The logic is simple, as it is demanding of attention. Racism isn’t the difference between someone disbelieving he needs weapons and someone that believes weapons are useful. And that’s it.

He had to take his reply away to his own site - probably because he feared I might delete it…

You wrote your reply on your blog instead of here at neo’s, so I wrote my reply at my own blog instead of here. That’s it, simple logic.

Guts is part of weapons making, but in this case it is not relevant.

Probligo has described being assaulted twice or thrice. I have never been assaulted by anyone, with or without a weapon, although there was a burglary once. The difference between the philosophy of warriors and those who live by the sword, to other folks, is not about what is necessary. It is about what is virtuous, or in this case, what is good for human beings.

Where I live, where confude lives, there is no need to carry arms for protection.

When you are able to wrap your four neurons around that idea perhaps you might be able to think a little more clearly about how the rest of the world see you and your kind.

Neo, sorry. I did not intend to include you in this but Y, his stupidity, his racism, his need for penile compensation with big-bore weapons, has gotten to me totally. He hasn’t the guts to reply to my post on my site. He had to take his reply away to his own site - probably because he feared I might delete it…

I feel sorry for those who live in places that are so insecure, so unsafe, that carrying arms for defence as a matter of course is a neccessity. That is not how I live my life. It should not be neccessary to live like that in any country that promotes freedom.

I have freedom and no need for a gun.

Why does Y need a gun? Because he lives in fear, not freedom.

To show how “important” the US will consider Haditha and the war crimes committed there (and those committed elsewhere in Iraq that we will NOT hear about)…

1. Any of the Marines responsible for Haditha murders who return to the US alive will be charged with the murder of those civilians.

2. It will take at least two years, likely as long as four years, for them to appear in Court as there will be delays “for the gathering of evidence” and “while the defendants recover from PTSD”.

3. When they do eventually appear in US Military Court, they will be committed on the grounds that they were suffering from PTSD at the time of the offences owing to the fact that they had narrowly escaped being killed by an IED.

4. If any are found guilty (and that is a very long shot) they will probably be sentenced to another season in Iraq.

Your generation is of Vietnam, mine is a bit more recent. Thus our life experiences dictate how we see and judge things, and as such, the difference in how we see is much more important than what we end up seeing in the end.

There is wisdom in age and experience, but there is a flaw as well. For people who have experienced things one way, they will always see the future based upon those experiences.

I, who have not been through Vietnam as Neo here has, or WWII, or WWI, am unhindered by past experiences and judgements.

I can understand the need of older generations to desire more unity of purpose, Total Warfare, absolute victory, civic virtue through the draft, but because I am who I am, I cannot believe that those things are the solutions to new wars in the 21st century.

The disagreement is fundamental, because it is about self-identity. The fundamental agreement or disagreement over whether people on the Right desire ultimate victory for the US, is totally separate from the former.

I have always believed that it is more people to know why people desire things, than to know what they desire.

Complaining that Bush isn’t more ruthless and hardcore might feel good, but it changes nothing substantial.

Which sounds like something I would say.

Nevertheless, you’ve offered plenty for me to ruminate on.

I’ve said this before, you can believe as you like, cak. But that does not mean you would be right to do so, nor that your justifications and reasonings are correct.

No human is perfect, so why do you act as if I called you evil by saying you aren’t acting in a correct way? You don’t even say what you think is the correct way of behavior, you just claim that I shouldn’t make the claim. You don’t say why it is wrong or right, you just say that I made and …. so on.

That’s usually not how matters of substance are debated among reasonable folks. I can talk about the subject and I would have, But I tend to think it is more productive to get the preliminaries out of the way first.

In reply to what you said about the Admin not listening to you. Joint Chiefs do this all the time, give advice and suggestions and the President may or may not use it. Should they stop doing it? If they don’t stop, why should a civilian stop doing it?

If you feel you can make criticisms of Bush and Co without figuring out your own strategies and solutions, then you’re free to cast your vote in ignorance. Having knowledge does not mean you get to apply that knowledge in a command decision. The command decision is with Bush, but the knowledge is available to all self-aware beings.

