Jun 11, 4:54 AM EDT

U.S.: 3 Gitmo inmates hanged themselves


Military officials said the suicides were coordinated acts of protests, but human rights activists and defense attorneys said the deaths signalled the desperation of many of the 460 detainees held on suspicion of links to al-Qaida and the Taliban. Only 10 have been charged with crimes and there has been growing international pressure on the U.S. to close the prison.

"They hung themselves with fabricated nooses made out of clothes and bed sheets," Navy Rear Adm. Harry Harris told reporters in a conference call from the U.S. base in southeastern Cuba.

"They have no regard for human life," he said. "Neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation but an act of asymmetric warfare against us."

When I read a quote like that, I start to think:

Is our military:

(a) brainwashed;

(b) rationalizing things in their own heads so they don't feel guilty about abusing other human beings; or

(c) correct. They killed themselves to wage psychological warfare on the guards.

I don't know that any of us, including me, has the answer to this one, but there's definitely a question raised by that quote (unless you watch FoxNews, at which point you'd accept c as correct no matter what, and then you'd call the person next to you a bad american).

Don't forget the conspiracy theory option:

(d): deceitful. They didn't actually commit suicide. Our government is simply saying this to deflect from the real reason they were killed (whatever that is). Maybe "A Few Good Men" went overboard with their waterboarding exercises and decided to impose a Code Red, and this "mass suicide" thing is a cover-up to avoid questions. "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!" It's spooky how that movie takes place at Gitmo...

As for your other choices:

Don't assume that (c) would necessarily target the guards. It might be targetting "us" in a general sense.

Don't assume that the rationalizations in (b) are necessarily for -their- benefit. Perhaps the spin-doctoring is for -our- benefit.

And as for (a), is that mutually exclusive with any other option?

I dont know what it is like over there and I really cannot imagine it either.

In warfare some shitty shit is going to happen reguardless. We cannot expect our Troops to be respectful and "good people" when they are getting shit on non stop over there.

I cannot imagine walking around wondering if some girl was going to walk up to me with a bomb stapped under her garmet to blow me the F up. Everyone over there is past their breaking point and this is just more signs of why we need to get the fuck out of there.

e) the story is bullshit. 1 person committed suicide.

"They have no regard for human life," he said. "Neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation but an act of asymmetric warfare against us."


Whats wrong about that?
People who blow them self’s up have regard for human life? Fuck outa here with that shit. These people dont care about anyone’s life. Their sick assholes. Let them kill them self’s. The faster the better. Scumbag pieces of shit. These people are trained to believe that if they give up there life in order to take out the "enemy" that they'll get into heaven automatically. Why do you find a quote like this hard to believe?

Here's what going to happen.

Human Rights Activists are going to "win" their bleeding heart campaign and have the prison closed. Then the U.S. government will "release" these poor human souls out into the world, where they'll find their way back to their terror cells.

And destroy them from within.

C'mon. The "brainwashing" going on over there is us to them, not the other way around. We're conditioning them to pull the pin on their own people.

Actually, quite brilliant -- because it's the military pulling this shit sans inteference from the politicians.

Right, Gecko?

I feel like I'm now a member on this board being in your quote at the bottom. Even if I am being told to fuck off. LOL

e) the story is bullshit. 1 person committed suicide.

Link?

EDIT. Here's mine:


Sunday, June 11, 2006; Posted: 11:31 p.m. EDT (03:31 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The suicides of three inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp has spurred renewed calls for changes at the facility, with one Republican senator urging the Bush administration to try suspected terrorists held there.

"Where we have evidence, they ought to be tried, and if convicted, they ought to be sentenced," Sen. Arlen Specter (REPUBLICAN), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told CNN's "Late Edition."

Authorities at the prison camp, located on a Navy base in Cuba, reported Saturday that two Saudis and one Yemeni were found dead in their cells after using clothing and bedsheets to hang themselves.

The Pentagon identified the three prisoners late Sunday, describing one as a mid-ranking operative with close ties to a top al Qaeda figure.

Rear Adm. Harry Harris, commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo, told reporters the men had been "determined to take their own lives." He said prisoners at the camp are "dangerous, committed to killing Americans."

But the arrests of most of the roughly 500 prisoners held there were based on "the flimsiest sort of hearsay," Specter said.

The Pennsylvania Republican told reporters the administration faces "a tough situation," since some of those held might return to their homelands to carry out attacks on Americans. "But too many have been detained for too long," he said.

"There is the overtone that quite a number of them will be tried, that there is tangible evidence," he said. "As to a great many others, there is not evidence which could be brought into a court of law."

The Bush administration has declared the prisoners to be "enemy combatants," but does not consider them prisoners of war who must be accorded the rights spelled out by the Geneva Conventions.

