Holy ****! (Iraq) Helo shot down, up to 35 aboard, 20+ casualties

[Alexander's Horse]

night and fog

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by techumseh
Keep up the good work!

I shall.

I always thought Ming was fair.

But you're primarily one of those on topic folks. The nice, quiet people from the civilized forums. Sort of like how a small town of God-fearing farmers needs a constable for the occasional wayward youth. One sort of law enforcement. OT is more like a mining camp, with a need for a less genteel hand. So they can deal with Ming, or they can deal with me. Makes Ming so much more appreciated by those who don't have their minds right.

It must be lonely at the top.

But the view of the peasants toiling away in the fields far below more than makes up for it.

It is, nevertheless. The US sought, and failed to obtain, the sanction of the UN Security Council for it's attack. When France (w. Germany, Russia and China) blocked it, they were the subject of a huge outpouring of invective by the Bushies. (Remember "freedom fries"? ) Why was this so important to them?

Because it is a prerequisite under the UN Charter for a "legal war." Because of the US's economic clout, no country is willing to press the point, so no case has been brought or decided. But Bush and his gang know that if the world political winds shift, they could be handed over to the Hague as war criminals. I hope one day they are.

Naah. George I got lots of countries to sign on and provide bodies and money. I mean, hell, if you could get an additional 100,000 troops and 50 billion in cash, wouldn't you try to go through the motions with the UN first, just in case you could cash in on some of that action?

Sounds a bit convenient and arbitrary to me. I'm just saying.

That's pretty much the US position. But since we have the biggest collective schlong in the world, everyone else just has to get out of the way and get out their umbrellas. What's that bit about the Golden Rule? He who has the gold makes the rules.

I'm afraid the US already owns most of those things. If they didn't, do you think they'd treat us any different than their other neighboring countries: Guatamala, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, Grenada, Chile, etc.......? Shall I go into the history?

Well, you're white, speak English (except for those people in Quebec), and generally don't get uppity with us. But it is a bit of a stretch, given the thugocracy and imperial manipulation (from Spanish and French days to the cold war US-USSR games) to hold the US exclusively responsible for actions in this hemisphere where the US was only one of several parties involved. We backed Pinochet, for one example, but we didn't provide the muscle or create the domestic interests within Chile who also supported and benefitted from Pinochet. It's not likely that our not supporting him would have derailed him - Latinamerican instability and military thugocracy runs a bit deeper.

Too much detail to go into here. Have a look at this link for an analysis: http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/rep...DC&Content=159

Seen most of it, and even read the text, since I was vehemently opposed to it at the beginning. Over time, and actual reading of the law and the law it replaced, I found there's very little that's troublesome, despite the amount of spin given.

For whatever reason? Big deal? Do you not need a good reason to go to war and kill thousands of civilians, enemy soldiers, plus your own soldiers? C'mon, you've got to take your citizenship more seriously than that. Or else what are you fighting for?

I suspect if we'd invaded Canada or France, even, people would have been a tad more bent out of shape, but it's really hard to shed any tears of sympaty for the Hussein regime. And thousands of civilians and enemy soldiers is the unfortunate result of an enemy who resists. The Saudis and others tried to bribe Hussein into going away and retiring, which would have been a much nicer solution all around. But no, ******* had to try to get other people to fight and die for him, so **** happens.

It's Gitmo, silly.

There's some fun tinfoil hat league websites that have talked about these dozens of mythical camps in the US. The only problem I have with Gitmo is the waste of time and money for keeping most of those people around after we've gotten all the useful information we could get, by now. Try 'em and fry 'em is my approach - they're unlawful combatants, so anything they've been given so far is a bonus over what "rights" (essentially none) they have. They're not POWs, we left those behind.

According to William Shirer, 100,000 trade unionists marched against Hitler in Berlin the day before he was made Chancellor. In the April 1932 Presidential election the results were as follows: Hindenburg (conservative) 19,359,983 (53%), Hitler (Nazi) 13,418,547 (36.8%), Thaelmann (Communist) 3,706,759 (10.2%).

