Hide Comments
This should be a big seller - in Damascus.
Posted by Old Soldier at October 3, 2005 11:25 PM
Hi there, cowboy!
Mrs. England just said how and what she really did to those people in Iraq prison. How do you feel now when you know your redneck Seals and the terrorists which cut people's heads are the same type of person? I mean, as much as the people of Iraq and USA who each day get afraid that one of you two impotents don't do something horrid to them or to their families?
Posted by Sinke at October 3, 2005 11:32 PM
Ah, Sinke. Apparently you can't differentiate abuse by a young punk of a woman, who happened to be a marine, and got in over her head by following some of her punk friends in getting some laughs (Not funny), and the political statements made by an organization whose purpose is to destroy a democratic government (flegling) by cutting off peoples heads, blowing up innocent men, women and children, and promoting civil war. I hope you,re not running for congress, but then again, maybe you are.
Posted by gerry at October 4, 2005 12:23 AM
Gents, you've lost me. England was Army, and had nothing to do with Seals or Marines.
Posted by Old Soldier at October 4, 2005 12:26 AM
Uhhh, yeah, sure. That's how any reasonable person would understand that. Likewise, had the General said "good morning" it would be understood to mean "good only if you beat a prisoner." If there's some substance to this story, the Times fails to find it - or neglects to report it. In fact, skip down to paragraph 18 and 19 of the Time's coverage, and you'll learn that Yee only heard about the things he alleges to have occurred
As far as being a "reasonable person" goes, consider if you had been imprisoned, falsely charged with espionage, and then also charged with "Adultery" all charges which were dropped after you spent many, many months in prison. Your career is now destroyed, you have been vilified public ally by your own government as a suspected traitor and terrorist.(And adulterer!) Tell me Greyhawk, if you had gone through all that, just how "reasonable" would you be? You want to claim the man has an Axe to grind? Fine. But it's a pretty big Axe don't you think? And exactly who gave it to him? Were they ever discredited, shamed, punished? Or do they still have their careers, marriages, & lives intact?
But by all means, go ahead and vilify the man some more. What else could you do that hasn't been done already?
Posted by Patrick (Gryph) at October 4, 2005 12:43 AM
Why no one is talking about Ian Fishback? You know him, the captain in the 82nd Airborne who tried to get clear directive from higher about just was and received no answer.
He is a committed Christian who was more than a little bothered by what is going on. He tried to get a clear answer, and only got any response after going outside the chain of command.
Maybe if there had been clear directives to follow - like say, the Geneva Convention, Mrs. England wouldn't be heading to jail, because someone would have stopped her from posing for such stupid pictures.
Instead, no one can tell what is and isn't OK. How is the MP supposed to know what to do when no one will tell him? But we will leave him to twist in the wind if we don't like what he does. Is this how soldiers are supposed to follow orders? Guess what higher really wants, and then take the fall for them if it doesn't work out.
Or doesn't any of this bother anyone? Aren't we supposed to be the good guys? Aren't we better than they are?
Posted by OldDeadMeat at October 4, 2005 01:15 AM
People here don't want to talk about Fishbeck because the right wing can't figure out how to smear him. Therefore, they'll try to ignore him.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 4, 2005 07:35 AM
Well to tell the truth, yes, I can't tell a difference between a punk girl who claims she was abused by her boyfriend when he took picture of her how she holds a man on the leash ( poor naive girl was abused ) and the bunch of guys who kill their own nation cutting people's heads. Let me tell you one thing there, why US troops don't leave Iraq and return to the States? UN could send their troops, that would make all things much easier. We are still talking about occupation here, not democracy- and I don't give green in my nose for democracy which started as an occupation. As for the troops and congress, there are Vietnam veterans who live in boxes in Central Park. If I reach congress, I will give Iraq veterans boxes in color. It will be more than Bush is preparing for them, I assure you.
Posted by Sinke at October 4, 2005 02:17 PM
Sinke, the UN won't put troops in Iraq. No one is stopping them from doing so now.
The one thing the Abu Ghraib torturers and the al Qaeda torturers have in common is that the US Army is punishing both for their actions.
Patrick - I'll try clarify my comments. Beyond a vague mention of some undefined physical method of removing prisoners from their cells the NY Times report contains nothing more than hints of exactly what Yee is accusing the Army of - if anything. "Creating an atmosphere by saying there's a war on" is the most specific description of something he found objectionable. That may be the fault of the Times - or it may be that they did the best they could with what they had.
Posted by Greyhawk at October 4, 2005 03:42 PM
On the other hand I could just read my buudy Jason's "Just Another Soldier" on shelves today. Jason's blog of the same name is now a book. Jason struggles with war's inhumnanity, but despite an outlook more liberal than mine, he fights when he needs to, and he has no pity on the enemy, just the hapless civilians caught up in it.
Posted by John Byrnes at October 4, 2005 09:33 PM
Greyhawk, we can presume that those who are staffing Guantanamo Bay know and have known that there's a war going on. Therefore, the purpose of repeating that vital information is to motivate them not to inform them. The question is: Motivate them to do what?