But detention without charges runs counter to established human-rights law, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that prisoners could challenge their detention in U.S. courts.

There have been more than 40 suicide attempts at Guantanamo Bay, but the inmates found dead over the weekend were the first to succeed, the government said. (Watch commanders explain how guards discovered the men -- 5:09)

Center for Constitutional Rights lawyers, who defend 200 of the detainees, said the suicides were acts of desperation carried out by people who had not been charged and have no hope of getting their day in court.

The human rights group Amnesty International blamed the Bush administration's policies for the deaths.

But Harris said the suicides were an act of "asymmetric warfare" aimed at getting the prison closed. He said a "mythical belief" had spread among inmates that the camp would be shut if three detainees were to die.

The Defense Department said one of the three, Ali Abdullah Ahmed, was a mid- to high-level al Qaeda operative and a "close associate" of Abu Zubaydah, an al Qaeda strategist captured in 2002. Ahmed took part in a long-term hunger strike that ended in May, and has been "non-compliant and hostile" to guards, according to a Pentagon statement.

Another of the dead prisoners, Mani Shaman Turki al-Habardi Al-Utaybi, was a member of a banned Saudi militant group that recruited for al Qaeda. He had been recommended for transfer to another country that was not specified, the Pentagon said.

The third prisoner, Yassar Talal al-Zahrani, was described as a "front-line" Taliban fighter who helped procure weapons for the Islamic militia that once ruled most of Afghanistan.

Al-Zahrani was captured by anti-Taliban Afghan forces and took part in the 2001 uprising at a prison in the northern Afghan city of Mazar-e Sharif that left a CIA officer dead, the military said.

The men were not identified by nationality.

'Ticking time bomb'
Two Democrats on the Sunday talk-show circuit called on the administration to close the prison camp. Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, called Guantanamo "a ticking time bomb."

"Bottom line: We've kept people in this prison for years and years and years without a status, without any rights, and it was the wrong way to go," the California Democrat said. "We should have been organized, planned ahead."

About 90 inmates were disciplined after a May incident in which detainees staged a suicide attempt to draw guards into a room before attacking them, prison officers reported.

That month, dozens of prisoners also took part in a hunger strike to protest their conditions. (Watch a retired general call the suicides 'an act of defiance' -- 3:29)

Harman said the situation at the prison camp was another reason Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should resign. Bush has said Rumsfeld still has his confidence as head of the Pentagon.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has called on the United States to close the prison camp, which Amnesty International has called "a legal black hole."

But Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, told CNN that "We just can't turn them loose."

"There has to be a good procedure that balances the need to keep these people off the street with the need to find out who in fact is a terrorist," said Reed, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

A U.S. ally, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, told CNN that the United States and its allies are "fighting for the rule of law" against terrorism, and Guantanamo has become "a weakness in this fight."

"Seen from that perspective, I think it would be to the benefit of our course and our fight for freedom and against terrorism if the facilities at Guantanamo were closed down," he said.

Swedish Foreign Minister Jan Eliasson told The Associated Press the suicides highlighted the need to shut the prison and either try the captives or free them, adding that the 25-nation European Union favors closure of the camp.

But former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a possible Republican presidential candidate, said U.S. troops would have the same problems "wherever else you put it."

"We maybe have people who hate us so much that we can never release them," Gingrich told reporters. "Now if you're never, ever going to release them, you're going to have psychological problems" among the prisoners.

A British citizen released from Guantanamo in 2004 told the AP, "This was not done as an act of martyrdom, warfare or anything else."

"If you're told day after day by the Americans that you're never going to go home or you're put into isolation, these acts are committed simply out of desperation," Shafiq Rasul, 29, told the AP.

Rasul has previously accused the United States and Britain of humiliating and abusive treatment. (Full story)

Among the cases to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court before the end of its current term is a major test of presidential authority over planned military tribunals for suspected foreign terrorists.

Fewer than a dozen of the Guantanamo prisoners would face military review of alleged war crimes.

Those trials have yet to begin, and the high court has been asked to lay out clear procedures to ensure the defendants are treated within constitutional and international norms.

Copyright 2006 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.

Where's your link? And out of curiousity, was it Rush, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, or someone else that told you it was only 1 prisoner?

Tahoe simply presented that as an option. Yeah, it almost sounds like a "Fox News" sort of option, but it's only an option nonetheless.

If these guys are terrorists they are going to be treated like shit. NOBODY knows what the hell goes on but the people involved. The media and our government can spin this any which way. What are we supposed to do though? Treat these guys like they got caught robbing an airhead from Farmer Jack? You are going to get treated like shit when OUR country comes in and seperates the good from the bad. If you dont like it then A) Make sure we dont come in. B) Make sure you are not associated with anything bad. C) Dont piss us off.