A few months later, he was made Chancellor by Hindenburg despite a sharp drop in Nazi support (they lost 2 million votes in the November 1932 elections). The reason? The conservatives and the industrialists and bankers were concerned with a growth in support for the left. Hitler was their last gamble to hold onto power.

Nor did he disappoint them. Less than one month after taking office, the Reichstag was set on fire, blamed on the Communists and despite a further election in which the Nazis recieved only 44% of the vote, the Reichstag voted to hand over it's constitutional powers to Hitler's government for 4 years. Shirer describes the move as "deceptively simple" and "having the advantage of cloaking the seizure of absolute power in legality."

The bottom line is that while they had a choice, a majority of Germans did NOT support the Nazi Party.

Not supporting, and actively resisting, are two entirely different things. Hence my earlier discussions with LotM about his inquiries into his chickenhawkness according to my views. I don't consider voting to be policymaking, or much other than, no pun intended, ticket punching. By active resistance, I mean this - what do you think the effect of Rohm and the SA would have been if for every SA ******* out on the street, three or four or five ordinary Germans would have actively shouted them down and countered their intimidation tactics?

When I was a teenager in northern California (San Jose), there was an intended joint rally by the KKK and American Nazi Party that was to take place in a park near downtown. So a friend of mine and I decided we'd go down there to play baseball , and we took our gloves and a ball... and a couple of Louisville sluggers, too. None of this aluminum bat p***y softball stuff. When the KKK and Nazi boys arrived in a couple of vans, just a handful of them, there were about a thousand people waiting, and not in a pleasant mood. End of rally, and if they came back, it wasn't for a good long time. That's active opposition, not voting or *****ing about how not nice they are. Now what if ordinary Germans had taken that approach with the SA and NSDAP thugs?

Glad to hear it. They're paler versions, I'll grant you. So far. But they have to be stopped. You can start by no longer supporting their war.

They're not even close. And I may not like their war, but we're in it, and I DO recognize the consequences of giving our enemies any real long term sense of victory by our withdrawal. The *******s in this administration overcommitted us to too high a geopolitical goal, with too little means, but we're stuck carrying out the mission with what we're given to do it with. I just wish they'd have the balls now to admit we're in more hot water than they expected, and that we need substantially more forces in theater.

Wolfie and Rummy and Bushie and Dickie Cheney would have to eat their words and admit that Gen. Shinseki, the actual professional in this amateur production, was right after all.

[techumseh]

Well, we could trade points and counterpoints forever, I guess. One thing I don't get about (many) Americans is how closely they identify with their government. Even when it lies to them, takes them to war illegaly and DECREASES their security, they feel they have to rally 'round the flag. It's WE this, and WE that.

This is very typical of American media as well. I've seen many US news anchors talk about WE in Iraq, OUR strategy, US against THEM, as if they're part of the team. This would not be accepted in Canada, nor I suspect, in many other western countries where some semblance of objectivity is required. The BBC is a great example.

BTW, here is a link to the CBC website page for their documentary "Conspiracy Theories", which aired this week. http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/index.html It includes interviews with former US and French intellegence officials and the chief investigator for the US Congressional report on 9/11. Not your average wearers of aluminum fashion accessories, they nonetheless raise very interesting questions about links between the Bush and Bin Laden families going back many years and the handling of 9/11, both pre and post, by the Bush administration.

A second (and final point). We have the advantage of seeing the entire history of Nazi Germany at once. We know how it turned out and all the horrors therein. In 1932 or even 1939 the German people could not. Some ranted and raved about what lay ahead (tinfoil hats?). Most Germans, even those that opposed the Nazi's, couldn't see it. America's experience with the Bushies is still in it's early times. But IMHO, the trends are there, and they are ominous.

