I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.

"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
...
"Marty" wrote:

Mark,

Arguing with people who so obviously hate this country and what it stands
for
is without purpose. You're not going to change their minds. But, like a
big
girl riding
a scooter, it is fun to watch though.

I'm not sure anything I've ever done has been compared to a "big girl
riding a scooter" before... I'm going to try to NOT keep that mental
picture in my mind when I do this in the future... ;-)

I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion when I participate in these
threads. My goal is to correct factual misperceptions, and there are
a HOST of them. The problem is that when people have seriously flawed
understanding of the actual historical facts involved (like "Raptor's"
belief that none of the pre-war intelligence suggested Iraq had WMD),
the person has no choice but to extend that reasoning to other events
(and in his case, that would include the Congress acting in an
"insane" manner and the UN imposing over a decade of sanctions for no
reason, for example).

It's a complex issue, but one that can only be intelligently discussed
once we all agree on the facts. There's still room for plenty of
differing opinions about what should have happened, but starting from
a factual basis means that the discussion could be worthwhile.
Otherwise we may as well discuss how Frodo should have handled the
whole ring thing. ;-)

I've been to Iraq several times in the past few years (and many other
places
where we
are "oppressing" the local innocents.

We aren't the bad guys in this equation and the majority of the thinking
people in the world know it.

I wish our media would focus in a balanced manner on the positive and
negative things happening in Iraq. It's the mantra of those who are
actually there - that there IS so many good things going on, but that
those things never reach the eyes and ears of the public. I don't
think this is so much because of bias in the media, but because "good
news doesn't sell". It's much the same in domestic news, though the
local news broadcasts / newspapers tend to take at least some time for
"good news".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

My friend, you have a way with words and I like to read them. Especially
because I agree with them!!

I'm pretty sure that most of the reason why I don't engage more often is
that
I'm NOT that skilled (ask my wife!). I know what's right and I know what's
wrong. I know what
works and I know what doesn't. Thankfully, my gov't doesn't keep me on the
payroll
because of my skill with words.

Keep hammering.

Marty

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:46:52 -0400, Marty wrote:

Arguing with people who so obviously hate this country and what it stands
for is without purpose.

Given that the majority of Americans (in recent Gallup polls) felt it was
a mistake to send troops into Iraq, are you sure its really what this
country 'stands for'?

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address

BB wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:46:52 -0400, Marty wrote:

Arguing with people who so obviously hate this country and what it stands
for is without purpose.

Given that the majority of Americans (in recent Gallup polls) felt it was
a mistake to send troops into Iraq, are you sure its really what this
country 'stands for'?

A majority thought it wasn't a mistake at the time. A majority think
we should stay and finish what we started.

So, yes. To cut and run now would be the very antithesis of what this
country stands for.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

"BB" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:46:52 -0400, Marty wrote:

Arguing with people who so obviously hate this country and what it stands
for is without purpose.

Given that the majority of Americans (in recent Gallup polls) felt it was
a mistake to send troops into Iraq, are you sure its really what this
country 'stands for'?

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address

I don't know what the majority of Americans think and I frankly don't care.
I don't believe polls are ever correct and I certainly don't believe what we
are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is a mistake.

What bothers me most is that a vocal minority want to see this nation fail
soley because
they don't like this President. At this stage of the game if it's bad for
America it's bad
for Bush and therefore good politics. It must suck to wake up every day and
hope for
bad news.

Marty

"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
...
BB wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:46:52 -0400, Marty wrote:

Arguing with people who so obviously hate this country and what it
stands
for is without purpose.

Given that the majority of Americans (in recent Gallup polls) felt it was
a mistake to send troops into Iraq, are you sure its really what this
country 'stands for'?

A majority thought it wasn't a mistake at the time. A majority think
we should stay and finish what we started.


Brilliant thinking. Stay in a Vietnam-like quagmire. Brilliant.

Greg

Marty wrote:
Arguing with people who so obviously hate this country and what it stands
for
is without purpose. You're not going to change their minds. But, like a big
girl riding
a scooter, it is fun to watch though.

First, thank you very much for your service, whether it was as a
civilian or military.

