DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Mucho on May 03, 2007, 02:32:39 PM
-
Military report shows ethics of troops in Iraq
Expert says findings reflect stress of war
By Rick Rogers
STAFF WRITER
May 3, 2007
Conference takes on combat stress
Only 40 percent of Marines would report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent civilian, according to the military's first report on the ethics of U.S. troops in Iraq.
One-third of the Marines surveyed would turn in someone for stealing, and 30 percent would report a unit member for unnecessarily destroying property.
New York Times News Service
Combat veterans said the ethics report accurately portrays troop behavior in Iraq, where some service members said unit loyalty can overpower the obligation to report wrongdoing.
The figures for the Army were roughly 15 percent higher in those three categories, but even those were described by the report's authors as in clear need of improvement.
“People are going to be surprised and disturbed by this, and then they are going to understand that this is war,†said John Pike, director of the military think tank GlobalSecurity.org.
The San Diego Union-Tribune obtained a copy of the 30-page report from an anonymous source and asked Pike to comment on it. The Pentagon had not authorized the release of the document, which was prepared by the Army's Mental Health Advisory Team and sent to the commandant of the Marine Corps on April 18. The military is using the report to prioritize training and other needs.
“Troops are sent to fight for their country, but when they get to the battlefield, they are fighting for their buddies,†Pike said. “I suspect that combat in Iraq is more stressful than is understood. This list of behaviors shows classic symptoms of combat stress.â€
The report indeed showed that longer deployments and multiple tours of duty were increasing troops' rates of marital and mental-health problems, including post traumatic stress disorder. An even bigger factor was each service member's exposure to combat: More fighting typically led to a greater likelihood of mental difficulties.
Strong leadership by enlisted officers, such as sergeants and staff sergeants, greatly reduced a unit's psychological strain – and vice versa, the report's authors concluded. They recommended more aggressive and consistent training in ethics and leadership skills for these officers, as well as chaplains and mental-health professionals working in war zones.
The document was based on focus groups and surveys of 1,320 soldiers and 447 Marines from August to October. The service members' responses were kept anonymous because the interviewers wanted to get the most honest answers possible.
Combat veterans said the report accurately portrays troop behavior in Iraq, which they depicted as a frustrating and soul-sapping place where the enemy seems to lurk everywhere.
“When you deal with a loss in a unit, you have to fight the anger and feeling of inhumanity you feel toward the people,†said Patrick Alvarez of Chula Vista, a staff sergeant in the California National Guard. His unit lost a soldier during a convoy attack about three years ago in Baghdad.
“When something like that happens, you start to lose the desire to do what is right,†said Alvarez, who received the Bronze Star for valor. “I know of it first-hand. I was looking at 10-year-olds and under the right circumstances, I would have wasted those kids in a heartbeat.â€
JOHN GIBBINS / Union-Tribune
California National Guard Staff Sgt. Patrick Alvarez of Chula Vista, who was awarded the Bronze Star for valor, says strong military leadership will help keep troops in line while reducing stress levels.
Then he added: “An innocent civilian? I don't think I ever met one over there.â€
Some military personnel said a unit's sense of loyalty and camaraderie can overpower the obligation to report wrongdoing, especially when its members have banded together to survive in combat.
“You are protecting their lives and they are protecting your life,†said Rey Uy, a retired Marine staff sergeant who lives in Chula Vista.
Urban combat can cause intense frustration, he said.
“You don't know who your enemy is. You don't know if it is the 10-year-old with the cell phone or the old man sitting on the corner watching you,†said Uy, who served with the 3rd Battalion, 11th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division at Camp Pendleton. “You can't find them, yet every day you have a Humvee blown up and people hurt or killed. And then back at base camp you are getting rocketed and mortared.â€
The more brutal the war and the longer that troops are exposed to it, the more difficult it is for them to follow the military's rules of engagement, said Jean Bethke Elshtain, a professor of social and political ethics at the University of Chicago.
But not all service branches react the same way to combat stress, said Kateri Carmola, who teaches political science and war ethics at Middlebury College in Vermont.
JOHN GIBBINS / Union-Tribune
“You don't know who your enemy is. You don't know if it is the 10-year-old with the cell phone or the old man sitting on the corner watching you,†said Rey Uy, a retired Marine staff sergeant.
The Army has emphasized battlefield ethics training since the Vietnam War, she said, while the Navy and Marine Corps have concentrated on internal ethics since the early 1990s.
What Carmola, Elshtain, Pike and the combat veterans all agreed on was that strong, competent leadership can address nearly every ethical problem in the war zone.
A firm hand will keep troops in line while reducing stress levels, Alvarez and Uy said. The ethics report showed that units with enlisted officers who were highly rated had less than half the rates of post traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression compared with those that had poorly rated leaders.
“One time, we captured two insurgents with rocket-propelled grenades and improvised explosive devices. . . . A few weeks earlier, we had taken a loss from an IED,†Alvarez said. “So we have these guys and we are law. We know that if we turn them in, there is a good chance they'll be out of jail in a few weeks. Do you kill them? No, because it is wrong. Leadership calls right from wrong. Leadership was the answer. Leadership is the answer.â€
Among the report's other findings:
The length of combat exposure is the main factor influencing a service member's mental health.
Ten percent of respondents said they had mistreated an Iraqi. The number was an average of all responses for behaviors such as assaulting a noncombatant and unnecessarily damaging an Iraqi's property.
Troops diagnosed with mental-health problems were much more likely to engage in unethical behavior on the battlefield than those with no psychological ills.