Fact of the matter and this goes back through history. The weak die. Does it suck? YES. Is it fair? NO. Is life fair? No. We are there and doing what the hell we have to do. None of us are over there...Fox News is fed BS just like us...

I am sure some of you guys have friends/family over there and hear about the crap that is going on.

There is all kinds of shit that goes on that gets spun differently for us THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

If these guys are terrorists they are going to be treated like shit.... What are we supposed to do though? Treat these guys like they got caught robbing an airhead from Farmer Jack? You are going to get treated like shit when OUR country comes in and seperates the good from the bad. If you dont like it then A) Make sure we dont come in. B) Make sure you are not associated with anything bad. C) Dont piss us off.

Fact of the matter and this goes back through history. The weak die. Does it suck? YES. Is it fair? NO. Is life fair? No. We are there and doing what the hell we have to do.

WTF???!?!?!??!

What was THAT?

Anyway, I can't stay and talk, I'm going to go out with MUHME and microwave some kittens. Fuck it. If they can't outrun me, and don't know how to survive being microwaved, its their fucking problem.

When I'm done, I'm going to join MUHME chasing down someone in a wheelchair, and cooking and eating him. This is AMERICA!!! The strong survive and the weak get pulled out of their wheelchairs and chopped up with onions and a nice chicken broth base.

Well historically that is what happens. Just pointing out the obvious.

Fact of the matter and this goes back through history. The weak die. Does it suck? YES. Is it fair? NO. Is life fair? No.

I'm sure the terrorists that killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 felt that way too, does that make it right?

You are correct.

I would think that when I put something in "text" that says "Is it fair? NO." that you would get the point that I do not think it is right...

You are correct.

I would think that when I put something in "text" that says "Is it fair? NO." that you would get the point that I do not think it is right...

So if it isn't right, you suggest we should seek to change it?

How are we going to change it?

It is not fair or right but I personally think that maybe a group will think twice about fucking with us again.

When they see what we did to Iraq and what we are doing to their people along with what is happening then you should think twice before fucking with America.

If what we were doing was so bad then the UN would take more action then what they are doing.

What do you guys suggest we do? Do you want to treat these guys like your typical american criminal?

Iraq didn't fuck with us, and the people who did continue to with the same intensity.

I would suggest we treat those guys as war criminals and give them the rights due to POWs. If those rules worked for real conflicts, they'll work for this fake war.

The fact of the matter is, the terrorists have awaken a sleeping giant. From the 1972 Munich games, to 9/11, the U.S. have conducted very few overt operations against terrorism (Gulf War 1 was about Kuwait, Libya was about them attacking first, then declaring war on us). Whatever your political skew, the simple fact is terrorists get away with what they get away with because there is little to lose, and everything to gain. They hold allegiance with no country, value life very little, and up until recently have been able to achieve great success with very little retaliation.

Even if you are flatly against the War (Taymelo), you must agree that taking the fight into their backyard was the LAST thing the terrorists expected. Now, we're policing Afghanistan, a former terrorist playground, and own some control of Iraq, a country strategically placed at the heart of the problem. A fully functioning air base i Iraq would mean a quick-strike capability measured in minutes, not days! And with no Germany or Turkey to deal with, sorties can be carried out in relative secrecy, disallowing the punks the opportunity to play it up to al Jazeer.

It's no wonder they're fighting us so hard in Iraq. This is their worst case scenario.

Iraq didn't fuck with us, and the people who did continue to with the same intensity.

I would suggest we treat those guys as war criminals and give them the rights due to POWs. If those rules worked for real conflicts, they'll work for this fake war.
You're right but the Republicans have been wanting to go over there an whoop their ass for a while now. It is well documented...ask Dick Chaney.

I agree with DENNY 110%

^except the physical war<<<<<<<<<the PR war which they're winning around the globe thanks to fuckups like Iraq. Its like killing the roaches you see while stuffing full sheetcakes in the walls for insulation then wondering why the fuckers just keep coming at you.

EDIT-directed at DM's comment.

I don't for a second believe the military is as fucked up as people think. Sure, operations go bad, and sometimes the politicians ask for too many "restrictions" which ultimately screw up mission bigtime. Here's my take, independent of neither liberal nor conservative viewpoints:

Abu Ghirab (did I spell that right, Anthony?) was PLANNED. Yes, planned. Why? To cover a covert operation happening somewhere else. Don't think for a split second the U.S. military hasn't figured out the media to the point where they can tie strings to it's arms and play puppet. After all these years? They most likely have a war room inside the Pentagon dedicated to nothing more than media reactions and media manipulations. I would guess that Special Ops was about to pull off something big, and Abu Ghirab would simply be too good for the media to pass up. The media, as we all know, can be selectively narrow-visioned. When the shit is going down, that's all they can see and smell. If you can strategically place the shit in a way which deflects from a real operation, you're faking out both the media AND the terrorists.