The duty of a civilian is as inflexible as the duty of a military soldier.

Your duty is not to the President. Your duty, regardless of any oaths given, is to protect the United States Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic, because it is the Constitution that protects civilians. In effect, you’re protecting yourself by figuring out which is the best winning strategy and where it exists in what space-time coord.

If you feel you can do your duty without knowing which is the right strategy from the wrong strategy, by voting for who you like the most rather than who has the best plan to protect the Constitution, then you’re free to do so. But as I said before, that don’t mean I have to agree with you about your duty or the duty of civilians.

This abstraction you refer to isn’t abstract to me. It’s proven conduct and a good principle to follow. Principles as I see it, should be followed regardless of the convenience reality may or may not give us.

We’re disagreeing on more fundamental things than minor points of war strategy and logistics here. You believe you are not required by duty to figure out international politics for yourself, that who you vote for should decide. I don’t believe that.

In for a penny, in for a pound. If you’re going to go with self-reliance on regular day matters, then you’d better do it with military policy and international politics. This is not an abstraction to me, although it might be to you.

Thus, this is not a tangential matter. You can agree with someone on the end results, as you and I do more or less, but that don’t mean we got there via the same route.

I take things from core principles and ideas and then follow them to the end, I don’t do the re-engineering route. I just can’t jump to the End Answer, check the similarities, and then say everything is okay because the answers are similar.

My main contentions are presented to you, right at the top of this comment. Everything else is mostly comments and descriptions and my own ideas.

I have dropped the matter about personal details and personal attacks. I did this from the beginning of this comment at least, so all my points still remain, because they are unconnected to any personal detail in your real life. It concerns what you believe and what you are doing, not who you are and what you have done in the past.

My personal beliefs are that the Admin is not offering enough decentives. Their incentives of reconstruction, bribery, democracy is effectively negated by the terroist decentives of execution, assassination, bombs, and terror.

Even the improved police is an example of more incentives and not decentives. Both the Sunnis and Shia must understand the price they will pay if they fail, without that understanding there will be no peace or prosperity.

Sherman’s address to Atlanta, summarizes the situation quite well.

Bush disagrees, obviously. But he is the President. And in 2 more years, he won’t be the President. Complaining that Bush isn’t more ruthless and hardcore might feel good, but it changes nothing substantial.

I honestly don’t believe that either we or the new Iraqi government will ever end the insurgency until some formula is found to change the incentives that are in place. It seems to me that’s the missing piece in what’s going on.”

He doesn’t offer what those incentives are- and I haven’t a clue. But on some level, it makes sense. The Sunni-Shi’ite divide is the reason for my doubts. That divide is pervasive and mysterious (to me at least).

*A final aside, ymar. Don’t bother addressing the ‘personal’ aspect of this. It really didn’t bother me nor do I believe you attacked me personally. I shouldn’t have alluded to it in my 6/9 12:16 am comment above. It’s not worth belaboring.

The truth is that we’re debating a minor, tangential point. Like you, I’ve bought into the necessity of the war. Like you (I suspect), I believe that a hasty withdrawal would be disasterous and winning this war is more necessary now than ever. We’re simply disagreeing about whether we’ve got a winning strategy. Hopefully, you’re right- we do.

Honestly, I have no idea what these means. I served in the Army. I received marching orders to Vietnam. I had no say in the matter. I had no say in the strategic choices of the Nixon Administration’s war prosecution. I obeyed. It’s kinda how the military works.

The average civilian voter is the rough equivalent of a single shareholder in Microsoft. He has a right to cast a vote for the directors of MS, who choose its officers. MS’s marketing strategies are determined by its officers. To charge the s/h with the responsibility of making recommendations to Bill Gates on MS’s marketing strategies in Europe, for example, is patently absurd given his limited legal rights. Most importantly, the directors and officers owe a fiduciary duty of care to the shareholders and the corporation- not the other way around. You can turn this on its head and try to shift the burden to the shareholder- but it’s simply incorrect.

