Returning to something Mustang was discussing earlier with regard to proper codes of conduct...


Based on your familiarity and experience with those regulations and field manuals Mustang, do you feel they address issues such as sleep deprivation and forcing detainees to assume physically stressful positions?

My position is that the idea we could somehow help the people of Iraq form a democracy was fallacy. Their culture and their recent history shows that they are incapable of it. "Kill them All and Let God Sort Them Out" has nothing to do with it. In fact, if you read my post carefully, I specifically stated that this was not politically possible. I think the only possible government that is practical at this point in a Muslim country is a undemocratic government that has a lose interpretation of law and uses strong-arm tactics for control. There are of course variations of this model, some more harsh then others, but when it comes down to it, force is the only thing that can control these populations at this point. So, since this is a given in my eyes, I would rather have friendly strong-arm governments, rather then enemy ones. In the end, I think these people need to be controlled, as their culture is uncivilized. Finally, I also stated that it might be helpful in some situations to have two of these countries weaken each other with our secret support to both sides, hence why I supported the policy of playing Iraq and Iran off on each other.

As far as Islam being evil, I have no religious training on the subject. All I can say is that the actions of Muslims at present point to a violent and barbaric belief system. Now, this system may not be the "true Islam", again, I'm not qualified to comment on this. But, the actions of a large number of the followers of this religion today cause me to question the peaceful nature of the belief system of Muslims. I'm certainly not alone in this feeling. Now, if I was alive 500 years ago in Spain during the Inquisition, I would probably say that the actions of Christianity at the time pointed to a barbaric belief system. But again, I'm slightly more concerned about what is going on now, not what happened 500 or 1,000 years ago.

Finally, maybe some of the comments I posted were generalizations. Generalizations are often used in the analysis of politics and culture, so I see nothing wrong with this. We are not debating a legal question, but a political or social one. If you wish to challenge any of the criticisms I sighted, you're welcome to it.

What is going on now is WE invaded a soveriegn nation who had no recent history of violence or terrorism (especially against us) because of its despotic dictator who did, who was our friend and ally a mere 15 years ago. Besides that Saddam renounced Shar'ia law for secularism, so Iraq was not a Muslim run State, we thought we'd bring them a bit of a democratic war and encourage terrorists to bring their fight to Iraq, (so as not to fight it here) in GW Bushs' words "Bring it On' and they have. (Compassionate conservativism at work for you.)

Europe and the West have engaged in two world wars and dropped two atomic bombs as well as participation in a myriad of other wars, war crimes and atrocities in the world, including in Korea and Vietnam in the last century killing millions of people on the planet.

Now terrorists, who have no armies, have taken some other means, and have killed a few thousand civilians in all this time. Maybe even 20,000, maybe more.

We have just killed another 10, 000 innocents to 'liberate them'.

Who is violent? Tell me again how Muslims are the violent ones?

Irwin

Hello again Irwin. I trust I see you well?



You speak of civilisation and then go on to advocate subjagation and warfare as a means of population culling. How is that civilised? It sounds to me like you've adopted the very point of view you claim belongs to the Muslims.

The other problem with your agument however, is its already been tried... and it didn't work very well then so what makes you think it will work better today?

In this world of mass communication and instant global information exchange, how are you going to keep your population happy about the constant diet of blood and death which your strategy would subject them to?

As we've seen in the past few weeks, where once the fall out of events took weeks or even months to manifest itself, today the general population is better informed than most of the politicians.

The question at hand however, is...

Can we fix the wrong without caving into these terrorists?

... and while I respect your right to hold your opinions on Islam, I seriously doubt that what your suggesting, in any way, will fix the wrongs that this thread seeks to address.

I'd even go so far as to say that if such a strategy as the one you suggest were to be adopted, it would eventually lead to the destruction of the global ambitions of the United States in much the same way as it led to the destruction of the British empire.
As history shows, tyranny is not a one sided weapon. It destroys both those who it is wielded against and those that wield it.

Moif-

Hey there! Things are good but busy. Working and graduating in December. Then its off to law school. Missed being able to blow off a little steam arguing with an self-hating Jew

Anyway, my solution is certainly not a good solution, but simply the least worst solution to a very bad situation. My solution is practical and realistic, something most Muslims can't grasp it seems.

Only a portion of my argument has been tried. Historically, we have never held governments responsible for using terrorist fanatics to carry out their objectives. I think we should continue offensive operations against countries in the region that threaten us, if it comes to that. At the very least, we have to box these people in and play them off on each other when possible.

Again, it's not the best situation and certainly with modern communications and modern weapons technology, the situation will not be perfect. Trust me, if I could wave a magic wand, I would build a wall around the US, lock the door and throw away the key. Then only let in people who want to work hard and who have reached a minimum level of civilized behavior. Traditionally, I'm much more of an isolationist in terms of how I think we should deal with the world. But, this is just a pipedream given the current circumstances. For the time being at least, we are going to have to be the strong man on the block. And when you're dealing with pigs, sometimes you have to get dirty.