All of the money going to the war in Iraq ISN'T going to Iraq. Remember, we're talking about politician with only one thing in mind -- re-election. In order to fund worldwide operations against terror cells, the money must be laundered, funneled into the War in Iraq and diverted from there. Whenever shit goes down in Iraq (see above) I can't help but think that, somewhere else in the world, an entire cell is being wiped out by a team like SeAL 6.

Bush is a fucking idiot. Yep, 100%. But look at his cabinet. It's literally built for war. It's going to be interesting to see if Colin Powell runs for President. He apparently left on bad terms, but we don't really know that for absolute certain, since word are just words. It's possible he left early enough to distance himself from any damage this administration was bracing to incur. This invasion, and it's larger goal, has been in the planning stages even before Bush was first elected in 2000 (the "warhawks"). Sometimes to set-up the larger victory, one must intentionally lose the smaller ones. I'm not saying that losing thousands of lives in Iraq is "small", but the way these people think, it's short-term damage they are willing to accept to gain a long-term advantage. Like I said, it's the way "they" think.

Bush never said Iraq was going to be "simple". Hate him all you want, but right off the bat he said it was going to be long and messy. It's the MEDIA that glorified our quick movement into Baghdad. The generals knew better. Yeah, there was a problem with something called "armor", and a problem with a lack of troops. But war is war. If one dissects D-Day, it was nearly a complete fuck up -- and they had been planning that invasion for a while. Shit is going to happen. But look at the size of Iraq, bordering how many U.S. friendly nations? Turkey? They've got their own agenda. Same with the Saudis. Despite that, and all the bad press, the military has done one helluva job with a very difficult situation.

The ultimate goal is Iran. Take a look at a map. See Iran? What countries border it to the East and West? Yep -- Iraq and Afghanistan! Turkey to it's Northwest, Pakistan to it's Southeast. The countries to the north? We'd let Russia handle them. The simple fact is, no country in the history of civilization has ever -- EVER -- won a two front war (oceans don't count as a front). Iran's leaders are crazy, but not stupid. I'm certain a lot of what's going on inside Iraq is Iran's doing. If Iraq falls to the U.S. completely, Iran is finished!

Bush never said Iraq was going to be "simple". Hate him all you want, but right off the bat he said it was going to be long and messy. It's the MEDIA that glorified our quick movement into Baghdad.

Interesting read, Denny.

I would like to point out that "the media" didn't pose in front of the now famous "Mission Accomplished!!" banner in a flight suit, however.

Bush never said Iraq was going to be "simple". Hate him all you want, but right off the bat he said it was going to be long and messy. It's the MEDIA that glorified our quick movement into Baghdad.
Interesting read, Denny.

I would like to point out that "the media" didn't pose in front of the now famous "Mission Accomplished!!" banner in a flight suit, however.

Yes, you're right. Forgot about that one.

I do believe you used that infamous pic in the "worst poster" thread. Remember, the one that backfired on you?

How apropos.:rolleyes:

How are we going to change it?

It is not fair or right but I personally think that maybe a group will think twice about fucking with us again.

When they see what we did to Iraq and what we are doing to their people along with what is happening then you should think twice before fucking with America.

If what we were doing was so bad then the UN would take more action then what they are doing.

What do you guys suggest we do? Do you want to treat these guys like your typical american criminal?

In other words, the end justifies the means, so it is fair and it is right.

The fact of the matter is, the terrorists have awaken a sleeping giant. From the 1972 Munich games, to 9/11, the U.S. have conducted very few overt operations against terrorism (Gulf War 1 was about Kuwait, Libya was about them attacking first, then declaring war on us). Whatever your political skew, the simple fact is terrorists get away with what they get away with because there is little to lose, and everything to gain. They hold allegiance with no country, value life very little, and up until recently have been able to achieve great success with very little retaliation.

Even if you are flatly against the War (Taymelo), you must agree that taking the fight into their backyard was the LAST thing the terrorists expected. Now, we're policing Afghanistan, a former terrorist playground, and own some control of Iraq, a country strategically placed at the heart of the problem. A fully functioning air base i Iraq would mean a quick-strike capability measured in minutes, not days! And with no Germany or Turkey to deal with, sorties can be carried out in relative secrecy, disallowing the punks the opportunity to play it up to al Jazeer.

It's no wonder they're fighting us so hard in Iraq. This is their worst case scenario.

its amazing how people spin things in their own minds to justify this war.

Do you really believe all that "taking the fight to the terrorists" crap?

Sounds like a lot of bullshit to me.