The US is democratic republic, not a democracy. We vote for leaders who assume responsibilities. It’s not my duty to figure out how we should handle roving Shi’ite militias. Or roving Sunni militias. Or the porous borders of Syria and Iran. Or the helter skelter Iraqi government. Simply, I’m not charged with the strategic decisions of the War. In the meantime, I can bitch all I want. But come election day, I get to cast my vote up or down on our leaders’ performances.

Very nicely done. Lewis Carroll would be most proud.

If people understand that, as I do, then they might understand why I don’t accuse people of being wrong based upon politics

ROTFFLMFAO You’ve outdone yourself Ymar.

The behavior I am describing had nothing to do with who served in what unit in Vietnam, it had nothing to do with being a Republican or a Democrat, it had nothing to do with who voted for whom.

In fact, I precisely described how cak acts is not the foremost concern that I had. My foremost concern, the one that angers me, is the common behavior pattern of humans. Other people.

The common behavior pattern being, that they don’t find solutions of their own, that they don’t have anything better as a plan. Specifically, behaving as if the Administration were there to give them marching orders, and that without those orders nothing would get accomplished. This is the behavior that I did not approve of.

How this relates to you, cak, is only a secondary matter. It could only apply to you as to what you said in your first comment, in which you offered no solution nor a position implying specific personal modifications of the strategy. While at the same time saying the administration is negligent for not providing a strategy or parameters. I will further make the point that Bush has already decided on a strategy, and since it isn’t more troops, it is a strategy that you don’t like. While it is true Bush doesn’t broadcast this out, Bush is not a media mogul like Trump or an actor like Reagan and Schwarzenegger. Whether Bush tells the public his strategy or not, the military obviously has a clear chain of command and clear orders.

The only thing I directly accused you, cak, if you will check the records, is behaving in an unfitting manner for a citizen of the US in war time.

There are some things you can reply to that charge, like providing your own solutions (more troops may be old, but it is your solution). But even if you do, you don’t negate the larger point that the real problem is that there are many people behaving as if everything would be fine if only Bush gave the right orders. From what I’ve seen and read, there are many Vietnam generation folks with that view. These are the people who prefer a draft, who prefer to see more sacrifice in this war akin to WWII.

Serving in Vietnam, voting for Bush twice, these are not things which affect how you behave in the now. Therefore it has no bearing on whether what I say is true or not.

They are not relevant. Saying that someone’s behavior in a single comment is not good, is not an accussation about politics either.

That is your misunderstanding cak, and I believe I’ve demonstrated to some extent why that is so.

The real question should be asked, is what I believe is behavior befitting a citizen of the United States in war time. And then compare and contrast your own behavior, cak, with my words and debate the merits thus.

Calling into place your life history and your character, is actually a step you took to make things personal, rather than simple disagreement.

It’s simple really. I believe people cannot rely on Bush for winning this war, I believe people should rely upon themselves, and not place the responsibility for communication on Bush when we know he is not good at communication.

Austin Bay made the point that this isn’t a single administration war, this is a multi-administration war. Would he fit into my criteria? No, he wouldn’t. The reason being that Bay is not relying upon the President to win the war for him by giving some magical order.

Whether that magical order be for more troops or not. This President is not going to win the war in Iraq, simply because whatever he does, it will require more than 2 years to accomplish.

So what’s the point of you, cak, talking about a lack of parameters to measure success and how people don’t know how to win the war. It’s been 3 years, if you don’t know what parameters are necessary to win this war and what things should be done, why do you think the President can solve this problem for you?

If your solution is more troops, and the president does not authorize more troops, then that just means you disagree with the President, it is not true that the President has presented no parameters and no war strategy for victory.

The President has, he just didn’t agree with your theory that more troops were needed. This is akin to the criticism leveled by the Generals at the President and Don Rumsfield.

They always keep saying the President and Rumsfield provided no parameters for victory in Iraq and had no plans, had fewer troops, and etc.

Does this make them right because they voted for Bush? No. If people understand that, as I do, then they might understand why I don’t accuse people of being wrong based upon politics.

