Tour of Ray's computer setup

[Guest]

Eventually, the innocent are released when their identities were discovered and hopefully some restitution is made.

Restitution? Surely you aren't that naive? Case in point, one example of what is happening in Afghanistan.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle ... temID=2189
I'm sure many Vietnamese would like restitution as well.

War is hell, Corey. Pure and simple.

And someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that people who have been wrongfully convicted and imprisoned in State and Federal Prisons in the US, and then later proved innocent, have to sue for restitution. Isn't that special?

Sorry, the rest of your post is all wonderfully optimistic but I believe your assumptions are seriously flawed.

[Rain Man]

You don't need to try to educate me on the destructiveness and mortailty of war, believe me. The loss of innocent life is a terrible thing always. and while it's sad to read about a little girl frightened by flashbangs and gunfire to the point where she runs off and very unfortunately dies a painful, lonely death, the tactics used by the forces in that article are necessary to ensure the safety of the soldiers in what they believe to be a hostil environment. Move fast, strike hard, surprise and overwhelm. I also read a few other articles posted on that site referring to potential targets in Iraq (water treatment, electricity, etc) designed to cripple the city and I agree with what you yourself said "War is hell"; that is a fact. Saddam must be removed from this planet, Israel needs to get out of the Pakistan, China and Korea need to back off their nuclear programs/testing and threats, warlords in 3rd world nations must be removed..etc, etc. We do not live in a "happy-go-lucky" world, as I know you are clearly aware. I can only hope that U.N. and U.S. policy on conflict begins to change. War begins with an objective, but rarely is the objective decisive enough to effect a lasting improvement thanks in large part to politicians who spook when bad things start happening. I'm a staunch advocate of capital punishment, though, so perhaps I am just more willing to remove the cancer. Anyway, I'm not quite sure if we're even talking about the same issues anymore and it's very easy to debate such issues when there is no real direct link or involvement, so I think I'll just say I'll support what I think should be done, and you yours and not take up more bandwidth on the subect.

[Guest]

support what you want, but I'm not going to let your misconceptions/misrepresentations about making restitutions to wrongfully accused stand unchallenged. It's just not the case. And that article was but one small example, and about more than "just" a little girl who lost her life. A village was destroyed. No restitutions were made, none will be. Innocents are and will suffer far more than you or I can imagine in our sheltered little lives. You seemed to be trying to justify your support of our military actions with this rose colored assertion/assumptions that somehow everything will be made right again. That couldn't be farther from the truth.

[Rain Man]

Now I see where your focus lies. Ok...I understand the direction you are coming from now. You're right, there probably WON'T be compensation for all the damage done in in the middle east and I see how my first posts would lead to the conclusion I DID believe that. That was my fault is not clearly presenting my thoughts (which just goes back to my FIRST post and how BB's and emails are just about the worst place to have a discussion like this ) The U.S. has just as much history of causing damage and "moving on" as it does of causing damage then rebuilding entire nations and infrastructures. Unfortuantely a many of the "little people" are left to cope with the aftermath of war. No, my support of "our" military action is entirely based on the notion of removing evil (my word, not GW's) men from positions of power so they can't wreak havoc on the world at large. I WANT the innocents to be helped in repairing the damage that is being and will be done, but that is not a prerequisite for me to make the world a safer place for the tens and hundreds of millions that currently live under tyrannical rule. (and that includes nations the U.S. currently has positive political ties to...China's "Move Favored Nation" status can kiss my ass; that country is a wreck politically and regarding human and person rights).

[Guest]

Many would argue that our bombing of the Iraqi water supplies and the long standing sanctions have caused more suffering and death to Iraqi people than Sadam ever has or will.

Personally I don't believe that Sadam is a threat to us at all and I will also assert that our reasons for attacking Iraq have absolutely nothing to do with "removing evil men from positions of power so they can't wreak havoc on the world at large." Exactly what has Sadam Hussein actually done? Huh? Why is he only a threat when our president's name is Bush? Just when did Sadam and Bin Laden become one and the same person and what does any of this have to do with the so-called War on Terror?

Have some Freedom Fries while Ashcroft probes your rectum!