Yee described plenty of things he found objectionable. It is gross misrepresentative of Yee's book to say that his most specific objection is the statement you mentioned. If you're going to be critical of Yee, at least be honest about what he wrote.
The truth: It's what's for dinner.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 4, 2005 09:52 PM
Greyhawk, I really don't understand what you mean. I can't relate your post to mine, can you please elaborate it to me? Are you cynical with your state that nobody is stopping UN troops to deploy in Iraq or you claim that there are no legal and no practical arguments which would stop this from happening? That would be hilarious.
As for your "Army is punishing both torturers in Abu Ghraib and in Al Qaeda" I find it really ,with respect, silly. Army is prosecuting these criminals through legal actions, but the whole war in Iraq is insult and mockery to the American Constitutuon, American legal system, American glorious history, American glorious culture. Not to mention the common sense. Could you please tell me the legal name of what the soldiers are doing in Iraq? The United States of America and country of Iraq oficially are not in war. In order to legalize occupation, one has to declare war in diplomatic manner, through material documents of war declaration which are given under the legal system of the modern democratic society. This is not war. This is not occupation. Soldiers in Iraq don't have official status which would describe their role and status in American legal system. After all this is over, God help us please to be as soon as possible, troops which will come to the States will have no legal right to ask for war pension since officialy there is no war at the moment. As you probably know, lawyers can do many things on the court and it would be enough to ask anybody in the courtroom to give material proof legalized by American legal system that there was war in Iraq.
The worst conclusion after all is this. Soldiers of NATO in Iraq are not troops in war conflict. They are not troops which have legal right to restore peace and democratic system. They are not recognized as peacekeepers by commonfolk, as well as they are not recognized in legal system as warriors who are defending United States of America because. Legaly The United States of America were not and are not at the moment in direct threat of any kind from nation of the country which was invaded.
So what are the troops in Iraq in legal terms?
I'm afraid to use that word.
But there is no other.
Terrorists.
Posted by Sinke at October 4, 2005 11:45 PM
Sinke, don't be ridiculous.
First off, the American troops in Iraq are troops not terrorists. Secondly, there's no such thing as a "war pension," there's a military pension if you stay long enough.
I'm no fan of the war in Iraq, but your comments are beyond the pale.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 5, 2005 05:44 AM
First I must clear something from my first post. When I said "Seals" I also said "Redneck". I didn't want to say that poor abused innocent young girl with man on the leash is member of the Navy Seals, I just wanted to have fun out of the word "Seals". I mean, if you are a Navy Seal, first you must be a redneck, right? "I wanna shut da gunz en threw boms!" is what is mistaken for patriotism.
Yes, you are right. Those people are troopers. Not only that, but Bush said they are "crusaders", and may I recall that even most devoted Roman Catholics beleive that crusaders were horrible killers? As for my main argument- give me the legal explanation with quatations from the American law practice which will explain that these troops belong there. If the law is what Bush wanted to give to Iraq, maybe he didn't have to break all the laws of the State and make what will be remembered as the biggest mud on the Eagle's feathers. US troops in legal way, under the interpretation of Just War rules and regulations, are in total contradiction with everything they are supposed to stand for. To call them troops of democracy is same as saying that people who crashed themselves in WTC are martyrs.
You mean there is no war pension when they get back? Man, somebody should tell them! I mean, they were sent to Iraq and are left there now in complete disaster of tactical warfare. What kind of teddybear in uniform you must be to do that to your soldiers? Even countries as Croatia and Serbia are giving war pensions to their soldiers who fought in war, but I guess they live in rich society. You think Al'Quaeda is behind bombing US soldiers to brain in boots in Iraq? No- the suicidal bombers are people living next door who are fed up and started to fight. The people with ties and trousers. The people who bombed London subway were even given home, education, material situation and great job with salary yet they took the bomb and blew themselves with people around in subway. The Iraq people claimed thousands of times that when the enemy is gone the terrorists will leave their actions as well. But I guess nobody asks Iraq people what they think. I mean, aren't we talking Western democracy here?
Posted by Sinke at October 5, 2005 09:00 AM
Let's correct a few of your mindless rants, Sinke:
WAR PENSIONS:
There are retirement benefits connected with military service. I don't know exactly how the benefits are calculated; I believe they're based entirely on time in grade but that could be wrong. In the civilian world, defined-benefit pensions are typically a percentage of earnings while working.
There is hazardous duty pay in the military, and if the military uses a percentage of earnings formula you could imagine that this could increase someone's pension entitlement and thereby serve as a sort of proxy for a "war pension."
I don't think the military does it that way, but let's imagine for the sake of this discussion that they do. Then for your "no war pension" argument to hold water, hazardous duty pay would have to be linked to a declaration of war. But I don't think there is any such link; therefore, there is no "war pension" issue as you have framed it.
