Iraq's leadership, when it is elected will be the product of a *Democratic*
election. You can play strawman all day, but a representative government is
the only way that people have been able to live with anywhere near the kind
of freedom that we enjoy.

"GlennGlenn" <

In article <hgJnc.29221$jU.1877518@twister.southeast.rr.com>, Fester
<not@home.com> wrote:

<snip>

First off, I did *not* say that he doesn't think it is serious.

No, you said that his & Rummy's outraged and contrite reactions

were

political, implying not genuine.

Read it again, genius.

How will it change if I do?

I said that whether he does or doesn't, the show must go on.

A non sequitur if there ever was one. The question to ask is

*how*

the

"show" goes on.

A non-sequitor? Get a dictionary.

Whether the show goes on is irrelevant to the question of whether or
not Bush & Co. are truly remorseful about the criminal behavior taking
place under their watch. Therefore, "the show must go on" is a
non-sequitur.

Which proves that you neither know what a non-sequitor is

The definition:

From WordNet (r) 2.0:

non sequitur
n 1: a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it
2: (logic) a conclusion that does not follow from the premises

Your words: "whether he [Bush] does [show remorse] or doesn't, the show
[I dunno... the campaign to "liberate" Iraq?] must go on."

How he feels about a specific set of events in the past (in this case,
the abuse of prisoners), you said, the "show" must go on.

In principle, this is true. However, the former notion is not
particularly relevant to the fact of the latter.

nor what the discussion has been about to this point.

The discussion has been about a number of things.

*You* accused Rummy's and Bush's reactions as being not genuine. *I* have
told you that whether they are or aren't is of no relevance to me.

As for how I feel about Bush for doing, I admire him for
being shrewd enough to recognize the political necessity.

Assuming that the reaction was politically calculated, of course.

Of course it was calculated. The question that seems to matter
to you (I couldn't care less) is whether he is genuinely outraged
or not.

You were the one who posited the notion that he isn't. And you were
the one who spoke of admiration for being shrewd enough to see the

need

to shed a few crocodile tears. So of *course* you don't care. For

you

there's no question.

And for you it matters intensely. Or does it? Based upon the rest of

what

you wrote, you like so many others of your stripe, you see an

opportunity to

criticize Bush's handling of the war.

On the contrary. I, perhaps incorrectly, sense that he is truly
outraged about this (unlike Rush and others), and for that I give him
credit where it is due. Up until today's lovefest with Rummy, he has
struck pretty much the right note, despite his general
inarticulateness.

I don't need to seek out reasons to criticize him.

You're opposed to the war

That is true.

and see the outrages at Abu Ghraib as a chance to pile more criticism
on Bush.

That is not true. The outrageous conduct there (whoa... from "frat
party gone wrong" to "outrage"?) was not directly Bush's fault, except
as an indirect consequence of a policy and a strategy I see as wholly
wrongheaded.

In no way was it a consequence of policy. I heard the new general in charge
of detention in Iraq (who set the policy for the war effort) describe what
the guards role was. They were tasked with *passively* obtaining intel from
their prisoners. This consists in nothing more than recording observations
about their behovior and associations in the facility. The guilty parties
violated tihs policy.

In that context, Bush's reaction to what happened can still stand on
its own merits.

I seriously doubt you give a rat's arse about the poor little
feelings of those prisoners either.

It's not about their feelings. It's about the integrity and honor of
the actions of the representatives of the "good ol' US of A."

What I see in their behavior is the lashing out of a bunch of
undisciplined crybabies who weren't trained and/or supervised enough to
know that the time to do act that way is when they get home and beat up
their spouses and/or children.

I thoguht you said it was national policy.

When you're done arguing with yourself, let me know what you've decided.

The fact that the *nature* of the abuse was centered around sexual
humiliation, and the fact that pictures were taken and video recordings
were made is a mysery that points to some deep psychological problems
among the collective.

As for his audience, supporter or otherwise, a show of remorse,
whether heartfelt or not, is politically de reigour. Only a

fool

would ignore public sentiment.

Depends on which public, doesn't it? Guess the swing voters want

to

see some apologies... especially since we apparently haven't yet

been

exposed to the whole scope of the criminal behavior perpetrated by

our

hired enforcers in Iraq.

Personaly, I think he's over-doing it. I don't know what the
customs are like in Streisandinavia where you apparently hail
from,

Oh, boy, here it comes: the conflations, hyperbole, and name-calling
that takes the place of addressing issues honestly. You have no idea
where I hail from, and even if I told you the geographical location,
you'd still have no idea where I am coming from.

LOL. Geographical location? No obtuse one, it's a state of mind. A
fantasy world where people will like us if we just show them how much

wee

care. A world where people don't fly airplanes into skyscrapers because
they're fanatical, religious nutcases who want to dominate the world,

but

because we just haven't shownt hem that we care.

Yup: conflation and hyperbole. Just as I expected. Have fun with that.

but here in the good ol' US of A, we hate murderous fucks who try to
kill us.

It appears Iraquis do as well.