[Rain Man]

My reasons for not liking Saddam have nothing to do with Oil. I would be willing to pay more for my gas knowing not a drop came from Iraq, or Saudi Arabia. Saddam does not have to attack the US for him to be an VERY VERY bad man. The attrocities he's commited against the people of Iraq (tortures (documented on both him AND his sons), assasinations, rigged "free" elections" or are the medievil order. Much of what takes place in the middle eat regarding policies on rights (for women and people in general) is reprehensible, but many are not allowed to leave, so they must endure it. After Saddam, the US is looking at N. Korea...and China, and there was the whole Somalia debacle. Please don't mistake my support of the US's actions in Iraq as blind support for Bush or all of his policies (and back-pocket deals), it is not. Saddam and Osama do not have to be the same person to want to rid the planet of both of them. Osama is more of a threat, I believe, because he has religious followers, which are far more dangerous than political ones. Why did it take the complete distruction of the World Trade Centers for the US to really step up and address the issue of terroism? I don't know. It's not like 9/11 was the FIRST time there was an attack on US soil, just the first time it did enough damage for people to reall care outside of those immediately affected. The issue is very wide and goes very deep and has been going on far longer than people open their eyes to, because "we've" never REALLY been at risk. Well, we HAVE, it's just the the CIA and NSA have been able to stop most of the plots before they could come to fruition. The battle never ends so long as people hate the US for promoting freedom.

[Rain Man]

Well, they actually hate the US for supporting some nations and not others and for "meddling" while promoting freedom...because we are the sinning infidels and are all going to hell.

[tomdarch]

No, I don't believe the pilots of the planes and orchestrators of the attacks were from Iraq. I actually don't watch television news all that much, because news-media is too wrapped up in sensationalism and ratings, and don't concern themselves with clear, objective reporting of facts; it's all about the "sound bite".

I don't catch the commercial broadcast media very often, but it is shocking how shallow and flimsy thier coverage is - and I'm not just talking about Fox 'news'.

However, self-same Taliban WERE trying to commandeer crop-dusting planes to germinate large, populated areas with biological weapons, THAT is a fact.

Again - they weren't Taliban, they were Al Queda. They were non-Afghans and of a different type of fundamentalist Islam than the Taliban. Big difference.

Is it a terrible thing when innocent people are taken prisoner due to mistaken identity? Yes, or course it is. Eventually, the innocent are released when their identities were discovered and hopefully some restitution is made. It happens all the time in the criminal justice system in our country...mistaken identity, and hopefully truth prevails in the long run.

The problem with the Bush administration's approach to holding people as 'enemy combatants' rather than following the Geneva Convention (to which the US is a signatory) is that there is no 'criminal justice system'. If Military Intelligence says that you are Al Queda, then you are going to sit in a cage in Cuba and be 'questioned' forever. Never mind if you are a Saudi Red Crescent worker with the wrong name. You have been decared to be guilty and that's that. No lawyer, no trial. It is truly shameful that the US is acting in this way.

The difference is the Good Guys CARE about not killing the innocent. If the wrong person is persecuted, it is a mistake and we try to make amends. There is no "wrong person" to religious zealots (that includes the crusades and all mass murders perpetrated in the name of one's God). The attack on the Pentegon was the ONLY justified attack of that day, because it represents a focalpoint of the American military structure.

I generally agree with you about the validity of the Pentagon as a target. But I want to point out something about how you've phrased things above. We aren't inherently "the Good Guys". I certainly think that they US is the best system of government in the world and that, as a whole, the US can do great good throughout the world on many levels. But at the same time we are very much capable of being "the Bad Guys" in certain situations. We are not always right. Portryaing us as "the Good Guys" arbitrarily is a step towards that very fundamentalism that you rightly criticise.

You act to prevent imminent threat, THEN sort out the facts. Paper-pushers, politicians and diplomats have their jobs; they discuss, they delay, they debate and "wait it out". People don't KNOW how many additional attemps of terror have been thwarted on US soil since the September attack; while I also don't know the number, I have spoken to a retired Navy Commander currently working for the Federal govmt. and it's quite a few. I just hope people understand and appreciate what is involved in keeping this great nation safe from psychopaths so we can debate the issue on an internet BB that revolves around something as trivial climbing on a big rock in central KY...It's staggering and I am very appreciative.

Be careful about that mysterious idea of 'we don't know what all is going on.' It strikes me as part of the thinking that Israel uses to maintain some of their harmful policies and actions. It's a hazy justification for some bad actions. Also, reagarding your rhetoric about "delay", "debate" and "[waiting] it out", you appear to have fallen for the Bush administration's false dichotomy. What is happening currently is not "inaction" and attacking Iraq is not the only possible "action."

If the goal of what the world is doing is to contain Iraq and generally make it harmeless in the region, then the sanctions and inspections are doing a great deal to achieve these ends. They are not perfect, but nothing is. If the goal is to contain gloabal 'terrorism' then there are better countries to invade and control. If the goal is to limit proliferation of weapons, then there are many other countries to attack, such as North Korea. If the goal is to depose murderous despots, then, again there are worse examples to go after.