Has a full detailed description of what lead up to the 'torture' of the 'helpess' victims been released yet? I was looking at a photo from a website last night and saw a large portion of a powder substance on one of the prisoners arm, then another, then I realized that prisoners are deloussed upon containment, then I realized this would be why they were naked, and why they had bags over their heads, (the stuff burns in your eyes, and the bags serve a mutlitude of purposes). I wonder if it was just a routine thing that got out of hand. What happened there is a disgrace, and disgusting, and I think those who commited the autrocity need to be punished like they did what they did to an American, but I think its a bit far to treat the Iraqi's like an American, well of course you know its not like they wanted to kill us or anything lets just give them a million dollars a piece and let them come to America, I mean come on, we need to take a look at what we are doing here. I am by NO MEANS defending or trying to defend our soldiers, I am saying that its a bit ironic to offer compensation to criminals we are fighting a war against. Those people were in prison because they were bad people. I guess its a little early to start choosing sides.

How much more evil can an act be, if an organization like Hizbollah condemns it?

Hizbollah Slams Beheading of American as Un-Islamic



Of course, maybe Hizbollah simply thinks it was bad timing, not bad behavior:



Who can tell?

I think that Rumsfeld saying that the U.S. could possibly compensate the prisoners and their families demonstrates a true lack of understanding. No amount of money can restore honor or stop someone from hating you for what has been done. (But
if Rumsfeld feels the Federal wallet is a little heavy, I do know that Nicholas Berg's father is planning to sue the government for previously detaining his son in Iraq so he didn't catch his flight home.)



I wish I could remember where it was written that approximately 80% of the Iraqis taken into custody by U.S. forces were found to be innocent of crimes. Obviously some imprisoned there did commit crimes, but it cannot be assumed that all of them are guilty of crimes because they were incarcerated there.



Good sarcasm! But do you honestly think that "an eye for an eye" is going to be seen as a new, dreadful punishment and effective deterrent in the ancient land of Babylon? I don't. By all means, hunt Berg's murderers down, make sure they're the right ones, and subject them to Iraqi justice. We're trying to distinguish our behavior from theirs, remember?

Somehow, we are fighting at least two wars in the Middle East, with Bush Jr. still appearing clueless of what he is into.

The Republican party’s presumed nominee for the Presidential election in November joked recently about some current books. It was something to the effect of, “I’d like to say I’ve read them, but that would be a lie.” He didn't find time to read a report on Osama Bin Laden's plans to hijack planes and use them as weapons. He didn't find the time to read a report on prisoner abuse. Locally, he is running a campaign criticizing Kerry for a tax proposal which would raise the cost of a gallon of gas 50 cents per gallon to support Federal programs and "cause people to drive less." (I'm George Bush and I approved this message.") Apparently he has failed to read the price of gas as he passes a gas station. Locally, at least, the cost of gasoline has increased by more than 50 cents per gallon since January 1st. (Apparently to benefit OPEC, gasoline refineries and distributors, and of course his friends on Wall Street.) It would be foolish of me to expect then, that George Jr. would ever have found time to read a novelette from the 19th century. It took me a couple days to find the shelf I had it on, and skim through for what I wanted to cite.

Serialized in The Strand Magazine, was a fictional story of the Korosko, a tour boat in Egypt, while it was under British rule. Some of the passengers and crew disembarked to look at some ancient ruins, and were taken captive by "Dervishes." Hope for rescue faded when it became apparent that the boat had also been captured.


Many of the characters who left the Korosko in the story are killed by their captors, for weighing too much, for speaking to the wrong person, for having little cash value as a slave, or for failing to convert to Islam. How frequently men, and animals alike, die and are simply left to the elements is graphically portrayed.



In my personal opinion, we can't "fix the wrong" even if we do cave into their demands. We may truly have no understanding of their thought process.

I recall a time, as an electrical contractor that I was asked to bid on wiring a "Doctor's Office." In a neighborhood of palatial homes, a Muslim missionary who saw no reason to use a garage to store his car wished to convert it to Doctor's offices. "There should be no problem getting a variance. All the neighbors are doctors. They should understand." He had worked his way through medical school in India as a carpenter. He felt competent to subdivide his garage himself. "The building department said I would have to hire an electrician. He has to be a devout Muslim. Are you willing to convert?"

We are still seen, the press tells us, as "occupiers" of Saudi Arabia, the land of Mecca. Mecca is the Muslim's most holy of sites, and every true believer is called upon to visit there once.

Bush apparently invaded Afghanistan because while most of the terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, we can't afford to tap into our strategic oil reserves and go to war with Saudi Arabia.