Only 42 percent of soldiers who screened positive for a mental-health problem went on to seek help from a chaplain, primary-care doctor or behavioral specialist. That's because the Army's mental-health treatment system is largely voluntary.
Nearly 66 percent of respondents personally knew a service member who was killed in combat in Iraq.
Besides seeking greater leadership and more psychological training for various military personnel, the Mental Health Advisory Team recommended that the Pentagon create a joint system for all service branches to monitor and report mental-health needs. It also encouraged commanders to establish a training program devoted solely to battlefield ethics for soldiers and Marines.
At the end of its list, the team suggested that the Pentagon extend the interval between deployments to 18 to 36 months so troops could mentally “reset.†In contrast, the Army recently lengthened its standard tour of duty to 15 months, with at least a year of rest between each deployment. The length of a standard Marine deployment is still seven months.
Yesterday, a spokesman at Marine Corps headquarters characterized the report as “one instructive item in a series.â€
Lt. Col. Scott Fazekas said the Corps understands “it represents an honest and faithful attempt to capture what frontline Marines are experiencing and we will continue to examine the study and its recommendations closely.â€
Rick Rogers: (760) 476-8212; rick.rogers@uniontrib.com
»Next Story»
Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070503/news_1n3ethics.html
-
And here, "proof positive" is otherwise known as "rampant speculation."
-
<<And here, "proof positive" is otherwise known as "rampant speculation.">>
Naturally. That's because polls are only "proof positive" when they prove positive for the U.S. Polls showing, for example, how Iraqis love the U.S. and are deliriously grateful for all the benefits the invasion has brought them, those are definitely proof positive. Anything else, particuarly polls showing (God forbid!) the criminal mentality of the typical U.S. soldier - - now THOSE are "rampant speculation" par excellence!
-
Naturally. That's because polls are only "proof positive" when they prove positive for the U.S. Polls showing, for example, how Iraqis love the U.S. and are deliriously grateful for all the benefits the invasion has brought them, those are definitely proof positive. Anything else, particuarly polls showing (God forbid!) the criminal mentality of the typical U.S. soldier - - now THOSE are "rampant speculation" par excellence!
These aren't polls. Did you bother to read the article? According to the study, only 10% had "mistreated" an Iraqi. Hardly "wreaks (sic) with criminals" - especially when "mistreating" could be nothing more than cutting in front of a queue or something like that. The article doesn't specify what the criteria for "mistreating an Iraqi" involved.
Whereas the polls mentioned in another thread showed approximately 70% of Iraqis in Iraq saying that they were better off without Saddam in charge.
I can see where you're confused. 10% is so close to 70%.
-
<<These aren't polls. Did you bother to read the article? >>
Of course they're polls. Where would they get info like that except by polling a selected sample of troops?
<<According to the study, only 10% had "mistreated" an Iraqi. >>
ONLY 10%?? 10% is all it takes. It's a pretty big percentage in and of itself. Were 10% of your high-school class criminals? Are 10% of your friends sex perverts and child molesters? What percentage of German concentration camp guards do you think abused prisoners? 100%? 50%? 20%? Nobody remembers the percentage because it don't mean shit. What everyone remembers are the crimes and atrocities that were done by the Army as a whole.
<<Hardly "wreaks (sic) with criminals">>
That's because your standards are pathetically low.
<< . . . especially when "mistreating" could be nothing more than cutting in front of a queue or something like that. >>
Oh yeah, that's exactly what the poll was all about - - cutting in queues. THAT'S what the public wants to know about, how many times prisoners were cut in on in queues. Very realistic.
<<The article doesn't specify what the criteria for "mistreating an Iraqi" involved.>>
And we all know how complete these articles are. Quote the whole fucking survey verbatim, top to bottom. Methodology included. That's why nobody buys the surveys any more, they just clip the reports right out of the morning newspaper. I'm sure if you got the methodology page of the survey and looked up the survey definition of "abuse," cutting in queue would be right at the top of the list of definitions, followed closely by "snapping one's gum rudely." Good assumption there, Ami. Let us know when you'r. about to re-enter the world of reality next time. We'll try to show you a little more of the planet
<<Whereas the polls mentioned in another thread showed approximately 70% of Iraqis in Iraq saying that they were better off without Saddam in charge.>>
Which of course has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject of Knute's post, being the criminality of the U.S. forces.
<<I can see where you're confused. 10% is so close to 70%.>>
You should save the sarcasm till you at least understand what is at stake in the discussion. (Hint: it had nothing to do with American popularity.)
-
Oh yeah, that's exactly what the poll was all about - - cutting in queues. THAT'S what the public wants to know about, how many times prisoners were cut in on in queues. Very realistic.
So, what was the definition of "mistreating" in this study? Your sarcasm seems to indicate that you know.
-
>>Which of course has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject of Knute's post, being the criminality of the U.S. forces.<<
These RW nutcases never address the real issue, either because they are too stupid to get the point our too dishonest to address the point or both. The fact that 10% CLAIM to have mistreated an Iraqi is probly not even true( who would be so stupid as to admit this to anyone) and is certainly not germane because 30% admit they wouldnt even report it anyway.
-
<<So, what was the definition of "mistreating" in this study? Your sarcasm seems to indicate that you know.>>
Why would I know? I don't know EVERYTHING.
I assume, as any intelligent and informed reader of the news would, that in a poll published in a mainstream venue, there'd be at least a veneer of academic propriety and responsibility and the methodology page in a survey aimed at troop abuse of prisoners against a backdrop of the current war in Iraq would be serious enough to exclude trivial instances of abuse (such as your ridiculous example) and concentrate on definitions of abuse that coincide with what the average consumer of that news would himself or herself consider abuse. That's how the world works (not that YOU would be expected to know that.)
