really thought that after the collapse of the regime we were going to do all these humanitarian type things," he said. "We thought this would go pretty fast and we'd be able to get out of there. We really didn't anticipate them to continue to fight the way they did or come back the way they are. "Now we're going more toward a civil war. We didn't see that coming." While Scheid, a soldier since 1977, spoke candidly about the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq, he remains concerned about the American public's view of the troops. He's bothered by the nationwide divide over the war and fearful that patriotism among citizens will continue to decline. "We're really hurting right now," he said. http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-21075sy0sep08,0,2264542.story?track=mostemailedlink

Your Templar is showing

Eitam? You're right. Just about every democratic country has its handful of fascist assholes who manage to make their way into the public eye or government service and become embarrassments. In the US, David Duke is one example of this. This asshole is another prime example. And just as in this example, they are quickly outed and ostracized by the humane majority of their countrymen in their own nation's press - and good for them for doing so. That is, I think, the main message the objective reader should derive from the article. Very true. And I hope he's ousted as the fanatic "fringe" that I'd like to think he represents. Unfortunately there are more voices in support for his viewpoint listed under the main article than I'd like. My point for listing the article was to add my part to the "fair and balanced" aspect of the debate

Agreed, not that great a year. But I'd say that the best was "World's Fastest Indian". Great movie that did a good job of depicting Burt Munro's story and character.

Well if my choices are between "they're pissed at us for years and years of screwing with their lives on their land for our profit" and "they're pissed at us because they want martyrdom" then I'm going to have to vote for the former. If you want some more quotes I can probably dig up some classic Pat Robertson and maybe some tasty James Watt "go ahead and trash the earth because the rapture's coming". Good stuff.

You make it sound like we're dealing with rational people. We're not. You're right. I hope we can vote in some rational people in Nov. Not likely but I can always hope

Doesn't sound much like a peace loving "victim" to me. Leftist MKs blast Eitam's statements on Arabs, urge AG to investigate By Jack Khoury, Haaretz Correspondent, and Haaretz Service Left-wing lawmakers reacted furiously Monday to statements made by rightist Knesset Member Effi Eitam against Israeli Arab politicians and Palestinians in the West Bank, and called for attorney general Menachem Mazuz to open an investigation into Eitam's comments on grounds of incitement to racism. Eitam, a member of the right-wing National Union-National Religious Party sparked a political firestorm Monday when he said that the great majority of Palestinians in the West Bank should be expelled, and that Arabs should be ousted from Israeli politics as a fifth column and "a league of traitors." The remarks, broadcast Monday on Army Radio, were made during a Sunday speech at a memorial service for a soldier killed in Lebanon during the recent war. It was the first time that Eitam, who heads the Religious Zionism faction within the National Union, has publicly supported deportation of Palestinians, a concept espoused by assassinated National Union founder Rehavam Ze'evi as "transfer." "We will have to expel the great majority of the Arabs of Judea and Samaria," Eitam urged, referring to the whole of the West Bank. According to Eitam, experience showed that Israel cannot give up the area of the West Bank. "It is impossible with all of these Arabs, and it is impossible to give up the territory. We've already seen what they're doing there." Turning to the subject of Israeli Arabs, Eitam said, "We will have to take another decision, and that is to sweep the Israeli Arabs from the political system. Here, too, the issues are clear and simple. "We've raised a fifth column, a league of traitors of the first rank. Therefore, we cannot continue to enable so large and so hostile a presense within the political system of Israel." Beilin: Bring Eitam to trial Yossi Beilin, the leader of the left-wing Meretz party, urged Attorney General Menachem Mazuz Monday to bring Eitam to trial on charges of incitement to racism. Beilin's call was based on an amendment to the law which grants lawmakers immunity from prosecution. The amendment lifts the immunity from legislators who incite to racism or ethnic prejudice. Earlier in the day, Meretz MK Avshalom Vilan called on Mazuz to open an investigation against Eitam, on suspicion of incitement and sedition. Arab MK Ahmed Tibi (Ra'am-Ta'al) said Monday that "Eitam's remarks would have been more authentic, had they been delivered in German." "These are irresponsible statements," Tibi told the radio, "directed at the lowest level of the racism surging within Israeli society." "A long time ago the racists and fascists moved from the Israeli street to the Israeli government and the halls of power" added Tibi. Peace Now leader Yariv Oppenheimer said that the words of Eitam "show that the dogma of [slain extreme right-wing Rabbi Meir] Kahane is alive and well. In a moment of candor, the mask was removed from Eitam's face, exposing him as a leader of fantasy and racism." Arab MK Mohammed Barakeh said that the attack on the representatives of Arab citizens of Israel was an attempt to "delegitimize the Arab population entirely and to negate their right to voice their opinions and participate in the political process." According to Barakeh, the measures proposed by Eitam are already being implemented, as the Palestinians, "are witness to many steps to push them aside and expel them from their homeland, among them the security fence in Jerusalem and the West Bank. The policies of siege, starvation, and negation of the basic right of human dignity are a means of extremely dangerous ethnic expulsion. "You don't need trucks to transfer Palestinians." http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761308.html

