...Or would you rather wait until it's "outside your front door?"

Ramblings' Journal / Project 21 ^ | 5.11.04 | Michael King

[some guy in the mountains]

Now, I will bitch about whiners like you tying our collective hands to prevent us from dealing with this kind of stuff....

Ha ha. Easy there. I just wanted to know what people thought about the connection between this the prisoner abuse. I was being a little facetious about describe myself as a whiner.

[CyberAnt]

Well .. they have already made a statement and as far as I'm concerned, they have already missed a great opportunity to hit Bush and they didn't say anything.

Also .. it was widely known that Nick went to Iraq because he agreed with the President's Iraq policy. In memory of their son, the family may choose to keep quiet.

[QQQQQ]

"But the liberals in this nation are going to place the blame squarely at the feet of those of us on the conservative side of the fence. "If we hadn't gone to war in the first place, none of this would have happened," is what they'll say."

9-11 happened before we went to war. In fact we went to war, because of 9-11. As Bush said: "The terrorists were at war with us, but we weren't at war with them".

[Tijeras_Slim]

Right you are Michael.

[Flyer]

I predict a rise in support for the war on terrorists.

[4everontheRight]

Is there any more (besides those who refuse to see) who don't see the terror connection and Iraq?? Wasn't one of the thugs who beheaded Nick a known terrorist linked to al-Q ??

[some guy in the mountains]

I have a thought. All the benefits we enjoy in this country is due to the freedom of the people and the excellent government the Founders drew up. How do we keep these freedoms? It seems there are a couple of attitudes. One is to reduce our freedoms in favor of increased security, another is to keep the level of security the same and potentially incur more loss. I have been thinking how much freedom I would trade for security. At what point would I rather risk, say, a bomb in my city rather than have my freedom reduced to some point.

Similarly, for the Iraqis, can we return sovereignty to them? Do we have to control them to keep them in place? If so, why does freedom work here but not there?

I wonder if the best long term solution to this is to continue to have a police state there. We wouldn't tolerate a police state here, but then again, we don't act like them I guess. So at what point to we begin to create insurgents based on there being a police state there, even if there needs to be a police state there initially? Put another way, when does excessive control create the revolutionaries?

[anniegetyourgun]

I do hope they will choose that better path.

[IoCaster]

The problem seems to be an inability to realize that the Iraqi people will seek the same level of freedom that we enjoy here. Don't fall into the trap that has been laid.

The Iraqi people are not the enemy. It's always been about the very limited minority of fu(kt4rd$ that want to impose their islaminazi will on the vast majority of folks in the ME. We're fighting the good fight here. It's all related. Keep a good heart and support the effort.

[Christian4Bush]

"Similarly, for the Iraqis, can we return sovereignty to them? Do we have to control them to keep them in place? If so, why does freedom work here but not there? "

Why does freedom work here but not there? To be fair, we've been there just over one year. America, as it is known, has been around for 228 years (since 1776).

Since that time, we have endured--at the least--the Civil War in the late 1800s, World War I in the early 1900s, Pearl Harbor in the 1940s, Vietnam in the 1960s, Cuba (Bay of Pigs), Grenada, Kosovo, Bosnia, Mogadishu, 9-11, Afghanistan, Iraq, and countless other conflicts.

As I recall, and I wasn't alive for most of these, none of these were started and FULLY completed in a year. Even in our own country, there were issues of slavery, women's voting, civil rights, segregation, and many other issues.

Democracies take time. To address your question, I'm not sure how patient people are willing to be, in the "microwave", give-it-to-me now culture in which we live.

Some have asked whether either WW could have been fought, and won, in the era of 24/7 media and news coverage. Can you imagine 24/7 "Tragedy TV" trying to rip FDR a new one during that war?

"AAAAH....FDR is putting those wonderful Japanese people into internment camps! Barbaric! That cripple needs to apologize! (my imitation of a typical DU thread, if such had existed then)"

To answer the other question about freedoms being restricted for the sake of our security, I think that freedom is by nature restrictive. Too much of a swing either way is to invite either a police state or anarchy.

Personally I would rather take longer to process through an airport as a preventative measure, than to have to do so after a terrorist attack. For example, when travelling with a laptop, they ask you to take the computer out of the case, and put it in a basket. I did that, obeyed their requests, and went through without incident.

As for the state over there, I cannot answer that. This is the very reason that I am glad there are people who are qualified to make those decisions in the White House, and at the Pentagon. I am intensely unqualified to make those decisions.

So far as raising insurgents...today's events should be proof enough that people will love or hate us regardless of what we do.

Just my opinions.

[AuntB]

Instead of all the misguided blame, the demolibs could use their old Waco Tactic....