Doesn't that make infinitely more sense than assuming, as you seem to have, that a survey on abuse run by TODAY would be based on a definition of abuse that includes cutting in queues? Why would ANY MSM venue expose itself to public ridicule and reputation loss by running such a transparently flawed survey? And if it did, would not the right-wing blogosphere by now be inflamed with outrage and ridicule over a gaffe like that?
-
I assume, as any intelligent and informed reader of the news would, that in a poll published in a mainstream venue, there'd be at least a veneer of academic propriety and responsibility and the methodology page in a survey aimed at troop abuse of prisoners against a backdrop of the current war in Iraq would be serious enough to exclude trivial instances of abuse (such as your ridiculous example) and concentrate on definitions of abuse that coincide with what the average consumer of that news would himself or herself consider abuse. That's how the world works (not that YOU would be expected to know that.)
And I've already posted historical examples of just such fakery published in mainstream venues.
It's where "memory" comes in.
Besides, anything Knutty posts is high on the "suspicious" list, because most of his posts are demonstrable lies (well, those where he claims that they are fact - most of his posts are actually nothing more than pure insult).
-
<<And I've already posted historical examples of just such fakery published in mainstream venues.>>
Once again missing the point completely. The issue is not "fakery" in the MSM. The issue is TRANSPARENT fakery, a poll on troop abuse of prisoners featuring "cutting in queue" or something equally as trivial as one of the forms of abuse surveyed.
Show me ONE historical example of such a transparent fake (a) being published and (b) not igniting a shitstorm in the right-wing blogosphere.
<<and that deafening silence you hear, folks, is as close as Ami will ever come to conceding the point.>>
-
Show me ONE historical example of such a transparent fake (a) being published and (b) not igniting a shitstorm in the right-wing blogosphere.
The basics of the story are known to almost everyone: A miraculous survivor, an infant boy tagged 'baby 81' by the hospital that received him, was pursued by nine sets of parents. The dispute was resolved only last week when a court ordered DNA test established a young Sri Lankan couple as the infant's parents.
None of it, beyond the fact that the infant survived and has, at last, been reunited with his parents, is true, according to the LBO, which calls the New York Times journalist, Somini Sengupta -- and others who followed her intitial (sic) story - "journalists of the type of Jason Blair, the New York Times reporter who made up sensational stories and eventually was forced out of his job in 2003."
More at http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/02-23-05/discussion.cgi.78.html (http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/02-23-05/discussion.cgi.78.html)
I don't remember the "shitstorm" from the "right-wing blogosphere" about this one. Perhaps you can point out a list of right-wing blogs that generated a "shitstorm" over this story?
<<and that deafening silence you hear, folks, is as close as Ami will ever come to conceding the point.>>
I always support my claims. You can't say the same.
-
OUCH, Ami with another massive body blow ;)
-
OUCH, Ami with another massive body blow ;)
Maybe you two ( or one) should take this self-love to a motel room & spare the rest of US all this sloppy shit.
-
Maybe you two ( or one) should take this self-love to a motel room & spare the rest of US all this sloppy shit.
How ironic, coming from the king of crap :P
-
Does 30% not being willing to turn in their brother Marine mean that 70% would be?
This seems rather high ,especialy since this is the same generation as the Hip Hop croud that is 0% willing to turn in a brother rapper.
I think that either this poll is optomistic or elese Marines are more willig to inform on each other than the general population .
Stats without a baseline mean little.
-
<<So, what was the definition of "mistreating" in this study? Your sarcasm seems to indicate that you know.>>
Why would I know? I don't know EVERYTHING.
I assume, as any intelligent and informed reader of the news would, that in a poll published in a mainstream venue, there'd be at least a veneer of academic propriety and responsibility and the methodology page in a survey aimed at troop abuse of prisoners against a backdrop of the current war in Iraq would be serious enough to exclude trivial instances of abuse (such as your ridiculous example) and concentrate on definitions of abuse that coincide with what the average consumer of that news would himself or herself consider abuse. That's how the world works (not that YOU would be expected to know that.)
Doesn't that make infinitely more sense than assuming, as you seem to have, that a survey on abuse run by TODAY would be based on a definition of abuse that includes cutting in queues? Why would ANY MSM venue expose itself to public ridicule and reputation loss by running such a transparently flawed survey? And if it did, would not the right-wing blogosphere by now be inflamed with outrage and ridicule over a gaffe like that?
This article claims to have taken a survey, done by the defense department internally ,from an unnamed sorce.
Why is the defense departmnt trying to learn these things ?
Why would it be good for anyone to leak this thing?
-
OUCH, Ami with another massive body blow ;)
I'm waiting for him to tell me why that one doesn't apply.
I've got another 50 or 60 ready to go.
;D
-
Maybe you two ( or one) should take this self-love to a motel room & spare the rest of US all this sloppy shit.
Only one into self-love around here seems to be you.
-
<<This article claims to have taken a survey, done by the defense department internally ,from an unnamed sorce.
Why is the defense departmnt trying to learn these things ?
Why would it be good for anyone to leak this thing?<
I know that finding the truth is always painful for those who love to be duped like the RWers in here but some like to know and tell it.
-
<<This article claims to have taken a survey, done by the defense department internally ,from an unnamed sorce.
Why is the defense departmnt trying to learn these things ?
Why would it be good for anyone to leak this thing?<
I know that finding the truth is always painful for those who love to be duped like the RWers in here but some like to know and tell it.
I would like to know why you think it is genuine?
And if it is genuine why you think it is bad , having one snitch in a thousand is too many for the mob , but the Marines seem to have one in three.