Iraq was originally Babylon, and before we went to war there, the press told us how many countries had successfully invaded, captured, and ruled that country. Unless we manage a great diplomatic coup, the grand total is still zero. A number of reasons have been given for why we are there, but the most credible seems to be that "We didn't go to Baghdad and kill Saddam Hussein before declaring victory in the first Gulf War" under the command of the same Generals that are in Bush Jr.'s cabinet .

We are seen as an ally of Israel. The second book of the Bible tells of the escape of the Jews from bondage in Egypt. Passover is celebrated every year by the Jewish religion, and the Last Supper (Originally a Passover celebration) is routinely replayed and celebrated by the Christian religion. I don't foresee a diplomatic solution that will bring the Arab world and the Judeo-Christian world to peaceful co-habitation anytime soon.

The President, apparently feeling that he can only stoop to apologize to another head of state, apologized to the King of Jordan for the mistreatment of the prisoners at Abu Graib prison. Of course he doesn't recognize Saddam Hussein as president of Iraq, and he has yet to give control to another Iraqui Government. That has left him as the only acting head of state in Iraq at the moment.


And it is likely that the Republican's presumed nominee for this fall's Presidential race doesn't feel he will ever owe anyone an apology as long as he is President.

We have all seen photos of atomic bombs exploding, of prisoners in German concentration camps. and heard stories of My Lai, etc. Most High School students these days know the name of the pilot of the Enola Gay. I suspect that every Japanese elementary student knows his name. I think it is naive to believe that anything, or any action, will remove those prison images from our grand-children's history books. In a part of the world where the Koran is the only book most people are allowed to read, and where photographs and paintings of people are sacrilegious; the stories of Abu Graib will be passed from father to son for generations.

In Christian churches, I learned, "Vengeance is mine," sayeth the Lord.


The behavior of the "terrorist factions" at the beginning of the 21st century sounds much like what was described as normal for Moslems at the end of the 19th century. They will continue to search for, and find reasons they wish to fight "The Great Satan." While actions such as the treatment of their fellow Arabs in Abu Graib will certainly add fuel to their recruitment machines, I suspect that more bullets and harsher treatment from us as we refuse to yield to their demands will do little to soften the hearts of men educated mostly by poverty and the desert.

If we "cave to their demands," they will claim a great victory. George W. Bush seems to see no reason to look to the Left before making a Right turn onto a one way street. His mind was made up before he was persuaded to run for President, and he seems to see no reason to change it. He is running on his record as a "War President." I have no doubt that he would rather lose 100 American lives than pay a single ransom.

For forty years, I've attended Friends meetings, Unitarian churches, and fought for more peaceful solutions. Our best solution in my opinion, is "Declare Victory and Leave." That is not going to happen under the leadership of a President who seems to believe that America likes to be at war. Perhaps his replacement can gracefully apologize, and ask the United nations for help in a peaceful withdrawal from the Middle East and establishing some peaceful governments in the nations we invaded.

Curmudgeon:

Very nicely written, yet the whole very long thread makes huge assumptions.

Not the least of these assumptions is that this is just a plot by GW Bush to get rid of Saddam at any cost.

Examine the United Nations role in this, include it in your post and you might see a huge change in these assumptions.

Member States of the Security Council begged the United States, pleaded with us to "give the sanctions more time", while at the same time lining their own pockets with Saddams money.

Had this not happened, the Sanctions might have indeed worked, Saddam might have fallen to internal pressure, Nick Berg is alive today, and we aren't having this discussion.

I note with interest, that even though you included one assumption after another in your lengthy post, this never entered into it.

Why?

I am constantly amazed by the double standard of credulity the right seems willing to go to to make their points.

US insiders, journalists, former Administration staff members and so on release a series of books documenting in great detail some of the perfidities of Bush, his insistance on going to war before 9/11 and so on, and the right dismisses, belittles, character assassinates and ignores all of this without question. They claim document is probably forged or self-serving, authors are only doing it for the money or are liars, and so on.

HOWEVER, on the other hand, a single document from an unknown source, not government stamped (as all Iraq official documents had to be), with NO losted author is found in Iraq listing a series of organisations Iraq tries to bribe with oil. This document makes no comment on the success or failure of these bribes, has no corroborating evidence at all, and the list of organisations is somewhat absurd. (The russian Orthodox church?)

Yet INSTANTLY, those same people who were so ready to dismiss several corroborated books as fiction because they did NOT support the president, they latch onto this document as if it was the Gospel of Jesus himself, asserting that this PROVES that France was 'in the pocket' of Iraq and perfidious from the start. EVEN if the document were in ANY way credible, even IT does not make those claims. The Iraqi governing council is investigating the document, but so far absolutely NO evidence has been founf to substantiate ANY of its claims.