Never been accused of this before, Ymarsakar. Vietnam era vet, two time Bush voter and a war supporter who is thrilled that Al Zarqawi was killed last night. So kindly don’t make assumptions about my politics just because I question whether we have a winning strategy.

My criticism is aligned with Powell and Scowcroft’s- questioning whether it’s possible to mend the sectarian divide to create a peaceful, stable Iraq. That’s up for grabs, although Zarqawi’s timely demise may aid the process. Jason started this thread off by saying that we’re using our military “as a quasi-police force.” The question is how do we attain our goal of peace. Thus far, our strategies to do so has been haphazard, largely due to the complexities of Iraqi society. Couple that with insufficient troop levels, roving militias and porous borders aiding the insurgents (Iraq, Syria), and it’s a very tough mix. (Yes, I’d put more troops in.)

Part of the reason that Powell was a reluctant warrior was because he recognized that the sheer number of factors would make victory very elusive. He couldn’t identify winning strategies at the outset (I don’t know why you suggest that I should have them if Powell didn’t.) You’re right though- the war is bigger than me or Bush-and hopefully something good will come of it.

www.probligo.blogspot.com

You’d better clarify which criminal code and which jursidiction you are talking about first though. Wise to be accurate after all.

if you want to spend all your days reading opeds from clearly right wing journalists, up to you.

I actually have not mentioned Haditha much at all. I’m quite fond of habeas corpus, thanks, for everyone. Clearly your chickenhawk clique isn’t, except for themselves of course and even then only when caught.

?????

you do realise that inventing things about which you no nothing just makes youi like a bigger idiot don’t you?

So what the women do to stay safe, is to bring along mace cans, bats, and etc in their homes and to carry.

In Australia, if someone attacks you with his fists and he is 300 pounds, 6′2, and you’re a woman that is 90 pounds 5′2 who uses a knife to kill the assailant, you can be charged with manslaughter or assault yourself.

Why? Simply because you “exceeded” the force levels the state will allow you. If you use a baseball bat to beat on someone using only his fists against you, that is called excessive force and is not covered by the self-defense laws in Aussie land. Assuming any self-defense laws exist there.

See it doesn’t really matter to the judges and the government if you are 90 pounds and can’t fight fist to fist with a 300 pound 6 foot man. They don’t care. Just as they don’t care if they confiscate your home with Eminent Domain here in the US. They can do it, therefore they will.

So sure, you won’t be murdered by firearms compared to the United States. However, living under the tyranny and terror of unjust laws and the rule of criminals and judges is not my idea of liberty either.

Criminals will always pump iron so that they can pick on weaker people, they will always band together to form gangs and groups that outnumber the “mark”. Disarming everyone, simply gives the advantage to the enemy, because the enemy is on the attack and he will always bring a superior force to the equation.

A person trained in the use of a gun is a great equalizer when 3 hooligans begin to oppress that person.

Go here for a story about how a former Marine kicked 4 criminals’ ass, two armed with guns at that, because the Marine was trained and hardcore at the ready to do unto others before they do unto him

Aussies are living under the threat of constant violence. Not from the US, but by their own warlords. you should feel pity for such a condition. As anyone would feel pity for New orleans, when Ray I wanna confiscate guns Nagin stole people’s ability to defend themselves and allowed rioters, rapists, looters free reign in the city.

If you are attacked by superior numbers, people who have planned to do harm to you and have chosen the location of battle with the intent of surrounding you and bashing your skull into the ground, then your only hope is to break their morale. You break their morale by shooting one of them in the balls with your gun so that he goes screaming off to fairy land, stunning and shocking his com-patriots. If you don’t have a gun, you pick the meanest and toughest leader amongst the group and you take him down by crushing his wind pipe, exploding his eye, shattering his temple, and breaking his knee in whatever order the situation presents itself. The only hope a small number of people on the defense has against a greater number of attacks is to ATTACK.

Nobody wins a fight just parrying and blocking blows, attack hard enough and furiously enough and you will buy time to either escape or disable others.