-
<<This article claims to have taken a survey, done by the defense department internally ,from an unnamed sorce.
Why is the defense departmnt trying to learn these things ?
Why would it be good for anyone to leak this thing?<
I know that finding the truth is always painful for those who love to be duped like the RWers in here but some like to know and tell it.
I would like to know why you think it is genuine?
And if it is genuine why you think it is bad , having one snitch in a thousand is too many for the mob , but the Marines seem to have one in three.
One main reason is that in ran in the San Diego Union Tribune which is one of the most Repub leaning rags in the country and it is in a military town. It was on the front page and they would have vetted it every which way before printing it anywhere.
But you are right about one thing . The Corps & the mob ARE very similar.
-
<<I don't remember the "shitstorm" from the "right-wing blogosphere" about this one. Perhaps you can point out a list of right-wing blogs that generated a "shitstorm" over this story?>>
You don't remember a shitstorm from the right-wing blogosphere over this one because the right-wing blogosphere doesn't give a shit about Sri Lankan babies, the fucked-up state of the Sri Lankan hospital system or how many would-be parents apply for how many Sri Lankan babies today, yesterday or any other day. It is a non-issue for them.
<<I always support my claims. >>
Sure you do. With irrelevant pointless examples that don't prove shit.
[Lacking a loyal and devoted claque like sirs here, I have to invent my own dim-witted cheering section: "ooooh, THAT must hurt."]
<<You can't say the same.>>
Actually, I can, and more. Only when I say it, it's true. Unlike you. On the extremely rare occasion when I am wrong, I admit it. Otherwise I back it up. Repeatedly. When I refuse to back up the same thing that I've backed up numerous times before, I point to the past backing ups with as much detail as I can recall.
-
From the article (in a grey box)
Battlefield ethics
Results are from anonymous surveys and focus groups involving 1,320 soldiers and 447 Marines conducted from August to October in Iraq.
The interviewers tabulated the percentage of “yes†responses to statements starting with, “I would report a unit member forâ€:
ARMY | MARINES
Injuring or killing an innocent noncombatant: 55% 40% Stealing from a noncombatant:
50% | 33%
Mistreating a noncombatant:
46% | 32%
Not following general orders:
46% | 35%
Violating rules of engagement:
47% | 34%
Unnecessarily destroying private property:
43% | 30%
Source: Army Mental Health Advisory Team
-
You don't remember a shitstorm from the right-wing blogosphere over this one because the right-wing blogosphere doesn't give a shit about Sri Lankan babies, the fucked-up state of the Sri Lankan hospital system or how many would-be parents apply for how many Sri Lankan babies today, yesterday or any other day. It is a non-issue for them.
Then perhaps you should be specific in the request for an example. My example meets all the criteria in your request; but I'll be happy to provide more once you've been more explicit in your request.
-
OUCH, Ami with another massive body blow ;)
I'm waiting for him to tell me why that one doesn't apply.
And he finally did so. Typical bogus AMBE attempt at redirect, though.
;D
-
<<Results are from anonymous surveys and focus groups involving 1,320 soldiers and 447 Marines conducted from August to October in Iraq.
<<The interviewers tabulated the percentage of “yes†responses to statements starting with, “I would report a unit member forâ€:
<<ARMY | MARINES
<<Injuring or killing an innocent noncombatant: 55% 40% Stealing from a noncombatant:
50% | 33%
. . . etc.>>
GEE, I am just SO SURPRISED. Nobody was asked anything about cutting in line or farting over the prison P.A. system. Guess Ami will have to design his own poll now. Too bad the Army didn't consult him in the first place.
-
<<Then perhaps you should be specific in the request for an example. My example meets all the criteria in your request; but I'll be happy to provide more once you've been more explicit in your request.>>
Figure it out, Einstein. The subject was a poll of the military showing a shocking absence of moral values, consisting of a high tolerance for prisoner abuse. There was a challenge to the authenticity of the poll, based in part on the fact that the article that reported the poll did not show how "abuse" was defined in the poll. Theoretically, "abuse" could have been defined in the poll as something as trivial as cutting into a queue. (So the argument went.)
My response to that argument was that (a) a reputable newspaper would presumably publish a reputable, professional poll taken in accordance with good polling practices and (b) that if the poll had been so flawed, there would have been a shitstorm of protest over the flaws in the right-wing blogosphere.
YOU then attempted, lamely as always, to "disprove" my contention that the rightwing blogosphere would have launched a shitstorm of protest over a faulty poll that defamed the "good name" of the American military (BWAHAHAHAHAHA) by producing the inspired example of some cockamamie media story of mixed-up babies in a Sri Lankan hospital and - - wait for it! the amazing failure of the right-wing blogosphere to go into overdrive in protest over the fakery of the story. As if they gave a shit or ever would give a shit about any of the elements of that story.
Figured it out yet, Einstein? Or must I go into even more excruciating detail in explaining the obvious?
- - Oh, Jeeziz, I almost forgot my phantom sirs-claque's chorus of approval; can't end without one any more: - -
Oooh a roundhouse right to Ami's head! Dunno if he's gonna come out for the next round, folks! ;D
Do I really need to make this stuff up for myself? It's so undignified!! Doesn't anyone here wanna be my champion and hanger on? Isn't there an anti-sirs in the house? Anyone? Anyone?
-
GEE, I am just SO SURPRISED. Nobody was asked anything about cutting in line or farting over the prison P.A. system. Guess Ami will have to design his own poll now. Too bad the Army didn't consult him in the first place.
Different question, but continue to spout your AMBE.
