You know--sometimes I feel it's a very good thing I'm not the one with the football. As my (liberal, Democratic) journalist friend says--we could waste that country. If we were even half as awful as AQ says, we could bomb that entire region to smithereens, and sow the ground with salt. Do they even know that?
And, much as I feel we should make amends for the prison scandal--where's our apology for Fallujah? For 9/11? For Daniel Pearl? How come the Saudi King and the clerics in Iraq aren't coming onto US TV and offering an apology?
I'll tell you, this back and forth is fucking with my head, seriously.
The worst part was I wasn't even shocked. I was by no means surprised. Of course it was bound to happen. And I won't be surprised when this latest headline spurs others to retaliate and create a new headline.
I just pray for his family. There is no way to say anybody understands their pain. There is maybe, one woman in the world who can comfort them. Mrs. Daniel Stern, that's it.
Dow Jones is a smallish company (8000 or so employees at that time) and of those, there were only about 1000 involved with the Wall Street Journal in some capacity, so it's not so surprising that our paths would've crossed. At the time, he was merely a journalist of no great notoriety, which is why I can't remember for certain if I was introduced to him (at one point, a number of us working on the WSJ.com website were introduced to a number of the journalists).
Well on face value I think you have a point, that is indeed the prevailing international perspective. Nothing the US does in terms of foreign policy is unmitigated by some measure of self-interest. US military movements, while relatively constrained in contrast to much larger conflicts such as WWII and Vietnam, are engineered to enforce a self-serving doctrine of American foreign policy. That was true in Panama, Grenada, Kosovo, even the Cuban Missle Crisis. Those actions put out small fires before they erupted into an inferno. While it may seem like bullying to some, the consequence of inaction does not compare in the least to some bad PR.
By the same token there have been conflicts that were outright mistakes. Somalia was purely a humanitarian mission, an attempt to induce order and halt mass starvation while the rest of the world just watched. We failed because we could not offer a better solution to the people loyal to warlords and clan rivalry. Vietnam, while ostensibly predicated on a doctrine of containing communist encroachment, was a confused and politically micromanaged war against an enemy we grossly underestimated. I believe parallels can be drawn in Iraq today where again we are there for our own self-preservation (a concept I do not really buy into this time) and again in conflict with an enemy we just don't get. They don't play by our rules and are not afraid to die. They have been fighting invaders and themselves for centuries now, needless to say they are quite good at it.
But to say we are bullies, I'm not certain of that. I think the planet has a short term memory problem. We are not perfect and we are not saints but also are not driven by an appetite for conquest and acquisition. The last time we kept any real estate taken by military force was 1898, the rest we gave back.
Just remember that we do not fight wars just for ourselves but for the general welfare of the planet. Ask the South Koreans, or the Germans and Japanese, the former satellite states of the former Soviet Union. And yes, even those ungrateful French. Would they rather have the nazis in charge?or the communists? Or those lunatic theocrats in the mideast? If we did nothing over the last century trust me, one of them would be.
So if they want to call us bullies for standing up to enemies of democracy and human freedoms, enemies that also threaten them, then so be it. That is the price of empire.
Nothing the US does in terms of foreign policy is unmitigated by some measure of self-interest. US military movements, ... are engineered to enforce a self-serving doctrine of American foreign policy. That was true in Panama, Grenada, Kosovo, even the Cuban Missle Crisis. Those actions put out small fires before they erupted into an inferno.
This is what's so frustrating about debating foreign policy with sone non-Americans. They'll scream that the US always acts in its own self-interest and my response is "And how is that different from what every other country does?" EVERY country does this.
Just remember that we do not fight wars just for ourselves but for the general welfare of the planet. Ask the South Koreans, or the Germans and Japanese, the former satellite states of the former Soviet Union. And yes, even those ungrateful French. Would they rather have the nazis in charge?or the communists? Or those lunatic theocrats in the mideast? If we did nothing over the last century trust me, one of them would be.
Don't forget the ungrateful Kuwaitis. In fact one reason we didn't intervene in Rwanda was because of Somalia--Clinton didn't want to risk American lives again. And we got slammed for that.
Fuck 'em all. June 30 can't come soon enough for me. Then AQ can turn on each other and we'll get videos of them eating their young like the savages they are.
Somalia was purely a humanitarian mission, an attempt to induce order and halt mass starvation while the rest of the world just watched. We failed because we could not offer a better solution to the people loyal to warlords and clan rivalry.
Actually, we failed precisely because we pissed off the warlords, who established their power (and made tons of money) intercepting humanitarian aid shipments and controlling their distribution. We threatened the warlords' power and wealth. What did we expect them to do? (Sit back and watch, apparently. We deployed far too few troops to take on the warlords directly).