The fact of the matter is, the terrorists have awaken a sleeping giant. From the 1972 Munich games, to 9/11, the U.S. have conducted very few overt operations against terrorism (Gulf War 1 was about Kuwait, Libya was about them attacking first, then declaring war on us). Whatever your political skew, the simple fact is terrorists get away with what they get away with because there is little to lose, and everything to gain. They hold allegiance with no country, value life very little, and up until recently have been able to achieve great success with very little retaliation.

Even if you are flatly against the War (Taymelo), you must agree that taking the fight into their backyard was the LAST thing the terrorists expected. Now, we're policing Afghanistan, a former terrorist playground, and own some control of Iraq, a country strategically placed at the heart of the problem. A fully functioning air base i Iraq would mean a quick-strike capability measured in minutes, not days! And with no Germany or Turkey to deal with, sorties can be carried out in relative secrecy, disallowing the punks the opportunity to play it up to al Jazeer.

It's no wonder they're fighting us so hard in Iraq. This is their worst case scenario.
its amazing how people spin things in their own minds to justify this war.

Do you really believe all that "taking the fight to the terrorists" crap?

Sounds like a lot of bullshit to me.

Yes, I actually do. A few points here:

a) You can blame the French and the British for this shit. It's their mess. However, you can also blame the lack of action on the part of the U.S. to retaliate. Remember the Marines in Beirut? What about the hostage rescue attempt? We should've gone in guns a ablaze, wiping out anything we can see. I'm not joking, either. These people completely believe the stomach of the U.S. people is too sensitive, and our resolve forged of playdough, not hardened steel. Some "terrorists" allegedly tried to fuck with some Soviets back in the day -- and had the fingers of their family members "handed' to them, courtesy of your friendly neighborhood KGB. Suffice to say, the hostages were released. Our "inaction" has led to this. Unfortunately, it's a deep pile of shit to unload.

b) What one must realize is that these people are NOT MUSLIM!!! They're beyond that, very much like our radical right. They have it in their minds that "every American" is evil, and must die. Logical reasoning does not work, here -- only brutal force.

What I can't understand is why rumors haven't spread about American soldiers carrying viles of pig blood with them. When they shoot an insurgent, they pour pig blood into the wound, then a head shot for the kill. Impure, the deceased insurgent will neever see Allah. Of course, soldiers DON'T do this, but fuck if it wouldn't stop the fighting very quickly. All a possible "warrior of Islam" needs to know is that he's dying "dirty" for him to reassess his plans.

Sounds horrible? Repulsive? Un-American? Exactly. The terrorists would never expect it.

c) The politicians shouldn't care about WHAT the people think. You're gonna villify me for this one, Tay, but I BELIEVE in torture at Gitmo. I BELIEVE that we should be as ruthless as humanly possible. The reason? Nobody fears us, anymore. For over 150 years Americans have been able to travel abroad with the confidence that beside them is the American mystique, as well as unequaled American firepower (I'd like to think of the War of 1812 as the starting point and Vietman as near the end). Now? Good luck. Every terror splinter cell is looking to make a name. A few abductions here, a beheading there, and "poof" -- instant celebrity. I say, go back to the Teddy Roosevelt days of "Speak softly, and carry a big stick". We won't touch you if you don't touch us. But if we have to touch you, it WON'T be just a touch. Hit 'em with everything we've got, then say "See, we TOLD you to back off. Now, look what you made us do". That's the old America I want back.

Whatever your political skew, the simple fact is terrorists get away with what they get away with because there is little to lose, and everything to gain.
No. It's because they're under the radar, geared more toward nations than small decentralized factions. Building a "radar" smart enough to detect and derail terrorists that doesn't hose civil liberties is exceedingly difficult to get correct in theory, never mind the practicality constraints, and the world gets smaller every day just to make things interesting.


You can blame the French and the British for this shit. It's their mess.
There's a whole lot of "blame" to go around.


Some "terrorists" allegedly tried to fuck with some Soviets back in the day -- and had the fingers of their family members "handed' to them, courtesy of your friendly neighborhood KGB. Suffice to say, the hostages were released.
Nice anecdote. I take it that's why the Soviets left Afghanistan.


b) What one must realize is that these people are NOT MUSLIM!!! They're beyond that, very much like our radical right. They have it in their minds that "every American" is evil, and must die. Logical reasoning does not work, here -- only brutal force.
Because it's worked so well for the past millenia... riiiggghhhttt...