The document lists people who Iraq attempted to bribe, not with money but with free oil. The organisations and people hail from all over, and include companies and individuals from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Sudan, China, Austria, Russia, India, Palestine and France.


Lastly, the sanctions that everyone pleaded for more time to complete? The sanctions that many members of the world (including countries not even on that supposed list, such as Canada) as well as the inspectors themselves wanted to give more time? These are the same sanctions that Bush Jr. INSISTED upon and forced into place, and then once they were underway and unimpeded by Iraq, Bush suddenly changed his mind and decided to invade.

If I may be of some assistance: this Reuters Article referred to intelligence estimates that up to 90 percent of those detained in Iraq were arrested by mistake (it was actually an internal ICRC report citing US intelligence). Nine out of ten security detainees may very well have been people who were taken into custody under suspicious circumstances but turned out to be ordinary Iraqi's, not insurgents, terrorists, or criminals. This means that upon release, the lion share of the security detainees hardly deserve the label "bad people."

One of the things we sometimes overlook, however, when discussing prisoner status is that during the November 2003 timeframe at Abu Ghraib is that there were two kinds of prisoners at the facility: actual prisoners, and security detainees. MP Lieutenant Michael Drayton is quoted in the foregoing Reuters article putting the figures at 7,000 security detainees and 400-500 actual prisoners, whose crimes were more serious. When we discuss prisoners in this thread, it might help avoid confusion if we specify which type of prisoners we're referring to.

On an unrelated note, the focus of the referenced news article is on riot conditions in the Prison yard ("Rifles Rebuff Rocks on Abu Ghraib's Bloodiest Day") and the incidents resulting in injuries to MPs and lethal prisoner shootings. Anyone interested might want to give it a quick read to gain an impression of the difficulties involved.

The reason for the high ratio of innocents rounded up in sweeps goes back to something I've mentioned several times in this forum - the critical shortage of tactical HUMINT available to support operations in Iraq.

Although troop numbers have varied since the fall of the Saddam regime, the best case is that less than 75% of tactical HUMINT teams (THTs) needed to support ops are actually available. The numbers are further depleted by the numbers of HUMINT personnel required to work at the various detention facilities. The reality is worse than the statistics - many commanders (especially the armor and mech guys) don't really understand how to use their THTs and they are mis-or-under employed. Often, they have such restrictions placed on their methods of operations that they become virtually useless.

A supposed "fix" for the lack of trained tactical HUMINT personnel has been enabled by rapidly training officers and NCOs in combat units in basic "tactical questioning" methods. The combat units are also supported by contract civilian interpreters - or sometimes by local national interpreters. So, all too often when the maneuver units carry out sweeps and raids to roll up the bad guys, they have no trained HUMINT personnel that have paved the way with source operations, no trained HUMINT personnel to facilitate the op with on-the-spot interviews and interrogations to sift the suspects from average citizens. This results in eager small-unit commanders taking into custody many more innocents than bad guys simply due to their proximity to an incident or to other, legitimate, suspects.

You can only imagine the degree of resentment and anger this tends to build up over time. Of course, this effect is most pronounced in the so-called Sunni Triangle, where most such sweeps are conducted - with the result that, instead of reducing the violence, festering resentment at indiscriminate methods has resulted in creating a depth of support for the insurgents that did not exist a year ago.

Edit: The Feb '04 ICRC report is now available in its entirety online: Coalition Treatment of Prisoners of War and Other Protected Persons

This is the third time you've dragged this into the debate here, Red. I may have missed it, but have you provided a source for this pocket-lining story yet?

Wertz:



http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investi...f_040420-1.html

This is a good start.

Red

Wertz,

I am going to assume Red was talking about the food for oil issue and the benefits that select UN officials were allegedly getting from iraq. namely the ability to make large amounts of money from oil sales.

i had heard about it, so i did a small search and came up with some possibly relevant links to the story

Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Acticle 4



Quane

The CPA didn't detain him, the Iraqi police did. The CPA offered him a ticket out of the country and back home, he declined it. He had the means to leave immediately if he so chose, and he chose not to. The goverment holds no blame in this, the young man made his decision not to take the CPA's offer to get him out of the country and unfortunately came to a gruesome end as a result.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119734,00.html

The father was very anti-war (part of a group) and did not approve of his son's support of Bush and the Iraq war, I suspect in his grief that the father is latching tightly onto those beliefs he held and lashing out at the US goverment for a war and administration he already felt strongly against.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4953015/

Quite an indictment and if it turns out to have corroborating evidence, I hope those folks involved are charged. I noticed that both the US and the UK are on the list. It looks like there's room for finger pointing all around. Um...how does this have anything to do with the topic of debate though?

logophage:

I will repost and earlier post in this same thread to answer your question.




Kinda changes things a bit, wouldn't you say?