In general, I find myself agreeing with you. I'm rather surprised to find you're such a hawk.
Well don't confuse my rile with hawkishness. I'm angry, and I want it over NOW. I still believe this so called war is a galactic miscalculation based on highly dubious reasoning designed to frighten and intimidate the public into believing it was truth. Now we own that place, and now we're screwed. No UN, and little global support, because our president and our congress thought this was a really super idea.
If anyone can tell me how the hell we're getting out of this one without another Saigon rooftop I'd be glad to hear it.
I don't believe we're screwed, and I'm thoroughly sick of the Vietnam analogies. This is no Vietnam. Not even close.
- There is no significant organized resistance, no corrolary to the NVA, no corrolary to North Vietnam. What we are facing are small militias and groups of disaffected individuals.
- There is no outside power funneling massive amounts of cash, weapons, and supplies to the insurgents, as China and the USSR did for North Vietnam.
- We are losing far fewer troops, even relative to the smaller size of the force in Iraq as compared to what we had in Vietnam.
- A majority of Iraqis supports our presence (though only as long as absolutely necessary).
- Most of the country is stable. Fallujah has been quiet for a couple of weeks; Najaf and Karbala are being pacified now. Insurgent activity elsewhere is limited. The populace in Najaf has turned against Moqtada al-Sadr, and his militia is being systematically wiped out.
The problem is, the good news goes virtually unreported, while every setback guarantees another round of talking heads invoking Vietnam and wailing about how we're losing the war in Iraq. Take the news with a grain of salt, man. Remember, the house that didn't burn down never makes the nightly news.
I'm not suggesting Iraq is Vietnam any more than I believe 911 and Pearl Harbor are remotely analagous. They are all unique events with mutally exclusive circumstance. But are you seriously suggesting that we are making any kind of progress over there at all? I appreciate your optimistic assessment and I will even agree that we do not hear the good things that happen over there. But I think your assessment is off, way off. You even said we have the support of the majority of Iragis for as long as absolutely necessary. I would replace support with tolerance, because that's really what it is. It is as tenuous as it is finite. We also have a finite amount of time to produce real results over there. The question is which will last longer? Their tolerance or our presence?
Look, we can argue back and forth on this. But stepping back and looking at the big picture the Bush adminsitration had such a hard on for Iraq that it was willing to resort to scare tactics to garner support. Christ, if I had to hear one more time about how Saddam is (was) a threat to our children one more time I was going to throw my TV out the window. The strategy was infantilising to the American people, treating us like children, expecting us to buy this horeshit about WMD which report after report said were not there. And, most important of all, there was little or no strategizing the rebuilding of postwar Iraq. Sheer lunacy. I'm going off on another rant here...
There is no exit strategy, there is no significant UN support, there is no real and meaningful movement toward rebuilding their infrastructure. Look, you cannot, CANNOT, build a democracy with just the military. And that is precisely what we are trying to do. Think about the Marshall Plan, was that successful because we just used the military? Now think about how we would respond if a foreign power showed up here with just their army and tried to convince us their way was better. Would you listen? Or would you fight?
The factionalist resistance WILL continue, long after 6/30. In addition, this is a culture we largely do not understand. We have a seperation of church and state here, they do not. Although Saddam's Iraq was secularized, it was also led by a megalomaniac who did not allow religion to impede his absolute rule. So 6 of one half dozen of the other.
We should never have attempted this alone, this should be a global effort. Instead we are hearing more and more about fighting and infighting among the various religious factions and from the US hand picked politicians over there. I just do not think it can work, not like this.
And for the record, again, do not confuse my anger. I want us to win, I really do. I honestly hope we can salvage this mess. You and I were both there the first time, I have no choice now but to support the effort. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
And as fed up as you are regarding the Vietnam allusions, so too am I fed up with conservatives calling anyone who questions the Bush administration "unpatriotic" "America haters" and my favorite "treasonous". I doubt most of them ever served a day in their lives. Such narrow minds.
I fucking hate war,it's a stupid way to solve problems. But it's ours now and like it or not we have to finish what we started. I just think we can do it smarter than this. I'm hoping we will all make a smarter move this November than did the Supreme Court 4 years ago.
The video shows "five men wearing headscarves and black ski masks, standing over a bound man in an orange jumpsuit — similar to a prisoner's uniform." After Nick Berg read his statement, "A scream sounded as the men cut his head off, shouting 'Allahu akbar!' — 'God is great!' They then held the head up to the camera."
If "God is great", and they believe that their actions will get them into their equivalent of heaven, why do they bother to cover their faces? It seems to me that if your actions will please your god, then the consequences should be borne without hiding. Thus, if anyone wants to retaliate for the beheading by killing the beheaders, then wouldn't they then be considered martyrs for their cause by their followers? Wouldn't that be the goal?