There are some encouraging signs. I just finished Michael Moore's book, "Dude, Where's My Country", which may partly explain my initial outburst. He's got some great questions for Dubya. Here's his website: http://www.michaelmoore.com/ He certainly doesn't pull any punches. And, yes, in Nazi Germany, his books would be burned, unlike in the US where they are bestsellers. Just read the part about what his publisher tried to do with "Stupid White Men" after 9/11.

So I'm back to the farm. 'Later.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Any type of covert organization, whether criminal, terrorist, or insurgent, or resistance, sets up means to determine the status of it's various components. It's a basic part of operational security. I really doubt AQ is capable of carrying on the types of operations it has, while being fundamentally incapable of determining whether significant parties have been compromised.

Actually I have to disagree. I think a lot of AQ is amateur hour, and what was built with little fear of dismantling previously has been placed under a lot of stress lately. The more secure your organization is (in the manner you suggest above) the more likely that recent losses throughout the organization are going to sever communications entirely with operational cells. Some of these cells can even be set to work for us, if we've managed to secretly grab their handler and break him. Aside from the value we may get in this way, there is also the value that we get because the enemy can't be sure. Handing them a list is a major boon.

[Alexander's Horse]

The Sudanese offered you a list well before 9/11 and you didn't want it!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The Sudanese offered you a list well before 9/11 and you didn't want it!

Hey, they never offered me a damn thing.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by techumseh


Never claimed it was Auschwitz, or the holocaust. Said the current regime in the US had commonalities with Nazi Germany, including attacks on the civil rights of their own people. And concentration camps. Gitmo IS a concentration camp, NOT an extermination camp. BTW concentration camps were developed first by the British, during the Boer War. They were intended to isolate the Boer Kommandos from the civilian population which supported them.

I know very well the difference between a death camp, and a concentration camp. I also know that people were killed at Konzentrationslager in Germany, and that most of the photos of emaciated prisoners come from such camps, not the death camps in Poland (for reasons related to the logisics of the end of the war) And that when most people hear concentration camp, they are thinking of Nazi crimes, not British Boer war era tactics.


.

BTW, how do you know that all prisoners at Gitmo are terrorists? Because the US government says so? I guess we'll never really know, will we, since there has never been formal charges or a trial.

Formal charges are being prepared against some. I presume when this war is won, there will be release of data.

Racial profiling is another odius practice of the Bush regime. Many people of Arabic descent have been arrested for no other reason than their national origin. Thank you.

Citizenship isnt race. Place of birth isnt race. I know of no US citizens of US birth who have been detained without charge since 9/11. AFAIK almost all of those detained were not US citizens at all. And most citizens of arab states were NOT detained - those detained were because it was thought they had information that would be useful. They were then released, except for those against whom charges were pressed (including immigration charges)

[NeOmega]

Citizenship isnt race. Place of birth isnt race. I know of no US citizens of US birth who have been detained without charge since 9/11. AFAIK almost all of those detained were not US citizens at all. And most citizens of arab states were NOT detained - those detained were because it was thought they had information that would be useful. They were then released, except for those against whom charges were pressed (including immigration charges)

The so-called dirty bomber (Jose Padilla) was born and lived in Brooklyn, has been detained by the U.S> government, is not allowed to see a lawyer. This is some real KGB stuff. And before you even think of saying... "well he was a gonna bomb us to death", remmeber, in this country, no matter how much you don't like it, it is innocent until proven guilty, not visa-versa. None of us know whether he is guilty or not, and he is not even being allowed to have a day in court.... at all.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Citizenship isnt race. Place of birth isnt race. I know of no US citizens of US birth who have been detained without charge since 9/11.

So it's all good as long as it is foreigners. We shall remember the next time we have trouble with those complaining american consulate folks.