Implications go as far up the United Nations ladder to a close relative of the Secretary General himself


EDITED TO ADD:

Hey Wertz:

Your signature states "better dead then Red".....

Ouch

Red

Sorry to be a stickler but the topic for debate reads:

So again I ask: how does this have anything to do with the topic for debate?

While we are on the topic, I dealt with this 'corruption' evidence about 6 posts up, feel free to address it.

The 'corruption' is based on an unsourced, uncorroborated, single document found in the oil ministry, conspicuously missing any official government seal (required on any Iraqi papers seem by higher officials).

It names a dozen individuals in countries around the world, (not countries, but individuals) that Iraq TRIED to bribe with cheap oil. (Not cash, but cheap oil.) The list of organisations is occasionally silly, including among others the Russian Orthodox Church.

The Iraqi Governing council is investigating the document, but have so far found NO evidence to support it and NO further documents to back it up.


So on about four different levels, your statement about 'france being in Saddam's pocket' is in error.



Oh, and your history of the Iraq war has several notable and nearly comical omissions, but forgetting that for the moment, what exactly were you trying to demonstrate with it? I am afraid the point of it was not clear.

logophage:

Without a trigger on the gun, ammunition is not needed.

If you follow the postings backwards, that was the point.

Vermillion: Evidence? You want Evidence, this whole ordeal is based on, up to this point, nothing more then assumptions. Not a single court martial has been started yet, by reading this thread one would think that Rumsfeld has been tried and already hung.

Red

Interesting way to completely dodge my point. I would appreciate it if you would address it, as you continue to bring up the comment that France is in the pocket of saddam...

Oh, and your dodge was also not accurate either. Several court martials have started, dozens of investigations by several agencies are underway, and I would (call me crazy here) say that 1800 pictures shown either to the public or to Senators yesterday count as 'evidence'. So your 'nothing more than assumptions' comment is, forgive me, a bit silly considering the media storm that has ciculated about the ALl the evidence over the last week.

Okay, so maybe I'm being a little dense here. But, could you parse out exactly what you mean? I don't see how corruption within the UN has anything to do with the topic for debate. I'm not trying to harp on you; I really do want to understand what you're getting at. I just don't. So, perhaps, you could state your position in another way....

logophage:

OK, so here it is:

Sanctions were imposed. These sanctions may have been manipulated (bribes accepted) by the very entity that created the sanctions. These bribes may have caused the sanctions to fail, or influenced the votes in the Security Council.

Had the Sanctions been allowed to run their course, the invasion may not have been neccessary.

No invasion, no military prisons. No military prisons, no prisoners in military custody. No Prisoners, no Prisoners to abuse. No prisoners to abuse, no abuse scandal. No abuse scandal, no ammunition.......

Vermillion:

There are also many investigations going on in the "food for oil". That must prove evidence, at least that is your implication. Investigations = Evidence.

Now, lets look at "silly statements", shall we.

I imply that Member States were "lining their pockets.

Your response:



Not cash, but cheap oil.

hmmmmm, could cheap oil be turned into cash?????

A $1 million dollar oil voucher, sold to you for $500K, then turned and sold for $1 million dollars is what? 1/2 million profit? In what, oil or cash?

Edited to add:

from the following: http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/04/13/...ns-646641.shtml

The Russians by far received the most Iraqi oil -- more than 2.5 billion barrels. In all, 46 of the recipients listed are from Russia. The largest recipient was the Russian state, at 1.4 billion barrels. There also were a number of non-end users, including the Communist Party (137 million barrels) and the Liberal Democratic Party (80 million barrels).

The French were the second largest beneficiary of oil at 165 million barrels, including 36 million barrels to Patrick Maugein, chief executive officer of the oil firm SOCO International and close political and financial supporter of President Jacques Chirac. Maugein denied allegations in late January that he illegally benefited from the oil contracts when questioned by a reporter from the French newspaper Le Monde.

I'm sorry, I'm at a loss here. PLEASE address my points about this supposed 'evidence' of yours. Please deal with what I said, not what you wish I had said.

Equating a single, unsupported, unsourced, unverified, unstamped document with not a lick of corroboration dispite months of investigation to the PILES of photographic, video, testemonial and investigative evidence which has been turned up just in the last 2 weeks in the US prisoner abuse scandal is just absurd.


Go back to my first post on this topic, about how incredible the double standard of the right is that they will acceot this sheet of paper as the Gospel, while happily dismissing documented evidence from many sources of their own leader's perfidity.


If you want to continue the conversation, please address some of the issues I bought up. Simply repeating that "france was in saddam's pocket" does not make it so.

Okay, I think I understand. I'm sure that we could even further back in history.