The men in the video are cowards, plain and simple. If they truly believed what they claim, then they would show their faces and make their views known. There is no excuse for what they did, and they know it. If there is any way to capture them, just allow me to deal with them, and they will truly know what prolonged torture is.
There's so much that's hidden--not just their faces. I think they were waiting to kidnap a civilian and do this until after something like Abu Ghraib came out--that was just the excuse. Revenge was just the excuse, Islam is the moral salve, just like for the 9/11 monsters Palestine was the excuse (there were inconsistencies there as well--supposedly observant Muslims who drank and went to strippers). I think the real reason is because they hate. They live to hate. Hatred is what orders their worldview. Why do they hate?--because they hate. It all comes back to that. I'm not sure they could tell you what they love, because so much of their life is taken up with hate. So I think we'll never "get" them by rationalizing, because a life directed by hate is a-rational by definition.
I have heard today that many Baghdadians and Iraqis are unequivocably horrified by this, which makes me feel a tiny bit better.
Most Muslims I'm sure are horrified by this. Those who are not are mistaken if they believe these psychotics represent their interests. They only make things worse for all.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-05-11 05:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-11 07:01 pm (UTC)And, much as I feel we should make amends for the prison scandal--where's our apology for Fallujah? For 9/11? For Daniel Pearl? How come the Saudi King and the clerics in Iraq aren't coming onto US TV and offering an apology?
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 06:08 am (UTC)They don't care how it makes them look politically if they don't apologize.
Our lives don't mean anything to them.
Although that's only fair, since their lives don't mean much to the America they've met.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 06:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 06:42 am (UTC)And the mess of just about every international conflict America has been involved with over the past twenty years.
We have a way of coming in and bullying smaller countries for "their own good."
This is a cycle of revenge that will just get uglier.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 06:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 07:30 am (UTC)The worst part was I wasn't even shocked. I was by no means surprised. Of course it was bound to happen. And I won't be surprised when this latest headline spurs others to retaliate and create a new headline.
I just pray for his family.
There is no way to say anybody understands their pain. There is maybe, one woman in the world who can comfort them. Mrs. Daniel Stern, that's it.
And it will just keep on going.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 08:43 am (UTC)He was a coworker of mine in my days at Dow Jones (which publishes the Wall Street Journal). I think I met him once in 1999 or so.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 08:59 am (UTC)Wow.
Dammit, I can't even remember the name right. I knew it this morning.
I've been walking around in a daze today since I read about this.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 09:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 07:35 am (UTC)By the same token there have been conflicts that were outright mistakes. Somalia was purely a humanitarian mission, an attempt to induce order and halt mass starvation while the rest of the world just watched. We failed because we could not offer a better solution to the people loyal to warlords and clan rivalry. Vietnam, while ostensibly predicated on a doctrine of containing communist encroachment, was a confused and politically micromanaged war against an enemy we grossly underestimated. I believe parallels can be drawn in Iraq today where again we are there for our own self-preservation (a concept I do not really buy into this time) and again in conflict with an enemy we just don't get. They don't play by our rules and are not afraid to die. They have been fighting invaders and themselves for centuries now, needless to say they are quite good at it.
But to say we are bullies, I'm not certain of that. I think the planet has a short term memory problem. We are not perfect and we are not saints but also are not driven by an appetite for conquest and acquisition. The last time we kept any real estate taken by military force was 1898, the rest we gave back.
Just remember that we do not fight wars just for ourselves but for the general welfare of the planet. Ask the South Koreans, or the Germans and Japanese, the former satellite states of the former Soviet Union. And yes, even those ungrateful French. Would they rather have the nazis in charge?or the communists? Or those lunatic theocrats in the mideast? If we did nothing over the last century trust me, one of them would be.
So if they want to call us bullies for standing up to enemies of democracy and human freedoms, enemies that also threaten them, then so be it. That is the price of empire.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 07:58 am (UTC)This is what's so frustrating about debating foreign policy with sone non-Americans. They'll scream that the US always acts in its own self-interest and my response is "And how is that different from what every other country does?" EVERY country does this.
Just remember that we do not fight wars just for ourselves but for the general welfare of the planet. Ask the South Koreans, or the Germans and Japanese, the former satellite states of the former Soviet Union. And yes, even those ungrateful French. Would they rather have the nazis in charge?or the communists? Or those lunatic theocrats in the mideast? If we did nothing over the last century trust me, one of them would be.
Don't forget the ungrateful Kuwaitis. In fact one reason we didn't intervene in Rwanda was because of Somalia--Clinton didn't want to risk American lives again. And we got slammed for that.