-
<<Different question, blah blah AMBE blah AMBE blah memory loss blah>>
God-damn right it's a different question. Every question YOU'D imagine would be in the poll is a different question from what was actually IN the poll. That's what happens when you never take your head out of your own ass.
-
<<And he finally did so. [explain why my example was irrelevant and didn't prove shit] Typical bogus AMBE attempt at redirect, though.>>
Hilarious.
Translation:
Yeah he nailed it exactly. Showed just where why and how the example I came up with proved absolutely nothing and was totally irrelevant to the discussion. What can I say now except "bogus" "typical" and my old standard "AMBE"? Logic ain't gonna get me out of this one. Fact ain't gonna do it. Bring out those magic words!! and the magic smiley icon too!
-
Figured it out yet, Einstein? Or must I go into even more excruciating detail in explaining the obvious?
Oh, it had to be a flawed survey published by the MSM to count. My comment was in the general, when I said that I had posted numerous articles about fakery in the past.
However, perhaps this do:
In April 1993, just days before the opening of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, newspapers across the country reported "chilling" and "startling" news: 22 percent of American adults surveyed in a major public opinion poll said they thought it was possible that "the Nazi extermination of the Jews" never took place.
...
As it turned out, however, the "startling" results of the AJC/Roper survey were not accurate. One of the poll's most serious flaws was the confusing wording of question 16, which produced the response that generated the most media comment: "Does it seem possible or does it seem impossible to you that the Nazi extermination of the Jews never happened?" The question's compound structure and double negative wording almost certainly confused many respondents. It is also likely that some of the 992 adults and 506 high school students surveyed may have believed that the Nazis exterminated millions of Jews but nevertheless agreed that it "seems" impossible.
Responding to criticism, the AJC recommissioned the poll, changing only question 16. In the second survey, this question was worded: "Does it seem possible to you that the Nazi extermination of the Jews never happened, or do you feel certain that it happened?" The results of the second, 1994 AJC poll were quite different: Only about one percent of Americans thought it was possible the Holocaust never happened, while eight percent were unsure. ("Poll on Doubt of Holocaust is Corrected," The New York Times, July 8, 1994)
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n1p25_Raven.html (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n1p25_Raven.html)
OK, widespread MSM publication of a flawed survey, no "shitstorm" by the right-wing blogosphere, and the correction was not widely reported.
(Of course, the next thing it will be is that only flawed surveys of military members will count...)
-
God-damn right it's a different question.
Yup. The question that Lanya posted the details on was "would you turn in your buddy for ..." while the question I pointed out was "did you mistreat Iraqis."
Yeah, I can see how those are sooo similar.
-
So this survey was odered and conducted by the US military .
This makes it odbvious that the brass cares.
How would we answer these questions?
Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a trivial infraction of regulations?
Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a moderate infraction of law?
Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a serious infraction of law?
Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a capital crime?
This does not come up with me very often especially the more serious ones , but if I find a minor problem I fix it myself .
Especially for a Union Brother.
But don't tell me who did for Jimmy Hoffa , I wouldn't protect that.
-
Do a little analysis, Ami. Who's being maligned in the faulty Holocaust poll, the U.S. military? No, the American public. And what's the slur on their good name? That they're torturers and murderers? That they wink at the torturers and murderers in their midst and protect them by silence? No, the worst thing that was said of them by the faulty poll was that they were too fucking dumb to know that the Holocaust happened.
So in your SECOND dumb, irrelevant and pointless example, you compared a poll that suggested that maybe the American people were too dumb to know about the Holocaust with a poll that suggests the U.S. MILITARY tolerates torture and murder. And then used the "silence" of the right-wing blogosphere as some kind of proof that they'd be equally silent in the face of the much worse slander against a much more sacred cow. Oy.
Also, I'm not all that sure about the silence of the right-wing blogosphere on this one, given that your own post indicates that the poll question was changed in response to criticism. So where exactly did this "criticism" come from? OK, that's just a side issue here.
I guess I should follow this up with a lengthy and detailed explanation of why an accusation of being ignorant of certain historical facts is not quite the same thing as an accusation of complicity in torture and murder, but honestly, Ami, I just don't feel like wasting the time. In the end, the only response I would get for my trouble would be the tiresome mantra of the shot-down BS artist with nothing intelligent left to say, maybe not in the same precise order but definitely relying upon the standard "answers" of "AMBE," "bogus," "typical" hopefully in some random but eye-pleasing order, followed by another exuberant, icon-studded post from sirs, "WHOA, another head-butt to the solar plexus! How long can Tee hold out now, folks?"
So far, Ami, you're batting 0 and 2 and your side-kick is running out of boxing metaphors, and although I could do this all night, I've only got time for one more.
-
So in your SECOND dumb, irrelevant and pointless example, you compared a poll that suggested that maybe the American people were too dumb to know about the Holocaust with a poll that suggests the U.S. MILITARY tolerates torture and murder.
Actually, the poll at the top of this thread does not suggest that the military tolerates torture and murder. Matter of fact, it suggests the opposite. Those people with a modicum of reading skills and some logic can see that.
As I properly forecast, while my second example meets the updated criteria that you presented, it was not a survey of the military, so you reject it as not being relevant.
I could go on forever, presenting examples, but you would go on picking nits because every detail was not the same.
My point still stands. The MSM has presented flawed polls and other fakery numerous times in the past. Sometimes the blogosphere (both left and right) have called them on it, and other times they have not. The MSM is not something to trust. Just because it was presented via the MSM does not make it true.
-
So far, Ami, you're batting 0 and 2 and your side-kick is running out of boxing metaphors, and although I could do this all night, I've only got time for one more.