We could go back to intelligence reports which aided Saddam in his war with Iran. I suppose had that never happened, then Iran may have won that war; Iraq would have been a very different place. We could go back even further to WMD technology that was sold to Iraq by the US as well as by European nations. I suppose that we wouldn't have had as strong fears about Saddam's WMDs had that not occurred (thus no invasion).

So, yes, I agree that taking a hypothetical view (and perhaps in some parallel universe), the US may not have invaded and consequently no prisoner abuses would have occurred.

To be honest though, it doesn't surprise me that there's corruption whenever oil (i.e. big money) is involved. And perhaps you are right that the corruption completely derailed the intent of the "Oil for Food" program. This is worthy of its own debate topic if one hasn't been started already. At this point it doesn't matter because the US has invaded and occupied Iraq. We don't just have hypothetical prisoner torture or contractor beheadings; these are real events (unless you're a conspiracy theorist).

So, within the context of the debate topic, what can we do to fix these wrongs without caving?

Vermillion:

This is your statement, is it not?



My reply included the following:

You may imply my "dodge", yet it is clear I attempted to answer some of your questions (Which, by the way you ask a lot of, yet don't seem to like to answer).

A dozen names?

The above states a total of 47 (the reports are 270 in total).

Individuals, not Countries? "The Russian State". I tried an AT&T search, but couldn't find anyone named "Russian State".

logophage:



You know, you could, but the addition of the 9-A would remain the same, wouldn't it? And, if the United Nations scandal proves true, you could take the list all the way to the beginning of time itself, but 9-A remains in place and so does the end result. So your point would be?

From a hypothetical, many-worlds interpretation of historical events, I agree that your thesis has validity. I think you also agree that the hypothetical cases I also brought up could also have had similar outcome.

The point though is that it doesn't matter. That's my point: it makes no difference. It has no bearing on the debate question. Hypothetical arguments as to outcome of corruption of certain people/institutions from six years ago have no relationship as to how we can reconcile the prisoner torture. It has no effect upon how much either side can "out-psychopath" the other.

Does this corruption affect the MPs going through Courts Martial? Do the Iraqi prisoners who were tortured feel any different now that this corruption has come to light? Do you think the beheading wouldn't have happened if only the terrorists knew that there were people/institutions/nations profiteering from the "Oil for Food" program (that weren't part of the Coalition)? Do you think Saddam is smacking his head right now thinking about how he could have avoided invasion if only he had revealed this document?

logophage:

The whole point is:

If the "food for oil" scandal is true, the "fix" is for the UNITED NATIONS, and the Member states that took these payoffs to fess up and take appropriate actions.

If these bribes not occured, 1 of 2 scenerios might have happened:

1. The sanctions worked, Saddams Government falls.

or

2. The Sanctions still fail, a frank discussion occurs, a larger coalition may have been formed (possibly with UN sanction), an Invasion occurs, a far weaker Iraq falls even faster, and the Coalition handles things (possibly not controlled by the United States).

Nick Berg probably is alive today.

This is the problem if the scandal proves true. The ammunition then was not given to the terrorists by US, but by the United Nations, and Nicks blood is on THEIR and THE TERRORISTS hands!

Problem is, with this scenerio NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW if the sanctions could have really worked. And, for the prisoners and Nick Berg, THAT IS THE CRIME.

Red

You're putting yourself in, what I think you may believe, unpalatable territory. This is what I was getting at earlier. If you wish to argue about hypothetical outcomes of historical events, then you open yourself to all arguments involving hypothetical outcomes of historical events. Such as, the US's historical complicity in propping up Saddam's regime. Or the US's involvement in giving Saddam WMD technology. Had these not occurred, it is likely invasion would have been unnecessary. This means by your own argument that the US has Nick's blood on its hands too.

logophage:

Here is the debate question:



First off, the terrorists have taken ammunition:

1. Did they? The evidence is clear that these terrorists have done this act before. It is in their nature. What ammunition was therefor required?

None.

2. Can we fix the wrong without caving into terrorists?

Perhaps. But, if the oil for food scandal proves to be true, then it is NOT us that needs to fix it, it is those that brought us to this point (see earlier post) that are the ones responsible to provide the "fix".

A Terrorist, by it's nature must be dealt with differently then, say an enemy Soldier. If a terrorist can manipulate the system, which may have been the case with the UN "food for oil" program, and the bombings in Spain, then the answer is NO. There is NO fix to begin with.

If the United Nations, and in particularly two of those Member States that are implicated, fess up, then there well could be a fix. I doubt that they will, history provides this (see Swiss support of Nazi Germany in WW2 for instance). The terrorists need this seperation to continue to have the slightest chance of success.

Hypothetical? The scandal either happened, or it didn't. But if it did, the course of this whole thing most likely is different, and, in all likelihood, Nick Berg is alive today.