The fact is that far-right members of the Bush II administration wanted to attack Iraq before September 11th, and they have cynically used that tragedy to manipulate the rest of the administration and the US to achieve their ends. Part of the goal is certianly to influence the global oil supply (do you really think that a post-war Iraq will be allowed to be a member of OPEC?) Part of the goal is to take pressure off of Sharon and the far right in Israel. Part of the goal is to set a precedent that US power should be unchecked by global democracy or the rule of law (for example, the Bush administration's attempts to stymie the International Court of Justice). These are all terrible goals in the long run.

I do think that there are very good reasons for the civilized world to take actions (including war) to remove murderous despots. But, sadly, this administration's reasons, means and ends are not justified in this case.

[tomdarch]

Why did it take the complete distruction of the World Trade Centers for the US to really step up and address the issue of terroism? I don't know. It's not like 9/11 was the FIRST time there was an attack on US soil, just the first time it did enough damage for people to reall care outside of those immediately affected. The issue is very wide and goes very deep and has been going on far longer than people open their eyes to, because "we've" never REALLY been at risk. Well, we HAVE, it's just the the CIA and NSA have been able to stop most of the plots before they could come to fruition. The battle never ends so long as people hate the US for promoting freedom.

No one "hates the US for promoting freedom." Don't forget that "all politics is local." Bin Laden doesn't care about the US, he is fundamentally interested in reforming Saudi Arabia to become even more radically fundamentalist in his style. He uses the US as an enemy to maintain his own power and influence towards his main goal of radicalizing all Saudis. Remember the enemy country in the book "1984"? Remeber how everyone had to gather and yell epithets at the picture of the enemy country's leader? It's a tool to control your own people. All cults and fundamentalists need enemies. Do you really think that Osama says to his followers, "Look what the US did in South Africa! The fall of apartheid is why we must kill them all!" Do you really think that a more democratic South Korea pisses them off?

Now let me be wildly partisan. The fact is that Clinton/Gore were acting against Al Queda on many levels. Gore chose not to use scare tactics during the campaign. When the Bush administration took office, they didn't get just how serious the situation was and dropped the ball. I don't think that they knew anything about what was being planned before hand, but that's exactly the problem. They had a particular world view, and Afghanistan just wasn't part of it.

[Rain Man]

You're right, my mistake. I misrepresented the group, thinking Al Qaida, and typing Taliban. The Taliban did nothing against U.S. citizens (but the Afgans sure seemed to be happy as hell they could fly KITES again, of all things).

(How in the hell you you take the direct quote...I could use that....I tried using that little "quote" button, but it grabbed everything.

Anyway, Again, this particular forum does not lend itself to clarity of multiuple ideas. The US is directly responsible for numerous "bad guy" acts, of this I have no doubt and said acts have been orchestrated by "bad" men in power in THIS country. My over simplification of "good guy vs. bad guy" was meant only toward Al Qaida and Saddam. The US has been the Bad guy more often than many want to admit. I am not blind, naive or stupid; hell, we STOLE most of this country from previous inhabitants. Canada is lucky the "we" thought Minnesota was cold ENOUGH.

I also agree with you that there are numerous leaders perpetuating heinous crimes against humanity and his nations citizens all around the globe. And the fact that the US has re-targetted Iraq is a convenience of public sentiment from the Gulf-War, where many believed the job should have been finished the first time through. And yes, this new conflict in the back rooms probably is more about oil and vendetta than a danger to the world at large, but "the man" still needs to go, along with those like him in other regions. Oil may be part of the governments reason, but it's certainly not mine, OPEC or no OPEC. My issues lay in the laps of tyrants, regardless of their export. I am also the one who wants to strangle thugs at "home" who are just as bad as those foreign leaders, just with less power. How long did thieves and rapists and muggers and murderers and kidnappers wait after the Al Qaida attacks before they went back to "business as usual"? I WOULD like to see more of the resources the US spends abroad redirected to cleaning up the US from the INSIDE. Take care of your own before you go after someone else. I just get frustrated when I hear people talk about howt he US is not the world's policeman anymore. That's easy to say for someone who lives in a country as free as ours (despite various political groups' efforts to further remove our rights and freedoms, Dem and Rep). This topic can (and is) so easily snoballing into numerous other issues wrong, inside this country and out, that my fingers are fatiguing. I SWEAR this is my last post in this subject heading, regardless of anyone else's response to what I've said. This discussion is one that has gone on for hundreds (for the US) and thousands (rest of world) of years. I appreciate everyone's input.