ROFLMAO
Like I care how much time you have. You don't bother to read most of the posts here anyway. And your level of understanding of science, statistics, and logic is such that you're a joke anyway.
-
Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a trivial infraction of regulations?
Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a moderate infraction of law?
Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a serious infraction of law?
Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a capital crime?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those are all good questions. The only ones that apply to war are would you turn someone in for torture or murder?
It's kind of a trick question - - puts the burden of enforcing (as opposed to observing) the Geneva Conventions on the soldier in the field, when it belongs on his officers. It converts what should be a question of pure military discipline into a question of loyalty to buddies.
Another problem I have with the question is that it equates opposition to torture and murder with breaking a bond of brotherhood forged in common service and ultimately in combat. It relies upon the revulsion we all feel for the snitch and the betrayer. And it uses that revulsion to indirectly justify the commission of atrocities by U.S. troops. It identifies the atrocities with reluctance to betray rather than with failure to discipline.
Speaking for myself, I could see a great reluctance to inform on my buddies. Whatever they did, my informing would be a rat-like and tainted act. The way to take care of the problem would be to just shoot the guy on the spot. Nothing underhanded and nothing cowardly about it - - the guy's got the K-Bar out and is about to start torturing his prisoner, it's just barrel to the back of his head and blow his fucking brains out. Just what he deserves, no more, no less.
As an officer of course it would be my responsibility to see that such a scene never happened. Men would be told in no uncertain terms how to treat their prisoners and how not to treat them. Violators would be treated in a way that would strongly discourage anyone from following their example. There would be no complicating factors of brotherhood or bonding. That's why the easiest way to enforce the Geneva Conventions is through discipline, not by leaving it to the men, for each guy to be his buddy's policeman. THAT way is bound to fail.
-
<<ROFLMAO
<<Like I care how much time you have. You don't bother to read most of the posts here anyway. And your level of understanding of science, statistics, and logic is such that you're a joke anyway.>>
Jeeze, same petulant snit, different language. What happened to "AMBE" and "bogus" and "typical"? I was kinda getting used to them. Whatsamatter, Ami, did your "50 more examples" just shrink down to two?
-
Jeeze, same petulant snit, different language. What happened to "AMBE" and "bogus" and "typical"? I was kinda getting used to them. Whatsamatter, Ami, did your "50 more examples" just shrink down to two?
Well, apparently all you will accept is a report of a survey among the military, that has been leaked to the media, and all other details identical to the one presented earlier. As far as I know, there is only one report that meets all of those criteria. Don't feel like listening to you nit pick anymore.
Although, from now on, I know that you will accept anything published by the MSM as being true, because they obviously don't ever lie.
I love the blatant hypocrisy on your side. "If it was published by the MSM and I agree with it, it has to be true; if it was published by the MSM and I disagree with it, it's obviously a trick by Rove and company."
-
Jeeze, same petulant snit, different language. What happened to "AMBE" and "bogus" and "typical"? I was kinda getting used to them.
Sorry, I will admit that I'm am nowhere close to you in being able to post "petulant snits." You are most definitely the king of that type of post.
-
<<My point still stands. The MSM has presented flawed polls and other fakery numerous times in the past. Sometimes the blogosphere (both left and right) have called them on it, and other times they have not. The MSM is not something to trust. Just because it was presented via the MSM does not make it true.>>
The blogosphere calls them on it when the blogosphere cares about it. They DON'T care about the American public's alleged ignorance of European history. The right-wing blogosphere DOES care about the U.S. military being falsely accused of torture and murder or the tolerance of torture and murder. A flawed poll based on defective questions leading to a false inference that the U.S. military tolerates torture and murder would be red meat for the right-wing blogosphere.
I agree, that's pure speculation. But it's speculation strengthened by the absence of any historical example where the military was slandered as torturers and murderers in the MSM by a transparently defective poll and the right-wing blogosphere just sat on their hands in silence over it. I say, NEVER HAPPENED.
But you know what, this debate is getting too heated for me. I don't really give a shit. If you've got a real example that proves me wrong, let's see it. Otherwise stop wasting your time and my time by sending up one red herring after another.
<<I love the blatant hypocrisy on your side. "If it was published by the MSM and I agree with it, it has to be true; if it was published by the MSM and I disagree with it, it's obviously a trick by Rove and company.">>
That's not true either. It's just a blanket accusation and meaningless as such. I tend to agree with anything that supports my position and question anything that doesn't. Who doesn't? If you want to point out one specific instance of a MSM article favourable to my POV that I defended in the face of obvious falsity, have at it - - where? when? Otherwise, you're just wasting my time and everyone else's time with blanket bullshit accusations that are so general as to be incapable of proof or disproof.
-
<<Sorry, I will admit that I'm am nowhere close to you in being able to post "petulant snits." You are most definitely the king of that type of post.>>
Oh, you're way too modest, Ami. Your last one was a masterpiece. I wouldn't even attempt to compete.
-
If you want to point out one specific instance of a MSM article favourable to my POV that I defended in the face of obvious falsity, have at it - - where? when?
CBS Memos.
-
Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a trivial infraction of regulations?
Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a moderate infraction of law?
Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a serious infraction of law?
Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a capital crime?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those are all good questions. The only ones that apply to war are would you turn someone in for torture or murder?
It's kind of a trick question - - puts the burden of enforcing (as opposed to observing) the Geneva Conventions on the soldier in the field, when it belongs on his officers. It converts what should be a question of pure military discipline into a question of loyalty to buddies.