BTW, anyone heard the news story today that, while attending a flight school in Oklahoma, one of the Terrorists that killed Nick Berg had stolen his email password (Mr. Berg apparently attended school in Oklahoma while the Terrorist was in this flight school)?

Red

Are you purposefully ignoring what I was saying or was I unclear? I'm not arguing the hypothetics of the scandal itself. In fact, for the sake of this discussion, let's take that as a given. Let's say I accept completely that the scandal happened.

The point I am making is that deriving hypothetical effects from a cause and then using that as proof that the cause is the root of the problem opens yourself to any other argument which uses the same technique. Thus, using your exact same argument, you implicate the US as the root cause of Nick Berg's death.

logophage:



1. Is Nick Berg dead?

Yes

2. Is the Coalition, led by the United States occupying Iraq?

Yes again.

3. Is the United States responsible for Nick Bergs Death?

No, Al Quida is, they even claim it!

This is NOT open to hypothesis. It is known.

What is UNKNOWN is the United Nations role in assisting Saddam live through the SANCTIONS that the UN itself put into effect to drive him out.

However the plot substantially thickens with this piece of news, got a link for that?

Artemise:

It really was just a question. I heard a blip on the radio as my cell phone rang so I didn't hear the whole story.

In other words, got a link, I am simply curious.

Red

I truly believe that "oil for food scandal" is really irrelevant here, even if allegations prove to be true (because, as of now, it's nothing more than just that - allegations). I frankly do not understand why people are so appaled about the fact that Iraqi regime was trying to bribe members of the Security Council - we were trying to do the same on the other side, with Colin Powell going on a special African trip to convince countries like Angola and Ghana to cast their vote "correctly". Not to mention the huge multi-billion aid package that was promised to Turkey in exchange for the vote and the airspace. If that's not a coersion, I don't know what is.

What I am saying, though, is that Al Queda was not in Iraq before we came there. As bad Saddam's regime was, he couldn't stand religious fanatics - the ironic thing is, some of them got pretty rough treatment in Abu Graib prison during his regime. Dick Chaney HIMSELF, under pressure, muttered that they ("unfortunately", as he eloquently put it ) did not find anything linking Saddam's regime and Al Queda. So, the fact that Iraq is Al Queda's stomping ground now is, unfortunately, result of our own actions.

Perhaps, someone else reading this discussion kens what I'm saying and can state it in way that you can understand it, redliner. Here I'll give it one more try. What you've got a hold of here is combination of two logical fallacies. One is know as a "Post Hoc" fallacy. Here's a link where you can read up on it: Fallacy: Post Hoc. The other is known as Affirming the Consequent.

English Horn:



You DO UNDERSTAND that the United Nations placed the Sanctions on Iraq, Don't you?

Find it a bit strange that the same group that INSTITUTED the sanctions, would take PAYOLA from the state that THEY placed the sanctions on?

OK, Now

There were NO sanctions against the United States against "Coersion". "Coersion", as you put it, is often used in diplomacy, especially with allies. Nothing wrong with that.

If true, the United Nations losses all credibility as, this would be a body that puts in place sanctions, for the purpose of making selected members wealthy.

This was not an assumption. Part of the platform that George W. Bush campaigned on in 2000, was the need to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and eliminate his capacity to manufacture and use Weapons of Mass Destruction.


I have excerpted this document so frequently since I was first referred to it, that I thought people were likely very bored with being directed to it. The closest thing I made to an assumption was to assume that since GWB had taken this position in 2000, that he was unlikely to have changed his mind since. If you can document instances where George W. Bush has taken a position on something, and then changed his mind at a later date, I would be interested in reading it. He has been campaigning in Michigan on the premise that John Kerry's ability to change his mind is a weakness that should prevent him from being elected president.

Again... It is one thing to make blanket assertions as if they were fact, it is another to repeat these assertions again and again even though they have been challenged.

So, I will go over this one more time, and hope that this time you pay close attention.

There exists a document found in the Iraqi oil ministry. It was founf in the first week of January. It lists 270 individuals, political parties and corporations as people Iraq attempted to sell oil to with discounted oil contracts.

NONE of these are a government or a state.



Here you should really check your facts. (and your backfired sarcasm) The person whose page you referenced added together all the contracts offered to individuals, political parties and corporations in a country, added them all up and then listed them as having been given to the state. He (and you) are quite inaccurate. No oil contracts were offered to a nation. More comical, in the case of both Russia and France, some of these bribes were offered to parties opposed to the current government, so they could hardly be considered 'to the state' by anyone's measure.

This document is origin unknown. Dispite the fact that this is unheard of in Iraq, there is no ministry, organisation or individual listed as the source on the document. Nobody knows who wrote it.

The document is also unstamped: all official documents seen by Hussein or his senior staff were marked with an official stamp.