"CRUSADERS"
I think George W. Bush is an incompetent, lying fool. Shortly after 9/11 he made some outlandishly stupid statements. My favorites were when he alternated quoting Old West posters ("Wanted Dead or Alive") and Batman comic books (all that "evildoers" talk).
Bush also put his foot not only in his mouth but all the way down his esophagus, through his stomach and into his intestines when he referred to American retaliatory action as a "crusade." But he never called our soldiers "crusaders." That is a product of your imagination.
THE IRAQI PEOPLE
Terrorism in London has nothing to do with the wishes of the Iraqi people. If the U.S. leaves Iraq no one should think that this will somehow end terrorism. Same goes if the U.S. were to win there, whatever "win" really means.
Terrorism is a separate issue from the Iraq War. There was never any connection between the two issues; that's one of Bush's lies that you apparently believe. To the extent that there is now a connection, it is only because the U.S. has so thoroughly destroyed Iraq's civil life that in the ensuing anarchy the country has become more fertile ground for terrorist groups to operate there.
WESTERN DEMOCRACY
George W. Bush has talked about democracy, but that has always been a lie put forth as a fig leaf. And now even that has been abandoned, as any reading of the Potemkin constitution will show.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 5, 2005 07:32 PM
More Sinke's mindless rants.
WAR PENSION
Precicely!There is no war declaration, so officialy right now there is no war in Iraq. I don't know the legal term for what are US troops doing there but they sure won't get any more money from those who are stationed in the States.
CRUSADERS
"The whole crusade against Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with oil. Once we got rid of Saddam and converted the Muslims to Christianity, Western democracy would not only flourish but would spread over the entire Middle East."
Dear Wilson, did he had to name them crusaders?
I think not, because..... he has in very direct way.
TERRORISM
When London was mentioned I was refering to the people who are blowing themselves up and killing people around them. They are not members of elite terrorist group. They are people who just were there. And Bush told in the beginning that Saddam had 9/11 US personally. I am not buying that, but we should really ask ourselves what are we going to do now when the game shutters.
WESTERN DEMOCRACY
More detail? Fukuyama?
Posted by Sinke at October 5, 2005 11:48 PM
Sinke, someone with more specific knowledge of the military pension system can pick it up from here, but I think your ranting about "war pensions" has become incoherent.
On your point about crusaders, you posted a quote without an attribution. Who said that? The voices inside your head when your Thorazine ran out?
As for those who blew themselves up in London, we don't know just who they are yet. Nor do you. As for 9/11 and Saddam, Bush never made the direct accusation that Saddam was behind it but he and his surrogates implied it like crazy. It's one of the lies behind the Iraq War. And yes, I think if the U.S. loses the Iraq War as increasingly seems likely, it's going to be a very difficult time.
But your rant to the effect that terrorism would stop if we'd only leave Iraq is just crazy. You're incoherently angry, and in that sense you are one of a matched set of bookends with the mindless right-wingers who dominate this blog.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 6, 2005 04:21 AM
"For the record, George WMD believed:
Saddam Hussein brought down the World Trade Center all by himself.
Saddam had WMDs poised on the border to use against our liberating troops after he nuked Israel.
Saddam and al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are all in the same bed together and are masterminding worldwide terrorism.
The whole crusade against Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with oil.
Once we got rid of Saddam and converted the Muslims to Christianity, Western democracy would not only flourish but would spread over the entire Middle East.
OK, so George was and is wrong on all five counts. That doesn't make him a bad person. I mean after all he's trying. However, it does make him one lousy president.
But the most hideous and shameful connection between George's war and the Crusades, to me, will always be his macho pronouncement with his elbow on the podium: "We will leave no child behind." Then he promptly gives his rich friends even more tax relief, leases Iraq to Halliburton and guts the environment with one hand while he systematically kills off many summer school and childcare programs with the other. Don't forget it was the Crusaders who didn't leave any children behind either. They simply had the children all hold hands while they sold them off into slavery and God knows what else."
The Free Times, Columbia
Author of the essay, which is given in extract here, is Professor William Price Fox from the Columbia University. He is the follower of the traditional American literature, characteristical for right-wing playwrights and literates.
As for what you said about pension system, this is typical problem with current American mind. "We are incoherent, we will seek our mind in law intelectuals and government."
Yes, at this time people are still investigating the bombings, but currently accused of the crime are people who have names and I will post them when I find out them. I know this because I had conversation with a British intelectual the other day who claimed that there is a huge panic since there were problems with Islamic population. It appears that they are turning their backs to UK, meaning you have potentional terrorists in your back yard who actually have work permit and green card.
Nice to put words in my mouth about saying that leaving Iraq was my idea. What I said is that US troops should be replaced with UN troops. The troops of United Nations are neutral military force ( altough in practice they are bunch of crucks ). Terrorist personel would maybe understand that Iraq is official member of UN, organization which has lost it's meaning since they shown that they can't stop US from invading country on the other side of the world.
Posted by Sinke at October 6, 2005 09:27 AM
Hide Comments |
Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(18) | (
Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)