Another problem I have with the question is that it equates opposition to torture and murder with breaking a bond of brotherhood forged in common service and ultimately in combat. It relies upon the revulsion we all feel for the snitch and the betrayer. And it uses that revulsion to indirectly justify the commission of atrocities by U.S. troops. It identifies the atrocities with reluctance to betray rather than with failure to discipline.
Speaking for myself, I could see a great reluctance to inform on my buddies. Whatever they did, my informing would be a rat-like and tainted act. The way to take care of the problem would be to just shoot the guy on the spot. Nothing underhanded and nothing cowardly about it - - the guy's got the K-Bar out and is about to start torturing his prisoner, it's just barrel to the back of his head and blow his fucking brains out. Just what he deserves, no more, no less.
As an officer of course it would be my responsibility to see that such a scene never happened. Men would be told in no uncertain terms how to treat their prisoners and how not to treat them. Violators would be treated in a way that would strongly discourage anyone from following their example. There would be no complicating factors of brotherhood or bonding. That's why the easiest way to enforce the Geneva Conventions is through discipline, not by leaving it to the men, for each guy to be his buddy's policeman. THAT way is bound to fail.
Did I misunderstand something?
I thought this questionaire was given to the enlisted.
-
<<Did I misunderstand something?
<<I thought this questionaire was given to the enlisted.>>
OK, geeze, I went beyond the boundaries of the question. So put the barrel to the back of my head and blow my fucking brains out.
Actually, I was commenting on the complicity of the Army brass who commissioned the poll. The obvious answer to a "Would you rat out your buddy?" question should be a resounding NO! except in the case of the most heinous war crimes, and probably only if the guy was thoroughly unpopular in his unit anyway.
The unspoken assumptions behind the poll are that torture arises spontaneously among the front-line troops and that discipline plays no part in its suppression - -much if not all anti-torture activity would seem to depend on self-policing by the grunts. IMHO this is just not true. The most sensational torture allegations involve institutionalized settings, Abu Ghraib, Baghram Base, Guantanamo Bay and the dozens of secret CIA torture chambers outside of U.S. territory. Furthermore, a strict anti-torture policy would involve draconian disciplinary measures: capital punishment, battlefield executions, 20-year sentences at hard labour for the lesser infractions, equal penalties on those who fail to intervene, equal penalties on those who fail to report, equal penalties on those who fail to discipline. Torture could be wiped out in a minute if the will existed in the political and military leadership. You have to ask, where are the Abu Ghraibs, the Guantanamo Bays, the secret torture chambers of WWII? The answer is clear: America's WWII leaders were decent and honourable men; Eisenhower, MacArthur, Roosevelt and Truman would never have countenanced even a hint of them.
Murders of civilians and prisoners might be more of a battlefield phenomenon or at least a front-line phenomenon, but all the comments I made about suppression of torture apply there too. If the will to punish is there, the atrocities will either never happen, or happen once - - and with the example of draconian punishment to follow - - never again. The punishment to be effective must hit the leaders, the officers. If they know it is swift and draconian, they will take every possible measure to nip things in the bud. Where there's a will, there's a way.
-
Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a trivial infraction of regulations?
Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a moderate infraction of law?
Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a serious infraction of law?
Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a capital crime?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those are all good questions. The only ones that apply to war are would you turn someone in for torture or murder?
It's kind of a trick question - - puts the burden of enforcing (as opposed to observing) the Geneva Conventions on the soldier in the field, when it belongs on his officers. It converts what should be a question of pure military discipline into a question of loyalty to buddies.
Another problem I have with the question is that it equates opposition to torture and murder with breaking a bond of brotherhood forged in common service and ultimately in combat. It relies upon the revulsion we all feel for the snitch and the betrayer. And it uses that revulsion to indirectly justify the commission of atrocities by U.S. troops. It identifies the atrocities with reluctance to betray rather than with failure to discipline.
Speaking for myself, I could see a great reluctance to inform on my buddies. Whatever they did, my informing would be a rat-like and tainted act. The way to take care of the problem would be to just shoot the guy on the spot. Nothing underhanded and nothing cowardly about it - - the guy's got the K-Bar out and is about to start torturing his prisoner, it's just barrel to the back of his head and blow his fucking brains out. Just what he deserves, no more, no less.
As an officer of course it would be my responsibility to see that such a scene never happened. Men would be told in no uncertain terms how to treat their prisoners and how not to treat them. Violators would be treated in a way that would strongly discourage anyone from following their example. There would be no complicating factors of brotherhood or bonding. That's why the easiest way to enforce the Geneva Conventions is through discipline, not by leaving it to the men, for each guy to be his buddy's policeman. THAT way is bound to fail.
"As an officer of course it would be my responsibility to see that such a scene never happened. Men would be told in no uncertain terms how to treat their prisoners and how not to treat them. "
I can tell you from personal experience that every USMC junior officier is trained in this manner in no uncertain terms. In officer training school. It is also reinforced on a regular basis.
-
<<I can tell from personal experience that every USMC junior officier is trained in this manner in no uncertain terms. In officer training school. It is also reinforced on a regular basis.>>
Officer training is good and it's definitely part of the package, but it's not the whole package.
In fact, that the torture occurs despite the officer training indicates that crucial measures are not in place. The officers have to know - - from one or two salutary examples - - that they will be held personally responsible and punished draconically for breaches by their men. Only when their own ass is on the line will they find the motivation to zealously root out and punish even hints of prisoner abuse. Grunts who joke about it will have privileges revoked. Guys caught in the act must be shot in the field. Failure to take extreme measures will result in penalties ranging from 20 years' hard labour to death. Obviously training needs to be supplemented by discipline, otherwise both the officers and the men will just laugh at the "candy-assed" REMFS who tell them to make nice with the enemy.