The document is also entirely uncorroborated. Since January 29th, the Iraqi Governing council has been conducting an investigation into the document. The investigation is not over, but as of the end of April they had found NO corroboration, NO evidence and NO further documents to back up its veracity.

This document does not state if the oil was accepted by the second party, nor if it was shipped. It also does not state any kind of exchange of services, or what the receiving party would apparently do for these contracts. The supposed 'bribes' were vouchers for oil purchases, so far there is no way to know if these vouchers were accepted or used. The offered parties would have had to pay a lot of money for these contracts, on the assumption that if they were resold they would make a profit of about 50 cents on the gallon.

The list is suspect for a number of reasons apart from what is listed above. The Russian Communist Party and the Russian Orthodox church are among the unlikely targets for these supposed bribes. The more reasonable targets include Patrick maugein, a French businessman with personal links to the French president.

Notably, even if all of this WERE true, the links between Maugein and Chirac are a lot less than the links between Bush and Cheney, who has profited enormously from his Haliburton shares. But then the right tends to only like to talk about scandals which implicate their opponents, not ones which make the people they support look bad.

Also on the list of targeted people were a British MP, two Americans and several priests. The only link to the UN was one bribe supposedly offered to the former French ambassador to the UN.


So, what we are left with is a completely isolated, uncorrobotated, unsourced document that could have been written by Bush himself for all we know. It lists offers of oil vouchers to individuals around the world, thats all. In any court in the world it could be laughed out, and even the pro-US investigative team has found NOTHING to even remotely back up its veracity in 4 months of searching.

Add to that the fact that several other 'incriminating' documents that were 'found' in the Iraqi archives have ALREADY been proven to be fake, and we are left with verty, very little. CERTAINLY not enough for you to keep repeating again and again that 'France had been bought' or 'The United nations was on the take' or whatever. EVEN if this document WERE to turn out to be real, it STILL does not support those statements in the slightest.

Vermillion wrote:



Note: "a dozen individuals"

Then Vermillion Wrote:



Note: 270 individuals, political parties and corporations.

Quite a change!

Who, Vermillion, was off by more?

Next, please supply the link that states that ALL documents must contain the stamp you speak of. Also the document that states, even documents that would directly implicate Saddam to illegal activities in attempting to bribe member states of the United Nations MUST also contain such a seal.

Red

Theres is no fixing this short or medium term, only enduring the consequences. Sometimes life is like that, no easy outs once youve made a bad choice.

After my entire post attacking the conspiracy theory you have accepted as gospel based on the flimyest of evidence, THAT is what you attacked? A tiny mis-type that in NO way affected the substance or points I was making at all?

For what its worth, I hd meant to say individuals from dozens of countries around the world. My bad. But So what? Neither in any way affect the substance of the 6 or 7 points I raise, and in EITHER case you are still in the wrong with your assertions.



I can only assume this is desperation on your part. Firstly, feel free to deal with any of the rest of my post, points I have posted in rebuttal to your assertions about bribery several times, and every time you just ignore.

Secondly, Official government documents in Iraq are all stamped when they are seen by Hussein or his cabinet. Do a search on Google if you must, it should be easy to find. The Economist and the Globe and Mail both seem well aware of this.

Then, why would the document be illegal in Hussein's government? He was aware of it, and he WAS he government, so your flailing theory that it was not stamped because it was 'illegal' makes no sense.


Perhaps you can answer another question. Why are you so desperate to believe this document? And even if it IS real, why do you keep ascribing to it things that it does not say? You have built it up to be this 'unrefutable proof' that the UN was entirely on the take, yet you have not even dealt with the core issue that EVEN IF this highly suspect, totally uncorroborated document IS real, it DOES NOT PROVE THAT AT ALL.

It lists a number of people around the world that Iraq tried to sell discounted oil contracts to. THATS ALL.

Are they bribes?
Were the bribes accepted?
Did the people listed buy these discounted oil vouchers?
Did they promise services in return?
What services could they have promised?
How could these people, some of some local influence, some of no influence at all, have meant that the UN was 'in the pocket' of Hussein?


Then, the best part. Lets play a game: lets assume for a moment (unrealistic as it may be) that the document is real, and that ALL your COMPLETELY unevidenced and oft-baseless assumptions based on that document are also true.

HOW does the fact that several somewhat influential businessmen and a couple oppostion parties being bribed lead you to conclude that THE UN was in the pocket of Hussein? Is France run by a middling businessman with a few personal ties to the President? Is Russia run by the orthodox church or the communist party?

EVEN if all your baseless assumptions are COMPLETELY accurate... thay STLL do not support your oft-repeated contention that the UN was somehow in the pocket of Hussein.


There is FAR more reasonable and tangible evidence to show corruption on the part of Dick Cheney, but like most of the far right wing you demonstrate this incredible double standard of credulity when dealing with accusations against those you support, as opposed to accusations against those you dislike.