What I can't understand is why rumors haven't spread about American soldiers carrying viles of pig blood with them.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.htm


c) The politicians shouldn't care about WHAT the people think.
They shouldn't get elected either. <laughs>


I BELIEVE that we should be as ruthless as humanly possible. The reason? Nobody fears us, anymore. For over 150 years Americans have been able to travel abroad with the confidence that beside them is the American mystique, as well as unequaled American firepower (I'd like to think of the War of 1812 as the starting point and Vietman as near the end).
The Monroe Doctrine was pretty isolationist -- we won't piss in Europe's pot if Europe doesn't piss in ours. We were largely neutral and non-invasive, and it wasn't because we had such great armies and weapons in the 1800s. We were busy beating ourselves in the ground with this little thing called the Civil War. What do they teach in history classes these days?


I say, go back to the Teddy Roosevelt days of "Speak softly, and carry a big stick". We won't touch you if you don't touch us. But if we have to touch you, it WON'T be just a touch. Hit 'em with everything we've got, then say "See, we TOLD you to back off. Now, look what you made us do". That's the old America I want back.
Start by getting rid of all the nukes and biotoxins everywhere. It's easy. :)

If you want to belong to a fucked up military, go get in your time machine and go back to the Carter days. Then have his dumb fucking bitch ass send you on "operation eagle claw" or 'rice bow' whatever the fuck you want to call it.

what a fucking gem?

If you want to belong to a fucked up military, go get in your time machine and go back to the Carter days. Then have his dumb fucking bitch ass send you on "operation eagle claw" or 'rice bow' whatever the fuck you want to call it.

what a fucking gem?

Speaking of flashbacks, back in the 1980s during the glorious era of reagan's morning in america it was the soviet evil empire that threw people in the gulag, spied on its citizens, started wars of aggression and generally got what it wanted, when it wanted through force.

I guess nature really does abhor a vacuum, comrades.

If you want to belong to a fucked up military, go get in your time machine and go back to the Carter days. Then have his dumb fucking bitch ass send you on "operation eagle claw" or 'rice bow' whatever the fuck you want to call it.

what a fucking gem?
Speaking of flashbacks, back in the 1980s during the glorious era of reagan's morning in america it was the soviet evil empire that threw people in the gulag, spied on its citizens, started wars of aggression and generally got what it wanted, when it wanted through force.

I guess nature really does abhor a vacuum, comrades.

Good point. I suppose the perfect solution would be a delicate balance of force and restraint, based upon need, not desire.

Then again, that old Lord Byron finds his way into the mix every single time.

Good point. I suppose the perfect solution would be a delicate balance of force and restraint, based upon need, not desire.

There's a lot of paths toward achieving respect. Fear isn't the only way, and leading primarily with fear isn't a very good way in any long-term sense. Iran under the Shah created a climate of fear, with torture and secret prisons that the U.S. sponsored to keep the oil coming. It worked -so- well that, despite all the societal gains from Westernization, a big revolt happened and there's extreme anti-U.S. sentiment by the current Iran regime.

One of the paths to respect involves Doing What You Say You Will Do, where our recent record in this part of the world is simply awful.

- We broke the the Algiers Accords treaty made with Iran to free the hostages while the ink was drying, by funding Iraq's war against Iran. Obviously the other Arab nations will trust us in that light.
- After Bush Senior told the insurgents to rise up against Saddam and we would support them in the wake of Desert Storm, they did just that and got burned when we didn't help and let Saddam shoot them from the skies.
- We told everyone we'd back down from Iraq quickly once an interim government was installed and Saddam was ousted. It's the 2nd year anniversary of the interim government. Tick-tick-tick...
- And what was this nonsense we signed up to where we obey treaties on torture, have a fair legal system, etc. Apparently, that doesn't apply in you are hauled off to Gitmo, or Abu Ghraib for that matter.

No one has a perfect Do What You Say You Will Do record, of course, but these are huge institutional failings that push generations of anti-American sentiment over the edge in a growing number of extremists.

If you want to belong to a fucked up military, go get in your time machine and go back to the Carter days. Then have his dumb fucking bitch ass send you on "operation eagle claw" or 'rice bow' whatever the fuck you want to call it.

what a fucking gem?

Another Fox News tactic.

Show a weakness in the current government, and instead of responding to the critique, they start talking about Jimmy Carter.

They do that shit ALL THE TIME.

If you want to belong to a fucked up military, go get in your time machine and go back to the Carter days. Then have his dumb fucking bitch ass send you on "operation eagle claw" or 'rice bow' whatever the fuck you want to call it.

what a fucking gem?

Another Fox News tactic.

Show a weakness in the current government, and instead of responding to the critique, they start talking about Jimmy Carter.

They do that shit ALL THE TIME.

I stand by what I said, the military today is mostly a great group of young men and women who have the best technology ever. I agree it took us a while to equip the vehicles with proper armor.

But in the Carter days, it was shitty. It was fucked up and Carter was fucked up too.

But in the Carter days, it was shitty. It was fucked up and Carter was fucked up too.