Which is why so many Iraqis are helping us to rid the country of them.

There are Iraquis on both sides. The issues are fairly complex. *You*
might consider the prisoners being abused "murderous fucks" before you
know just what it is they did to become imprisoned, and you may base
your lack of sympathy for them on that "understanding," but there's not
a great deal of due process going on and lots of evidence that many
people imprisoned by U.S. forces are merely "of interest," often based
on tips from "helpful" Iraquis who might actually have an axe to grind.
There *may* be good reasons for waiting until later for an airing of
the accusations, but until such happens, it is important that those in
custody be treated with some dignity.

No argument here.

That's why they are shooting back with
what little they have. When the "coalition" forces reopened Saddam's
favorite torture chamber (care to guess which one?), it likely
appeared to many of them that the one Saddam was being replaced by yet
another.

You don't watch the news do you? I can tell, because if you have been,
you'd see that people like Al Sadr and his thugs are being eliminated

and

rejected by the Iraqi people.

I've seen that. I've also been hearing about the recapturing of towns
being headed by former generals of Saddam. Meet the new boss, indeed.


I know that "Iraq has been liberated" has a better ring than "Iraq's
leadership has been replaced by one we think will be better, 'cause
they hated Saddam, too... at least we *hope* they do" does, but I'm
guessing that the latter is more likely to be true. (With the
footnote: "They'd better, because we'll be keepin' an eye on them from
our militarey bases.")

Iraq's leadership, when it is elected will be the product of a *Democratic*
election. You can play strawman all day, but a representative government is
the only way that people have been able to live with anywhere near the kind
of freedom that we enjoy.

When the pictures (apparently a fraction of what's to come)
came out, contradicting that notion became somewhat more difficult.
Additionally, each of Saddam's former generals who's given a position
of authority in Iraq will make it that much harder. But these
murderous fucks are okay, because they are *our* murderous fucks.

I question the sanity of using former Baathist generals myself.

Well, that is what's apparently happening, in the name of taking our
people out of danger in the hotspots.

However, if we can find competent leaders who we can have confidence
that they're not political Baathist ideologues I can see the
advantages of emplying them.

That is the challenge, since it was the Baathists who had control over
Iraqui troops during Saddam's regime, while non-Baathists had, well,
none. As a result, it seems, if you can buy the support of one of
Saddam's generals, you have a ready-made force of mercenaries at your
command... for a while.

I suppose you would have approved some other country violently taking
over the US during the Clinton years with the goal of deposing that
President. Hey, it would have been an act of *liberation*.

Clinton? No hardly.

Well, then.

But if our government were taken over by someone like Saddam you can
bet your sweet ***** I'd fight them. And if some other nation were to
offer their assistance,

Assistance via violent takeover?

I would not hesitate to take up arms and assist them however I could.

I would welcome them with open arms to throw
off such tyranny.

Even if your house gets blown up during the "Shock and Awe" campaign
that comes first? For the last century and a half, the U.S. hasn't
really felt the impact of a full-scale war on its territory as has much
of Europe and the Middle East.

Live free or die. Damned straight I would.

I would have been perfectly happy to off the leaders of those Ay-Rab
states that have dicked with us for the entirety of my life before
9/11.

I guess the good ol' US of A doesn't much like the fact that there are
all these other countries out there in the world that want to be just
as exploitative of whatever resources they have at hand in order to

get

a bigger piece of what the world has to offer. And I guess people in
the good ol' US of A simply can't believe that the good ol' US of A

has

been swinging one of the biggest dicks out there.

Now *this* is a non-sequtor.

So is your dream of offing the leaders above. One can fantasize all
one wants about what the world would be like if certain people weren't
in power anymore, but the fact is that the U.S., as one of *the*
gravitational forces in world events, is connected with the way things
turned out in those Arab states. And don't go calling me a "Blame
America First"-er for saying this. This isn't about laying blame so
much as pointing out that unintended consequences are no trifle.

I sure as ***** don't give a rip for their "cultural sensitivities"

So whose culture are we being senstive to in that prison? The crybaby
revenge-hawk soldiers-for-hire who see a powerless prisoner and want

to

take out their powerlessness to prevent the 9/11 attacks on his naked
hide? I have zero respect for that; I don't care how many of a

guard's

buddies were taken out in combat. Those acts were *vile*. They were

a

product of the putrefaction of any notion of honorable combat.

And has anyone claimed otherwise?

Well, *you* used the "frat party gone wrong" rhetoric. You are the one
who claims that Bush's & Rummy's declarations of contrition were
political and not genuine--and then saluted them for that. It is no
great feat to see such as a minimizing of how bad it was.

One more time, I made no such claim. I said that whtether their contrition,
or whatever, was genuine or not, their public actions and rhetoric would be
no different. The same is true of the Dems. Is Rangell really shocked and
horrified and outraged by this? Who the ***** knows. Either way, he would
do all he could to convince the public he was and that they should be too.

or gawd-soaked chest-pounding since.

You mean like Bush's?

Sorry, but Bush's religious beliefs did not start this war.