The Australians see this “self-defense as an attack strategy” as being unlawful. The person who attacked you with the bat is the victim here, if you reply with a gun, because it just ain’t “fair” you know. That is the legal philosophy of Australia, and it has had untoward effects in the culture.

An interesting quote from Yon’s article:

“A smart Australian recently told me during an interview that “terrorist” is not a subjective term; after all, terror is their principle weapon, and so the term is accurate.”

Apparently, there really IS at least one, despite what we’ve been led to believe.

Who wants to bet that the people at Haditha refused to allow Navy investigators to dig up the bodies, in order to give time to local insurgents to dig those bodies up and shoot them full of captured and black market M4s and M16s that they procured?

This ain’t CSI. Or if it is CSI, the CSI team is working for the insurgents.

The military is perfectly capable of sealing the investigation to enemy propaganda, and still conducting the investigation. However, without the iron hand of the powers of the Presidency crushing the global media and Congress, there is no way that the military can keep secure information that Congressmen like Murtha blares out onto the air ways.

It is not a choice between a cover up and between demoralization of the troops and the homefront through an investigation. This Catch 22 is what all conscientious and competent propagandists seek to produce, but that does not mean it describes all the possibilities in reality itself. There are always loopholes that can provide an escape.

Perhaps you should. It might help with your polarized world view. What’s that? We black/white folks are the polarized ones? Because we see black and white doesn’t preclude seeing gray. Your world of gray is really a twisting of the lenses into a reactionary gray fog of nothingness.

I think a critical point is being missed here. What is the pragmatic effect of playing the Haditha incident out in Abu Ghraib fashion, whether it is true or not?
The reality is that by now, the terrorists are already plotting how they can either get previous incidents of collateral damage reposited as atrocity, or manufacture more of these events. The more this becomes a club used by one side of the political spectrum to beat the other, they will pick it up and make it as wicked an instrument as possible- happily killing many more Iraqis in the process if they can blame it on US troops. I’m not saying the incident should never have seen the light of day and been covered up in the interest of the war effort (though I believe one could make a principled argument for that approach), but that it should be investigated, and reported on matter of factly, in proportion to it’s true import in the context of the larger picture so that a new media weapon isn’t handed to the terrorists. If it is unnecessarily played up and expanded beyond it’s true significance, there is some blood on the hands of those who do so.

That said, a complete investigation should be carried out, including exhumation and examination of the bodies, and if those Marines are guilty, they should be punished severely. If not, the incident should be left behind. Those who would have it linger are tools in the terrorists hands.

Atrocities occurred in WWII by Allied troops. Did that make the war effort less important? If not, then one who is claiming that Haditha shows how we are unjust (systemically) is being inconsistant in their logic, or worse, is USING THE DEATHS OF INNOCENTS to push an agenda. I’d hate to believe that is really the case.

Dishonor by the media is what the Marines fear, and rightfully so.

Because while the enemy may take your life, the media will take your honor. And to a Marine, his honor is indeed worth more than his own life.

Giving criminals what they don’t deserve is just as bad as giving them more than they deserve.

The reason why punishing innocent people is a bad thing, is because that is an injustice. It is wrong to give people more than they deserve in the way of punishment. And it is also wrong to give people less than they deserve in the way of punishment, let’s say zero jail for child molestors.

There have been several incidents in the past 3 years that the military has crushed soldiers who were alleged to have done something, but in actuality had done nothing. Their careers were wrecked, their ranks stripped, their honor stolen and stomped upon.

Those who the military could not prosecute with any guarantee of conviction, they kicked out of the army with an honorable discharge.

The danger is not that the military will go soft on the accused, the danger and the all too possible probability, is that the military will crush more innocents than guilty in their zealousness to “be above such things”.

Thus, the insurgents and the media make you do their dirty work for them. Since they can’t destroy Marines, they get you to do it for them, and it matters not to them that you do it because they are “above such things” while the terroists do it because they are “below such things”. If the end result is death, then it does not matter the means by which itw as accomplished.

Victory at all costs, if you recall.