The military of that era was all about an insane proxy and assets war with the Soviets. It certainly wasn't limited to Carter. Reagan's initial rollouts of Star Wars were just as stupid militarily as Carter wanting to haul MX missiles around on a private railroad, but they both served to spook the Soviets. (As an aside, yup, Carter had planned to spend even more $ on the military than Reagan did.) Gerald Ford's Marines invaded the wrong fucking island in Khmer Rouge to rescue the S.S. Mayaguez crew, who were already being released... makes Eagle Claw look well-run by comparison.

Especially in the wake of Vietnam, we weren't fighting most of our battles directly, and didn't have the field expertise we needed.

I see that 2 posts that followed mine were critical of 2 republicans. I didn't point to that fuckhead Carter because he was a dem, but because thats what I dealt with and some of his fuckhead decisions affected me.

Somewhere in this thread someone said something about our military being weak or something. IMO, nothing could be further from the truth. So I was defending our military today, not trying to blame dems.

If you want to bring up missions, try the US invading Grenada. And we lost soldiers invading Grenada? R u kidding me? We worked ourselves out of that hole.

And replying specifically to one of your sentences... NOTHING maes Eagle Claw look well-run, imo.

I see that 2 posts that followed mine were critical of 2 republicans. I didn't point to that fuckhead Carter because he was a dem, but because thats what I dealt with and some of his fuckhead decisions affected me.
I was critical of that entire -era- of the military, because stuff got so stupid in the pissing contest against the Russkies, and needless lives were lost when we had to engage in a lot of "real" missions. We'd take one side because the Soviets would take another, and find ourselves in dumbass situations.

FWIW, I've voted Democrat, Republican, and independent in past presidential elections... wasn't intending to slam one side, but apart from Carter, it was all Republicans between Vietnam and the first Gulf war.


If you want to bring up missions, try the US invading Grenada. And we lost soldiers invading Grenada? R u kidding me? We worked ourselves out of that hole.

And replying specifically to one of your sentences... NOTHING maes Eagle Claw look well-run, imo.
In Eagle Claw, we sorta knew where the targets were, and the Iranians weren't already going to release the hostages before we launched the mission. There were more casualties from the S.S. Mayaguez than from Grenada and Eagle Claw combined, but it's often lumped in with Vietnam (even though it happened after the last troops left Vietnam) so it's not mentioned as much.

If you want to belong to a fucked up military, go get in your time machine and go back to the Carter days. Then have his dumb fucking bitch ass send you on "operation eagle claw" or 'rice bow' whatever the fuck you want to call it.

what a fucking gem?
Another Fox News tactic.

Show a weakness in the current government, and instead of responding to the critique, they start talking about Jimmy Carter.

They do that shit ALL THE TIME.
I stand by what I said, the military today is mostly a great group of young men and women who have the best technology ever. I agree it took us a while to equip the vehicles with proper armor.

But in the Carter days, it was shitty. It was fucked up and Carter was fucked up too.
In the Carter days we were basically using mid Vietnam era technology. That conflict put us back nearly a decade in military advancement. Morale was at it's lowest, and Congress had no ambition to increase military funding. But Carter wasn't a bad President. He was simply the wrong man for the time. Since then, he's accomplished some great things.

I think Reagan was the RIGHT man for the time, as was Clinton. This country goes through cycles where it needs either a great foreign President, or a great domestic President. We're getting to that time where a man with a kick-ass domestic policy takes command, but if in two years Iraq is still a mess, the cycle might get bumped.

We weren't even close to the hostages. It was a fucking disaster. How bout a simple weather report.

As much as Grenada was laughable, imo, the country and the military needed a victory. Reagan changed a lot with the military and it helped all the way around.

And Clinton did some good shit domestically.

A. Iran under the Shah created a climate of fear, with torture and secret prisons that the U.S. sponsored to keep the oil coming.

B. We broke the the Algiers Accords treaty made with Iran to free the hostages while the ink was drying, by funding Iraq's war against Iran.

C. After Bush Senior told the insurgents to rise up against Saddam and we would support them in the wake of Desert Storm, they did just that and got burned when we didn't help and let Saddam shoot them from the skies.

D. We told everyone we'd back down from Iraq quickly once an interim government was installed and Saddam was ousted. It's the 2nd year anniversary of the interim government. Tick-tick-tick...

My 2 cent response...
A. You imply that we supported torture and prisons in Iran. Were you in on any behind the scenes negotiations? Maybe we said stop the shit. We did support the gov't.

B. I'm thinking that was about the time there was a regime change in Iran so a change in policy might coincide with a change in gov't.