Second, **** off. I love my country and it pains me to see it lead so
poorly. "Give me competence, of give my your damn resignation!"

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

Mark Hickey wrote:
Raptor wrote:


Bill Sornson wrote:

Bush controlled Russian, British AND U.N. intelligence? Man, he IS
powerful!

Among the lot, there was NO EVIDENCE that Saddam had WMD or effective
delivery systems.


Then why did the UN ever impose sanctions and keep them on for all
those years?

Check out the March 2003 UNMOVIC (weapons inspection) report if you
really want to know what they thought Iraq had. I'll warn you it'll
disagree with the blog you are reading now (the one that claims none
of the intelligence agencies or UN thought Saddam had WMD).

The only blog I ever take the time to read is Riverbend's, which
describes her family's day-to-day life in Iraq.

No, this is all based on my knowledge gained through independent
examination of the available public knowledge. The information needed to
make cogent decisions is there, if one only bothers to look and think.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/docu...luster6mar.pdf

It's OK to have different opinions about what should have happened
regarding Iraq, but those opinions should all be based on fact.

The intelligence of the day has been widely aired. Sure, there was
plenty of evidence to suspect Saddam of carrying on WMD research or,
shall we say, "Weapons of Mass Desctruction program related activities."
There was no evidence that he HAD WMD or delivery systems.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

Mark Hickey wrote:
Raptor wrote:


Bill Sornson wrote:

Bush controlled Russian, British AND U.N. intelligence? Man, he IS
powerful!

Among the lot, there was NO EVIDENCE that Saddam had WMD or effective
delivery systems.


Then why did the UN ever impose sanctions and keep them on for all
those years?

Missed this part.

The sanctions were, of course, imposed because in 1991 Saddam most
clearly did have WMD material and weapons. Those items were destroyed
over succeeding years. Starting approximately 1998, when the UN
inspectors left, there was no evidence that Saddam had any WMD left.

Sure we couldn't trust him. But we still had no evidence, just
suspicions and a track record. That's perfectly reasonable justification
for continued sanctions and pressure of a variety of means, but when
you're talking about starting a hot war on the strength of suspicions
and history, you need to be exceedingly careful.

Had Shrub handled things property and patiently, I would have fully
supported a decision to invade Iraq when the time was right. There was a
hell of a lot that needed to be done that was not done before March 03,
and you and I are paying the price for this incompetence and impatience.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

To anyone following this besides Mark and I: Sorry for polluting a.m-b
with so much OT. I hate letting a careful discussion about this stupid
war go, since they're relatively rare. I'll be doing my part to put this
to rest in the immediate future.

Mark Hickey wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Mark Hickey wrote:
Raptor wrote:

It is about US: you, me, our country.

Which is why the guards who did it are now in prison. That's how our
system works, and I am glad of it. What's your point? That any
individual action by any one individual in the military is your fault
personally?

What about the civilian contractors who ordered - or suggested - the
abuse? What about the commander of the unit? What about everyone who
knew about it?


She got busted big-time. I don't recall if she was put in prison for
being involved, or just demoted for not knowing what was happening.
As I recall, the findings were that she was an inept manager rather
than being involved in the abuse.

Those MI contractors need to be sanctioned. Anyone who knew about the
abuse but did nothing needs to be busted.

What about the commander in chief who orders his legal staff to find out
whether our forces are or should be constrained to the Geneva Conventions?

He's a mountain biker? What about him? Why wouldn't he ask that
question - it's a very valid question. You are aware, aren't you,
that the discussion about the GC resulted in the administration
ordering that our personnel stay well within the limits of acceptable
treatment of prisoners, right? Maybe not...

Just asking the question betrays our motives and demeans our standards.

How can we claim to all concerned (including the very skeptical) that we
are the good guys, having openly pondered just how bad we can get away
acting and still be good?

The prisoner abuse is not acceptable, and anyone who tries to make it
look "not so bad" is flat wrong. snip

Pardon me for saying so, but "duh". Who do you know that says what
went on in AG *IS* acceptable? What more do you want the military to
do? Decapitate the guards involved?

I just have a problem any time someone tries the old, "Well, they're so
much worse," line, like you have.