IF IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR TEXAS, IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR IRAQ

The terrorists in Iraq have turned mosques into armed fortresses. Our troops can’t attack these “holy places”. Yes, I know it’s our policy to not destroy anyone’s “church”. But sometimes we also make exceptions when the “need” arises. Whatever your opinion of the Mt. Carmel meltdown, you have to admit it was effective and thorough. And no one, except Tim McVeigh complained much or held the US Government accountable.

Give the residents, aka “collateral damage” 24 hours notice to get out of town to specified camps. Collect all weapons.

Take enough troops to surround every mosque that won’t open up. Take ‘em out of S. Korea, Kosovo, Haiti, and every other “gimme” state that the U.S. defends while they only complain. As for Kosovo, we’ve already messed that up with the UN, Wes Clark and Nato’s help to ever make amends for that travesty.

Get the snipers and shoot anyone trying to escape a hostile mosque.

Cut off the water and electricity. Turn on the flood lights and get out Nancy Sinatra’s “boots” music. Make it REALLY loud.

Wait ‘em out. How long? 30 to 60 days? Then call Janet Reno to find out where to get the CS Gas. Get the tanks, flame throwers and every munition known to man.

David Koresh and his misguided flock considered their “compound” a sacred place. Theirs was a cult, after all, filled with brainwashing, exploitation, intimidation and danger. Whatever the “threat” to the rest of us, those 80 people never killed 3000 of our citizens and over 600 of our young people defending us all, much less put a hole in our economic structure that we’ll be paying off for generations, if we survive this mess called “Iraq”.

[some guy in the mountains]

The problem seems to be an inability to realize that the Iraqi people will seek the same level of freedom that we enjoy here.

Right. So is it possible that since we have to come in as a police state initially that we will never be able to get out of it? Maybe by the time we eradicate the original beligerent thugs that an equal number of new ones pop up because they don't like the police state.

There have been a lot of occupations throughout the history of the world, and a lot of them didn't go very well. The ones that worked seem to extend a level of civility to the conquered and they were assimilated. I don't see that happening with Iraq. I see us getting all up in a fury about conquering them and eliminating the threat.

None of this means we shouldn't have gone in. I'm just talking about how to leave the conquered alone without them turning around and trying to kill you again.

[iconoclast]

The problem seems to be an inability to realize that the Iraqi people will seek the same level of freedom that we enjoy here.

Oh my.

There is ABSOLUTELY no congruence between what the Iraqi's idea of freedom may be and ours.

Hint, start with women.

[Wolfstar]

What do you say to Nick Berg's family?

Well, Nick Berg's father had this to say: "I think a lot of people are fed up with the lack of civil rights this thing has caused," he said. "I don't think this administration is committed to democracy." Nick Berg's father has been anti-war from the start, is involved with ANSWER, and is using his son's death for political purposes. However, the father also said his son was for President Bush and did not agree with the father's point of view.

[some guy in the mountains]

To be fair, we've been there just over one year. America, as it is known, has been around for 228 years (since 1776).

But in 1777 we were not an anarchy and we weren't facing any terrorism or internal discord, not like in Iraq at least.

Time differences I don't think is the explanation. We threw off our own oppressors. We already had functioning states for the most part. We had fairly similar idealogies. We very much believed in leaving others alone.

Can Iraq get their act together under a US police state? Do they need to raise their own leaders of freedom? Do they need to fight amongst themselves and figure out what they should become as a country?

Look at what Edmund Burke said in 1775: "This new government has originated directly from the people; and was not transmitted through any of the ordinary artificial media of a positive constitution. It was not manufactured ready formed, and then transmitted to them in that condition from England. The evil arising from hence is this; that the colonists having once found the possibility of enjoying the advantages of order in the midst of a struggle for liberty, such struggles will not henceforward seem so terrible to the settled and sober part of mankind as they had before the trial."

I wonder if we actual might do the Iraqis a disservice by not letting them struggle it out for themselves. If we ensured that they as a country could not harm us, maybe we could back off a little, let them struggle through the birth of their new country and let them have native leaders arise and preach the principles of freedom and good government.

[Wolfstar]

You don't have to wait three days. The father has already said pretty much what you predicted. He said: "I think a lot of people are fed up with the lack of civil rights this thing has caused," he said. "I don't think this administration is committed to democracy." I copied the quote off another FR thread running about this now.

[Joe Republc]

I predict more Americans wanting to see *new* photos of *more* prisoners. And maybe it's not so bad if our troops occasionally take them out 'for a walk'.

Just venting a bit. Very uncivilized of me, I confess.

-- Joe

[IoCaster]

Time will tell. Specifically the July deadline for Iraqi sovereignty. As long as we adhere to that policy, it will be up to the Iraqi people to take charge of their affairs. Keep in mind that the President has been studious in his insistence on keeping to that timetable. It means something to all the relevant participants. Don't be distracted by all the sound and fury. George W. Bush is driving these events, not the terrorists or their media enablers/facilitators.

[4everontheRight]

Joe

Your "uncivilized" manner is completely understandable considering the events of the day.