But anyway, it doesn't matter. Under the Guantanamo logic, they can arrest Mister LOTM. And all his protests that he is a US citizen are useless, cause they'll say "prove it", and you won't get a day in court to prove it. And if all works well, people won't even know what happened to you.

But why bother? It's only foreigners. Mostly. For now.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by NeOmega


The so-called dirty bomber (Jose Padilla) was born and lived in Brooklyn, has been detained by the U.S> government, is not allowed to see a lawyer. This is some real KGB stuff. And before you even think of saying... "well he was a gonna bomb us to death", remmeber, in this country, no matter how much you don't like it, it is innocent until proven guilty, not visa-versa. None of us know whether he is guilty or not, and he is not even being allowed to have a day in court.... at all.

and, rightly, the holding of Padilla without charge is controversial. The govt response is that he was caught in the act at the border. If you want to say thats not good enough, and the govt is wrong to hold Padilla without charge, and that this presents the danger of a slippery slope, Id think that a very valid argument. That is not the argument i have seen here.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


So it's all good as long as it is foreigners. We shall remember the next time we have trouble with those complaining american consulate folks.

But anyway, it doesn't matter. Under the Guantanamo logic, they can arrest Mister LOTM. And all his protests that he is a US citizen are useless, cause they'll say "prove it", and you won't get a day in court to prove it. And if all works well, people won't even know what happened to you.

But why bother? It's only foreigners. Mostly. For now.

"First they came for the Jews, ....."

yeah i got the idea. I dont happen to believe that they are using this as a first step to an authoritarian system. If I did I would oppose it right now. But I dont. I think they sincerely are using it as a weapon against terrorism, and thats all. I dont say this out of love for the admin - I voted against Bush in 2000. But I dont think they are authoritarians. You may disagree.

They have about 600 people in Gitmo. Most went there during the Afghan campaign, in 2001. Few new people since. The Lackawanna cell was NOT sent to Gitmo or detained without charge. Ditto for several other cases of terror supporters arrested in the US. If they were using gitmo as you suggest, I would expect those people to be sent there. But they are not. No slippery slope.

BTW, there is now a thread speficically about Gitmo, I suggest Gitmo posts go there.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


and, rightly, the holding of Padilla without charge is controversial. The govt response is that he was caught in the act at the border.

Sounds good... he was caught in the act.... yah, yah, caught in the act!

WAIT! He didn't have a dirty bomb on him, in fact it hasn't even been shown he had any documents, or even met with Al-Q! Nothing has been proven yet... not even a prelim!

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

I think they sincerely are using it as a weapon against terrorism, and thats all.

You are trusting this administration with your fundamental rights. Obviously you don't estimate those rights higher than a frozen pizza package.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


You are trusting this administration with your fundamental rights. Obviously you don't estimate those rights higher than a frozen pizza package.

I have to weigh risks. There are risks both ways. I have thought seriously about the risks on both sides, (and BTW, continue to listen to arguments, here and elsewhere) And ive made my choice. Which is mine to make - Im at risk from the Bush admin, and Im at risk from terrorism.

Again, if you wish to continue discussing Gitmo, i suggest you do it in the gitmo thread. There are plenty of people interested in Gitmo issues who are not following this thread.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

"First they came for the Jews, ....."

Well I didn't quite make it back to the farm. This partial misquote brought me back. I thought the complete and accurate poem by Rev. Martin Neimoller bears rather well on the rationalizations of those here that obviously know better, but support Dubya's War anyway.

The following is the Declaration of Guilt presented to the Council of the Evangelical Church by Pastor Martin Niemoller in Ocober of 1945.

In Germany, the Nazis first came for the Communists,
And I didn't speak up
Because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
And I did not speak up
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists,
And I didn't speak up
Because I wasn't a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
And I was a Protestant
So I didn't speak up.
Then they came for ME…
By that time
There was no one to speak up for anyone.
To make sure this doesn't happen again, the injustice
To anyone
Anywhere
Must be the concern of
Everyone
Everywhere.