Fuck 'em all. June 30 can't come soon enough for me. Then AQ can turn on each other and we'll get videos of them eating their young like the savages they are.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 08:06 am (UTC)Or were you joking when you said that earlier in the thread? Because it wasn't funny.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 08:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 08:58 am (UTC)Actually, we failed precisely because we pissed off the warlords, who established their power (and made tons of money) intercepting humanitarian aid shipments and controlling their distribution. We threatened the warlords' power and wealth. What did we expect them to do? (Sit back and watch, apparently. We deployed far too few troops to take on the warlords directly).
In general, I find myself agreeing with you. I'm rather surprised to find you're such a hawk.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 09:20 am (UTC)If anyone can tell me how the hell we're getting out of this one without another Saigon rooftop I'd be glad to hear it.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 09:44 am (UTC)- There is no significant organized resistance, no corrolary to the NVA, no corrolary to North Vietnam. What we are facing are small militias and groups of disaffected individuals.
- There is no outside power funneling massive amounts of cash, weapons, and supplies to the insurgents, as China and the USSR did for North Vietnam.
- We are losing far fewer troops, even relative to the smaller size of the force in Iraq as compared to what we had in Vietnam.
- A majority of Iraqis supports our presence (though only as long as absolutely necessary).
- Most of the country is stable. Fallujah has been quiet for a couple of weeks; Najaf and Karbala are being pacified now. Insurgent activity elsewhere is limited. The populace in Najaf has turned against Moqtada al-Sadr, and his militia is being systematically wiped out.
The problem is, the good news goes virtually unreported, while every setback guarantees another round of talking heads invoking Vietnam and wailing about how we're losing the war in Iraq. Take the news with a grain of salt, man. Remember, the house that didn't burn down never makes the nightly news.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 10:38 am (UTC)Look, we can argue back and forth on this. But stepping back and looking at the big picture the Bush adminsitration had such a hard on for Iraq that it was willing to resort to scare tactics to garner support. Christ, if I had to hear one more time about how Saddam is (was) a threat to our children one more time I was going to throw my TV out the window. The strategy was infantilising to the American people, treating us like children, expecting us to buy this horeshit about WMD which report after report said were not there. And, most important of all, there was little or no strategizing the rebuilding of postwar Iraq. Sheer lunacy. I'm going off on another rant here...
There is no exit strategy, there is no significant UN support, there is no real and meaningful movement toward rebuilding their infrastructure. Look, you cannot, CANNOT, build a democracy with just the military. And that is precisely what we are trying to do. Think about the Marshall Plan, was that successful because we just used the military? Now think about how we would respond if a foreign power showed up here with just their army and tried to convince us their way was better. Would you listen? Or would you fight?
The factionalist resistance WILL continue, long after 6/30. In addition, this is a culture we largely do not understand. We have a seperation of church and state here, they do not. Although Saddam's Iraq was secularized, it was also led by a megalomaniac who did not allow religion to impede his absolute rule. So 6 of one half dozen of the other.
We should never have attempted this alone, this should be a global effort. Instead we are hearing more and more about fighting and infighting among the various religious factions and from the US hand picked politicians over there. I just do not think it can work, not like this.
And for the record, again, do not confuse my anger. I want us to win, I really do. I honestly hope we can salvage this mess. You and I were both there the first time, I have no choice now but to support the effort. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
And as fed up as you are regarding the Vietnam allusions, so too am I fed up with conservatives calling anyone who questions the Bush administration "unpatriotic" "America haters" and my favorite "treasonous". I doubt most of them ever served a day in their lives. Such narrow minds.
I fucking hate war,it's a stupid way to solve problems. But it's ours now and like it or not we have to finish what we started. I just think we can do it smarter than this. I'm hoping we will all make a smarter move this November than did the Supreme Court 4 years ago.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 11:53 am (UTC)The video shows "five men wearing headscarves and black ski masks, standing over a bound man in an orange jumpsuit — similar to a prisoner's uniform." After Nick Berg read his statement, "A scream sounded as the men cut his head off, shouting 'Allahu akbar!' — 'God is great!' They then held the head up to the camera."
If "God is great", and they believe that their actions will get them into their equivalent of heaven, why do they bother to cover their faces? It seems to me that if your actions will please your god, then the consequences should be borne without hiding. Thus, if anyone wants to retaliate for the beheading by killing the beheaders, then wouldn't they then be considered martyrs for their cause by their followers? Wouldn't that be the goal?
The men in the video are cowards, plain and simple. If they truly believed what they claim, then they would show their faces and make their views known. There is no excuse for what they did, and they know it. If there is any way to capture them, just allow me to deal with them, and they will truly know what prolonged torture is.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 12:11 pm (UTC)I have heard today that many Baghdadians and Iraqis are unequivocably horrified by this, which makes me feel a tiny bit better.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 02:59 pm (UTC)