Ummmmm..... I've read the above a few times, and have NO idea what
you're talking about. I didn't even mention "them". I asked who you
think HAS condoned the behavior of the AG guards. Are you dodging the
question?

You have mentioned "them" at other times. You've drawn such comparisons.
You, and others including those in our government, have compared our
worst behavior to their (terrorist's) worst, as if it matters. It
doesn't. We have our standards, and if they're not adhered to, they stop
being standards.

Being "the better guy" in this fight is not good enough. We need to be
"the good guy." We are not.

So let me get this straight - the actions of a few bonehead guards in
Iraq cancel out anything else positive the US has done.

Where it counts most, on the muslim street, they come pretty damn close.


You share that with them then - that the overwhelming good behavior
and support of a hundred thousand plus sincere American troops can be
erased by a half-dozen prison guards. You can believe that's logical
if you like (though it dooms you to never being able to believe in any
organization larger than a couple dozen individuals).

I'm talking here in terms of feelings: public reaction. Wars, especially
those fought against nouns like "terrorism", are as much marketing
campaigns as they are armed contests. In that regard, I wouldn't blame a
single Muslim or Arab for wondering who is the good guy in this fight.

If we want to snuff out terrorism as much as possible, we are going
about it in the wrong way. Every time we screw up the PR side, we're
creating a new terrorist(s). Scratch that goal.

I'm also talking in terms of ideals: who we are and what we stand for.
If our standards are not followed exclusively, and violations of them
responded to thoroughly, our whole purpose, the whole set of goals,
risks failure.

How can one interpret such comparisons as I'm pointing to ("they're so
much worse") as anything short of expressing tolerance, even a little
bit, for those who violate our standards?

This is just another example of our ahem leaders leading us astray.
Like the other myriad missteps, this will take years to redress.

OK - I'll give you a chance to prove you're not just another misguided
blog-poisoned soul. Show me some evidence that the abuse of common
criminals in AG was orchestrated by the administration, or of the
administration condoning that behavior.

Surely after your rant above, this shouldn't prove difficult. Put
your facts where your opinion is...

See the Geneva Convention topic above.


Thanks for verifying that "you got nuthin'". I knew you couldn't find
anything at all, but wondered how you'd respond.

That's still a very open topic. If you can manage to dismiss this
unprecedented step by this administration (actually inquiring as to
whether we're beholden to the GC), THEN I got (close to) nothin.

You're a grunt in the US Army: What message does such a step send you?
Some of those kids are going to start thinking that this time it
actually matters that some of our enemies don't all measure up to snuff
as "human".

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

Marty wrote:
"BB" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:46:52 -0400, Marty wrote:


Arguing with people who so obviously hate this country and what it stands
for is without purpose.

Given that the majority of Americans (in recent Gallup polls) felt it was
a mistake to send troops into Iraq, are you sure its really what this
country 'stands for'?

--
-BB-
To e-mail me, unmunge my address


I don't know what the majority of Americans think and I frankly don't care.
I don't believe polls are ever correct and I certainly don't believe what we
are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is a mistake.

What we are doing in Afghanistan is most certainly NOT a mistake. The
only mistakes made there a failure to capture or kill Osama, and
diverting resources from Afghanistan to Iraq.

Iraq was a bad idea, and has been executed by the civilian leadership
with almost uniform failure. I am stunned - no exaggeration - by how
badly this war has been run by the civilians.

In contrast, I am nearly overwhelmed by the competence, bravery and
sacrifice of our armed forces in the execution of those same flawed
orders. Our forces are succeeding and will succeed, I hope, DESPITE
their leaders.

What bothers me most is that a vocal minority want to see this nation fail
soley because
they don't like this President. At this stage of the game if it's bad for
America it's bad
for Bush and therefore good politics. It must suck to wake up every day and
hope for
bad news.

You need to step out of the neo-conservative bubble to see more shades
of gray in the world and others. We're not all either-or. I'm American
first, Democrat second.

If this Iraq thing turns out quite well, and as a result a Republican or
worse, another neo-con, wins election in 2008, it'll be overall a
positive thing for America. I'll begrudge the "other side" its victory
and bemoan the damage in other areas that would be done, but so be it.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.