If true, I agree, the perpetrators should be punished to the fullest extent. Our military MUST be above such things.

Just imagine Plame and RatherGate, except multiplied by 600 times the length.

Blackfive has a good video with that reporter in stumb’s link.

Vid

Whatever the doubts at this point, though, it’s well to remember that atrocities can be committed by anyone, including the US (in which case, it should go without saying [but, like neo, I’ll say it anyway], the perpetrators should be brought to justice). Of all the armed forces of any country, however, those of the US are among the least likely to be involved in such incidents, owing to the trained professionalism of their all-volunteer force.

One thing does concern me now, though — can you just imagine the level of shock, horror, and disbelief, the howls of agony, the tearing of hair, the rending of garments, the terrible gnashing of teeth displayed by distraught lefties if it should eventually be shown that Haditha was NOT a US atrocity after all?! Their hopes dashed after being so cruelly raised!! Oh, the humanity!

Always a great start to any conspiracy theory.

It’s all there in black and white, hidden in plain sight. It is so obvious that you can’t believe it.

Just wrap it in a flag and you can sell turds to farm boys.

This is my sign in word

ymakqrx that I wrote in just now. Even the deadly neo-cons are in on this, I tell ya.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?f882c1b8-aa42-431f-83a6-0066e7629ace

“Notably, Kimber says he heard nothing about a civilian massacre during weekly meetings with the Haditha City Council and talks with local leaders. “It would have been huge, there would have been no question it would have filtered down to us,” he said. “We reported no significant atmospheric change as a result of that day.” “

Always a great start to any conspiracy theory.

If there is no good or evil, what is the basis of your complaint? If supporting liberal democracy in Iraq is equivalent to suicide bombing civilians in a market or eating ice cream, why do you persist in arguing about it?

If you have a conscience, deep down you know what the terrorists are doing is wrong. It is one thing to criticize America for not always being consistent with its liberal ideals. It is another thing entirely to oppose its ideals, which is what the terrorists and you at times are doing.

10:37 AM, June 06, 2006

Yes Jason, I know what the terrorists are doing is wrong and I am 100% against them. I don’t know who they are though, so my condemning them means 2/5 of FA.

You’re a smart guy Jason and I understand that you are proud of your country as is your right. I am proud of my country too, but it doesn’t mean that a) I don’t have the right to loathe John Howard and his band of crooks with all my being and b) that I have to support his military adventures or any other thing that he has done, and it’s my right to say so. I’ll support my country but I won’t idly sit by and watch crooks pervert patriotism to nationalism whilst lining their own pockets and creating a business opportunity for their cronies. And I won’t support individual leaders in my country in the ‘right or wrong’ style thanks.

All this freedom and democracy for the middle east is bs and they’re not really even pretending anymore. It’s less than lip service.

As I said jason, you’re a smart guy. Follow the money.

You are just the latest in a long line of people suckered into allowing him to pontificate.

What sally said was simply that a government is responsible for their civilians in war time, that any civilians the US is forced to kill in Iraq was the fault of those who did not allow those civilians to evacuate. Japan’s civilian casualties were Japan’s fault, because they did not surrender, not Truman’s fault. Confud sees this, as all justified and rational arguments made by classical liberal neo-conservatives, as proof positive that Confud’s prejudices are correct.

Since sally didn’t explain it, I thought I’d do it for her.

Stumb,

No, that’s not playground debate, that’s asymmetrical warfare. Using your strengths against their weaknesses. If they hit you on the toe cause they have a strong kick, then you hit them with your fist because your arm is stronger. Thereby making the justification, “I hit her in the nose because she kicked me in my foot”, valid.

Why do people insist on seeing terroist tactics as fundamentally different from what people see on internet arguments? They both use fundamental principles that are the same.

Take this for example by Confud

The fact is that America and Israel are the 2 countries attacking and occupying others right now.

The fact is that the person who stomped on my toe hurt my toe, therefore I’m going to use my strength against her weaknesses. It is quite the same kind of thinking after all that the terroists themselves ascribe to logically.