C. I didn't interpret what Bush said the way you do. I think your statement is a stretch.

D. Again, a stretch, imo. I'd like to see a link where 'we told everyone' "We will back down from Iraq quickly once an interem gov't was installed" I thought it was more about a stable working gov't. But I could be wrong.

And ofcourse the US makes mistakes. We trade with Egypt...are they perfect? No. Do they have prisons? Yes. Do they torture? Yes. We aren't perfect if a Dem or a Rep is in office. We must remember that Clinton bombed the Chinese embassy in whatchacallit a few years back. So mistakes happen.

If you want to belong to a fucked up military, go get in your time machine and go back to the Carter days. Then have his dumb fucking bitch ass send you on "operation eagle claw" or 'rice bow' whatever the fuck you want to call it.

what a fucking gem?

Another Fox News tactic.

Show a weakness in the current government, and instead of responding to the critique, they start talking about Jimmy Carter.

They do that shit ALL THE TIME.

I stand by what I said, the military today is mostly a great group of young men and women who have the best technology ever. I agree it took us a while to equip the vehicles with proper armor.

But in the Carter days, it was shitty. It was fucked up and Carter was fucked up too.


What did you say about GWB?

Move along.

Nothing to see here.

BTW, did I tell you about Jimmy Carter?

Good stuff!

My 2 cent response...
A. You imply that we supported torture and prisons in Iran. Were you in on any behind the scenes negotiations? Maybe we said stop the shit. We did support the gov't.
The CIA overthrew Iran's elected Prime Minister who wanted to nationalize oil assets and do a "government for the people" to re-install the West-friendly Shah. It was the CIA taught the Iraqi secret police (SAVAK) many torture techniques and pointed them at people to torture. The rub is, we'd claim we were all in favor of democracy, but when it came to oil, we would install iron fisted dictators under our control just as surely as the Russians would rule their assets. The Shah could get away with all manner of abuse because he was the tool of the U.S. and the West. Toward the end, the U.S. attempted to -install- someone other than the Shah, but it was far too late.


B. I'm thinking that was about the time there was a regime change in Iran so a change in policy might coincide with a change in gov't.
To get the hostages out of Iran, the U.S. (under Carter, but with president-elect Reagan's support) signed a treaty that says:
http://www.parstimes.com/history/algiers_accords.pdf

"The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs."

then subsequently did all kinds of things to indirectly intervene in Iran's internal affairs and break the treaty. Again, "do what you say you will do".


C. I didn't interpret what Bush said the way you do. I think your statement is a stretch.
My understanding was that through covert channels, Bush Sr. encouraged their uprising, though he didn't say that publically for fear of pissing off the allies, but I certainly wasn't around for the specifics. We can limit the "do what you say you will do" argument to the no-fly zones. If you recall, the no-fly zones were established so that Saddam couldn't attack the Kurds and Shi'ites from the air. (They weren't for our protection -- we could destroy them at great distance.) Saddam was allowed to fly some helicopters for limited purposes, but promptly used the helicopters to shoot the shit out of the rebelling Iraqis. Our reaction to this? We just stuck our thumbs up our asses and played sit-and-spin. We didn't have to have American troops accompany the Kurds and Shi'ites in their uprising. We simply had to do what we said we'd do with the no-fly zones. Do what you say you will do.


D. Again, a stretch, imo. I'd like to see a link where 'we told everyone' "We will back down from Iraq quickly once an interem gov't was installed" I thought it was more about a stable working gov't. But I could be wrong.
It was the "Mission Accomplished" / USS Lincoln / "end of major combat operations" era. There were lots of happy horseshit things said around that timeframe. I might be stretching, but not by much. There's tons of links to wade through (and no good way to search by date range). The one that caught my eye was Dick Lugar's commentary on the messaging at the time:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/052403A.shtml

The Pentagon was talking about "quick exit strategies", Bush was saying that the army was not for "nation building", etc. The one I'm really trying to find is where anonymous White House folks spoke of aligning the Iraqi exit strategy to Bush's re-election. No one counted on hostilities escalating, despite the fact that our continued presence made us a magnet for terrorists and much resentment... hell, the Iraqis are asking us for an exit strategy.


And ofcourse the US makes mistakes. We trade with Egypt...are they perfect? No. Do they have prisons? Yes. Do they torture? Yes. We aren't perfect if a Dem or a Rep is in office. We must remember that Clinton bombed the Chinese embassy in whatchacallit a few years back. So mistakes happen.
Yeah, there's tactical mistakes but I'm talking strategic "do what you say you will do" antics, because that's where our "respect" in this area falls short IMO. At this moment, we claim our Iran/Iraq activities are not first and foremost about oil. Do you believe that's true? Does anyone?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061401054.html

I'm not avoiding the debate UMax, but I have 2 choices. Go find some links to back my points, or just say...You are right!