Not *alone*, anyway.

Not at all, anyway.

The Islamic terrorists' religion did.

Among other things. The religion is ancient. The planning of the 9/11
attack was neither ancient nor Iraqui. Indeed, Iraq was a secular
state (though it may not be for long) with an educated, modern-thinking
populace before the war. The significant acts of war perpetrated by
the Iraquis in recent decades (I speak, of course, ofKuwait and Iran)
were not religious in nature. The U.S. leadership liked one; they
disliked the other.

And Saddam's support of Islamic terrorists is not arguable, It is public
record. The extent of his involvement with Al Qaeda is subject to
controversy. We didn't attack Saddam because we felt that he had a role in
9/11, we went in because we felt that he had the means and disposition to
perpetrate a new disaster.

The truth of the matter is not that we've been too hard on Usama,
Saddam or their merry band of jihadding assholes,

Who says we have? Those mythical Streisandinavians of which you spoke
earlier? You seem to enjoy making things up about people who disagree
with you. Guess it makes things easier.

The prisoners are part of a populace that we are supposedly
"liberating," a magic word that Bush & Co. cling to with every last
fingernail.

Or is that just a political word. Does Bush really just want to nuke
the whole area, and are plans to do so in the works for the *minute*
the election is over? Maybe Cheney would get a kick out of that.
After all, he certainly has no plans to follow Bush into the White
House.

Maybe he's the devil incarnate. Does your silly speculation have

anything

to do with reality?

Okay, I was being snarky. However, there is truth to the notion that
the Cheney has little to risk politically by behaving too "hawkishly"
to the swing voters.

its that too many of us are still shitting our pants worrying over
whether diapar-head is a sensitive enough word to describe them.

Technically, "diapar-head" [sic] is too broad anyway. You would be
conflating (though that just not be a problem for you, it seems)

*some*

Arabs with Hindus, Sikhs, and others who have no role here. Heck, the
first week and a half of April, I traveled around in an Arab country
and saw not a single "diapar" [sic] on anyone's head.

The impression I gather from folks who *claim* to think for those in
the "good ol' US of A" is that they tend to dislike nuance, enjoy
kneejerk conflation of disparate concepts, and really get off on
kickin' *****, any *****, so long as the owner of that ***** kinda sorta
represents something bad. So go ahead and call me Streisand's,
Saddam's and Osama's butt-buddy or whatever. I'll just laugh and

shake

my head at how many people like to take the easy road, mentally
speaking.

Nuance went out the window when they killed 3000 innocent Americans.

Who? The Sikhs? The Hindus? I repeat: the term is basically
inaccurate.

Sorry, but those of who aren't caught up in worrying about whether or
not our enemies hate us mroe than they used to

Is our goal to turn Iraq and Afghanistan into allies, or to make them
into eternally impoverished enemies?

Our primary goal is to eliminate the international threat of terrorism to
the US and our allies.

aren't interested in the subtle differences between diaper-heads and
towel-heads.

How about those who wear no hats whatsoever?

Winning this war is more important to me than political sensitivites, get
it? I don't care if I ***** off the people who hate us. I just want to
render them impotent.

We don't care if they're acting out of jealousy of our high standard
of living or whether they're acting out of religious fervor.

Either-or? There are many reasons a poor kid thousands of miles away
might decide to hook up with a mad leader and join him in a wacked-out
plan to kill people in the U.S., just as there are many reasons that an
MP might find justification to play gay-sex games with Iraqi prisoners.

The thing *I* care about (and think that our leadership should be
concerned about) is *not* why some wacked-out leader wants to recruit
people to his cause; it is *why* large groups of young men (mostly),
who would normally only be concerned with such universal issues as
their own welfare and that of their families, can be convinced that
their life is worth more when it is disposed of in the service of that
wacked-out leader's "great plan." The world gives birth to many
wacked-out leaders every day; only a few actually surround themselves
with a significant number of foot-soldiers. History shows that these
soldiers aren't necessarily all that wacked-out themselves, at least
not at the start. Their reasons for following the wacked-out leaders
are rooted elsewhere.

The fact is, during most of the history of the U.S., there were no such
wacked-out stirrings against it in the Arab world. Something got
fucked up later on, and no one wanted to be troubled with it. Case in
point: our professional international "intelligence" agencies saw no
need to hire people who spoke Arabic or Farsi or other languages in
order to monitor what was going on.

We're simply interested in doing whatever we can to destroy their
ability to hit us again.

If by "to hit us," you include to kill our soldiers while they are in
their country, then the only true solution is to just pull out the
troops and/or turn the countries into parking lots. If by "to hit us"
you mean to perpetrate murderous attacks against people in the U.S.,
then there *is* no true solution, as the means for killing are so very
pervasively available, so long as fertilizer is legal and readily
available, and so long as someone has the motive.

The means of killing with WMDs are no longer available to them from Saddam.

As things stand, significant foreign terrorist attacks in the U.S. have
been few and far between, especially when compared to what other
countries have had to deal with.

And since 9/11, they've been non-existent thanks to our military.