I'll bet glasses for that kind of short-sightedness are REALLY thick. Nice non-rebuttal. Your's truly, Me and my ilk.

They knew what they were doing when they put Saddam and al Qaeda together in all those speeches. It was a deliberate association sales tactic. They were selling us a bill of goods and the sad part is that they even told us they were doing it. Remember "you never introduce a new product in August"? The Iraq war was inevitable after Bush took office. It was lobbied by the PNAC, then those folks got into office and used 9/11 to implement it. Anyone who has read any of the PNAC letters and who can also recall administration quotes immediately after 9/11 should be able to recognize that. On 9/11 Rummy called for Iraq invasion plans. Later that week Wolfowitz was quoted as saying that the debate was whether to make the Iraq invasion as part of the initial response in Afghanistan or to launch it as a second offense. Cheney was quoted at a luncheon as saying that regarding the Iraq war "it's not a matter of if but when", and of course there's always Bush's quote, "#$*% Saddam, we're taking him out". By the way, if you want to see PNAC's Kristol squirm a little, watch Colbert go to work on him http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgYZ11pIGU4

I'm sorry about your loss. Why is your anger directed toward your own people? We are not the ones to make the first move. Yes we were. Until people realize that people want to kill us because of our foreign policy then we're doomed to continue cultivating enemies. Trying to pin this on some sort of religious based ideology is nothing more than a deliberate attempt to divert the attention away from the actual cause of the problem.

Yea, I thought it was a fantastic movie. The Big Brother theme is there which is why I thought the casting of John Hurt was probably not unintentional. I was thinking the same things that H'Juan was thinking, especially when they made references to "America's War" and how it had led to America's demise as a world power and, of course, the whole state influenced media thing. As for your "coincidentally paralleling our state affairs" comment, I agree completely and THAT should be the take home message. When Hollywood fantasy begins to resemble reality it's time to snap out of complacency and pay attention. Not to hijack the thread but "Syriana" made me have similar thoughts, a lot less fantasy involved with that one however.

What do you call 1000 lawyers cast overboard into the depths of the ocean? A good start! Why do they wear ties? So the foreskin doesn't keep popping up over their heads.

I believe there's a huge difference between thinking you're going to die , and actually having your head cut off with a saw. No? True. And cutting your head off with a saw is quite different than getting beaten to death over a couple of days.

Can you do us a favor, when you're finished over there could you come to the US and help folks get to the polls? It's pretty sad when voter turnout in a war zone is better than over here in democracy's "model".

What the boy blunder fails to admit/understand is that if our enemies used the same rule book we've adopted that we'd be calling them uncivilized, criminals, animals and terrorists.

The part that floors me on this is once again, the double standard. What the hell are these people thinking? We are supposed to be this fantastic model for government and human rights that's worthy of being spread around the world but then we turn around render, torture, build political prisons, deny Constitutional rights to our own citizens, export cluster bombs for use against civilians...the list is long with this bunch. And somehow these liars can look you straight in the eye and tell you that they're making us safer. One thing that I've noticed with this administration, and Congressional leadership for that matter, if they tell you one thing, it's usually the opposite.

It's good of the naked king to finally admit his wardrobe malfunction. I wonder what will happen to these guys if Congress won't give him the super secret, no-evidence-necessary-for-conviction tribunals that he wants.

If we're going to give the VP full executive powers, how about we make the first one someone who isn't a war criminal, or at the very least one who recognizes that there is a Constitutional system of checks and balances against an authoritarian executive? I don't ask for much.