What is so different about the argument that it is the US’s fault that people die in Iraq because the US started the mess in Iraq, from the terroist propaganda that the US can be made to feel guilty because they care about civilians?

Cak seems to act like he requires marching orders from the administration, in order to figure out what is a winning strategy, what solutions are good, and what things will benefit people.

Why don’t people find their own winning strategies, like what I did, instead of demanding and complaining that Bush hasn’t given them one.

I had believed that we lived in a country where the government is for the people by the people, in which I assumed that the people were the ones that would dictate the strategy, not Bush the President.

I have no problems with people that are curious and want to know what Bush is up to in the war, but that is entirely different than saying what cak did, that he knew nothing about what was going on unless Bush told him.

No one knows the winning strategy because they are too busy bitching about the problem rather than finding the solutions for themselves, to be blunt. America is the country it is because the people dictate what is tolerable or intolerable in victory and defeat. It is they that fight wars and win them, not the generals or the presidents.

If America don’t know how to win, that’s the fault of Americans. But Americans do know how to win. The problem is, an equal amount claim that they don’t know how to win because Bush hasn’t told them. If America’s highest point is relying on someone like Bush to do their thinking for them, no wonder cak believes nobody knows the winning strategy.

Whenever there is a military meeting between the senior and junior officers of a company, you have the Captain drawing comments and thoughts from the LTs. If an LT criticizes a strategy that the Captain favors, then that LT will be heard. The Captain, however, will ask the LT if he has anything better. If the LT does not have anything better, the Captain will still go with the plan he favors regardless of the criticism.

It is the job of Americans to give Bush a better plan, if they don’t like what plan he currently has. If Americans can’t find a better plan, then they should find a politician or general that has a better plan and convince him to lead.

I’ve already said here and at bookworm’s site where Bush has gone wrong and where he can improve. Bush prefers to do it his own way, that being his decision to make.

I’m not angry at cak for believing or doing as he does with the war. This war is bigger than cak, or me, or even Bush. Cak can do or believe as he wills concerning the war, but that does not make it behavior befitting a citizen of the United States in war time.

It’s been 3 years. Plenty of time for people to learn war tacics, strategy, and logistics and form their own winning strategies. It is not Bush’s fault or my fault that they don’t make use of the internet to enlighten themselves. Maybe they’re too busy to learn about war when their job takes 45 hours a week to do, but then again maybe Bush is too busy to listen to people who don’t have any solutions.

I know I don’t tend to listen to people who just complain and offer nothing better.

Please, you really ought to work on your reading comprehension skills. Or your analogy skills. The light referred to above clearly is not analogous to the country itself, it represents the ease with which questions can be asked and an actual investigation done. The US has procedures and a tradition in place (the light) to investigate what happened. As many others have pointed out, Abu Ghraib came to light when it was reported by the US military. Meanwhile, no one is even bothering to look into the pet market bombing (the shadow).

Are you going to hold your breath waiting for the Association of Muslim Scholars to come out with a report laying out how that incident came about and how they are going to punish the perpetrators? That’s what I mean by light and shadow. Because it’s relatively easy to investigate what US soldiers might have done we’ll be all over that, but when it comes to any probe into why a guy buying a bird got killed there’s no interest because it’s just too hard. The questions won’t even be asked. You said as much yourself in an earlier entry:“…not really knowing who to blame and not being able to find out, who do you demand accountability of?”).

Just because it’s hard doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. My beef is that the world isn’t even asking anyone to do it. Where is the outrage and where is the demand that the people targeting pet markets stop? Why is it that no one even calls them on it? If the world actually gave a sh*t about human rights, it would. Isn’t that what the new Human Rights Council is all about? It seems to me that sawing someone’s head off might be a violation of their human rights. Where are the hearings and resolutions on that one?

That’s the context I’ll understand Haditha in. The US military, being composed of fallible human beings, is not and will never be immune from the possibility of committing war crimes. But it doesn’t make them it’s standard operating procedure and it punishes transgressions when it finds them. There is no comparison to an enemy that conversely, and I would say perversely, celebrates and exults in committing atrocities. All you have to do is read their press releases. And the beauty of it for them is that they are never even called on to uphold the most minimal of human standards no matter what they do. In fact, most of the time there’s someone out there ready to explain and justify their behavior. It’s a great gig if you can get it.

“Civilized countries don’t kill thousands of civilians for money and/or oil.”

I’ll have to remember that one for the time when we actually get into a discussion about a war where a country is killing thousands of civilians for money or oil. Wait, I think that’s what Saddam was doing in Kuwait. You want to talk about that now?

Are you defending Sally?

No, I’m having a conversation with you. I don’t know Sally.

Defend her all you like but I’ll offer you a pearl too.

See above.

I don’t own any neo-cons or chickenhawks. Your cute little references to such things are tiresome, and in my opinion beneath you, since they interrupt the flow of your argument. You’d be a much better debater without them. Sure, you’d have less fun, but then you aren’t one of those political narcissists I referred to earlier, are you?

It is asymmetric warfare, and it succeeds, as others have said, due to the very morality of the military and the nation it’s used against. And I find it absolutely repellent that there are those who cannot or will not condemn it, while pointing to the anomalies of American mistakes. That’s playground debate: “Yes, I gave Janey a bloody nose, but she stepped on my toe.” The two are not equivalent.

She has made the statement that civilian victims of US bombings are are responsible for their own demise. She has also denied the Chatila and Sabra massacres.

… is a simple and outright lie.

If there is no good or evil, what is the basis of your complaint? If supporting liberal democracy in Iraq is equivalent to suicide bombing civilians in a market or eating ice cream, why do you persist in arguing about it?

If you have a conscience, deep down you know what the terrorists are doing is wrong. It is one thing to criticize America for not always being consistent with its liberal ideals. It is another thing entirely to oppose its ideals, which is what the terrorists and you at times are doing.

I don’t know who or what is downplaying or ignoring it — the point of neo’s post here and of many other posts and comments is precisely the opposite: to emphasize and highlight it. The reason to do that is simply to point out that such a drumbeat, whether a “known” or not, saps the morale of the people who must do the actual fighting, undermines the support for those people among the general populace, and generally hampers the prosecution of a just war. The other factor in this — and what makes the MSM “drumbeat” so much worse — is the degree to which the terrorists and their more conscious sympathizers rely upon the Western media to further their own war aims, using the West’s own sense of decency as a guilt-club with which to beat it.

To say that such a demoralizing and defeatist drumbeat is simply a post Vietnam “known” comes close to excusing it, and I don’t have much sympathy for those who do that.

9:28 AM, June 06, 2006

The fact is that America and Israel are the 2 countries attacking and occupying others right now.

I don’t see either country as any sort of light while the neocons are in charge and any significant proportion votes for them. Civilized countries don’t kill thousands of civilians for money and/or oil. And civilized countries don’t let their leaders rob their treasuries, for 2 terms.

Are you defending Sally? She has made the statement that civilian victims of US bombings are are responsible for their own demise. She has also denied the Chatila and Sabra massacres.

Defend her all you like but I’ll offer you a pearl too.

If you lie down with dogs, you’ll get fleas.

If you’re happy to be identified with some of these ultranationalist extremists, then good luck to you. You’ll need it.

I’d rather stay in the middle and out of the asylums of the ultraright or left thanks. That little chickenhawk of yours has a bad habit of getting in my face though.

How much cash can the world bank disappear in 5 years dyareckon?

I’m also reluctant to blame the MSM for the war’s stalemate. US voters are long-suffering if they believe that it’s a necesssary fight and there’s a winning strategy in place. The Administration occasionally addresses necessity; it rarely mentions winning strategy. There are no benchmarks to measure the “Iraqis must stand up” strategy. So instead, we get anecdotal evidence: roadside bombings, roaming sectarian militias, weak Iraqi training, etc. It’s difficult to blame the MSM for this when there are no parameters in place to measure success. My question is: assume an imaginary gag order was issued preventing negative news by the MSM. Would we have a winning strategy in place in Iraq? After 3 years, no one knows.