-
<<I can tell from personal experience that every USMC junior officier is trained in this manner in no uncertain terms. In officer training school. It is also reinforced on a regular basis.>>
Officer training is good and it's definitely part of the package, but it's not the whole package.
In fact, that the torture occurs despite the officer training indicates that crucial measures are not in place. The officers have to know - - from one or two salutary examples - - that they will be held personally responsible and punished draconically for breaches by their men. Only when their own ass is on the line will they find the motivation to zealously root out and punish even hints of prisoner abuse. Grunts who joke about it will have privileges revoked. Guys caught in the act must be shot in the field. Failure to take extreme measures will result in penalties ranging from 20 years' hard labour to death. Obviously training needs to be supplemented by discipline, otherwise both the officers and the men will just laugh at the "candy-assed" REMFS who tell them to make nice with the enemy.
Are these measures for Americans only?
-
If the severe sentences were meted out to the higher up officers, you bet this would stop.
"Sh** rolls downhill" is something military people learn quite early, do they not?
-
<<Are these measures for Americans only?>>
I think they're universal. I spend so much time here trying to convince Americans that they're no better than anyone else that I probably sound at times like I think that they're much worse than everybody else. Those principles should work in any army. Why do you ask, though - - do you know of any other national army that is committing atrocities on anywhere near the same level as the U.S. Army?
-
Tee: <<If you want to point out one specific instance of a MSM article favourable to my POV that I defended in the face of obvious falsity, have at it - - where? when?>>
Ami: <<CBS memos>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I defended false CBS memos? after the falsity was exposed or became obvious? Gee, with your superior memory, you probably will have no problem in answering the "where?" and "when?" parts of my question. Or even just identifying the issue on which I defended false memos after their falsity became obvious.
Inquiring minds want to know.
-
I defended false CBS memos? after the falsity was exposed or became obvious? Gee, with your superior memory, you probably will have no problem in answering the "where?" and "when?" parts of my question. Or even just identifying the issue on which I defended false memos after their falsity became obvious.
Inquiring minds want to know.
I seem to remember you being on "the memos might be false, but their contents was true" side of the fence.
Can't go back and look up your actual posts on the matter, since that was a different forum.
-
I defended false CBS memos? after the falsity was exposed or became obvious? ....Or even just identifying the issue on which I defended false memos after their falsity became obvious.
I seem to remember you being on "the memos might be false, but their contents was true" side of the fence.
Ahhh, the Dan Rather contingent. Yea, that does seem plausible, given the source of the discussion. Let's see how he wiggles out of that one
-
From what I am told by combat veterans, unit cohesion -- the cameraderie among grunts -- is the only thing that has both the intensity and durability to make it through a long campaign (series of engagements) in a war zone in an ugly conflict. Command allegiance (the showcase trait for a cluster of institutional factors ranging all the way up to a mission imperative, a pride in unit, patriotism, and God-related conceptions) is the natural counterbalance for too much cohesion (which, ironically, is one of the hallmarks of an effective combat unit) so that tasks can be assigned, performed, coordinated and accomplished according to a (perhaps constantly revised) "master plan." In the reality that is war, however, it is simple, probably irreducible human nature when faced with mortal danger, kill or be killed, that your allegiances flow most passionately to those who are like you (in origin, destination of return, common training, communal experiences) and upon whom you rely mutually for your very life. This bond, welded firm on the anvil of war, becomes all that matters, to hear vets tell it, for the explosion of combat but also for the period of recuperation, re-preparation, re-engagement etc. as the cycle repeats. A reluctance to report wrongdoing should be expected to increase in such an environment. Regarding that phenomenon, however, both the severity of transgression and the clarity (vs. confusion) of the episode must be factored in to arrive at an accurate gauge of the breakdown of command allegiance, which, incidentally, is the only counterbalance to an "exaggerated" (combat-induced) cohesion-among-men, a sine qua non with it for a military force effective in all regards.
-
<<Ahhh, the Dan Rather contingent. Yea, that does seem plausible, given the source of the discussion. Let's see how he wiggles out of that one>>
The memos regarding Bush's non-service in the Air National Guard? I don't have to wriggle out of anything, I didn't say the memos were true when they came out and I didn't support them after they were exposed as fakes.
The whole thing was a non-issue because Bush's entire service in the National Guard, such as it was, was expressly designed to keep him out of the war in Viet Nam. As Colin Powell stated in his own book it was a refuge for rich white boys to avoid combat. Whether he actually showed up for his stateside duties or fucked off and got drunk and/or laid instead is a side issue designed to distract from the fact that by his very enrolment in the outfit, he was dodging battle and risk.
This is easier than shooting fish in a barrel. Any more pointless stupid examples proving absolutely nothing? I'm sure you've got a million of them.
Oh, and BTW, "The memos might be false but their contents are true" is pretty much the same argument I got from sirs on the fake yellowcake purchase letters, the documents were fake but the facts were true. Only THAT was a case of pure bullshit with no true facts. Bush being Bush, I am sure - - and the gaps in his records indicate as well - - that he was in fact away from his posting for certain periods of time. Bush isn't stupid - - there's a reason why he refuses to give his permission to the DOD to open his military records to public scrutiny.
-
Oh, and BTW, "The memos might be false but their contents are true" is pretty much the same argument I got from sirs on the fake yellowcake purchase letters, the documents were fake but the facts were true. Only THAT was a case of pure bullshit with no true facts.
What the frell are you smoking Tee? When did I EVER talk about "purchase letters"? What I ALWAYS spoke about was the FACT that Saddam apparently DID try to purcahse Yellow Cake, but never aquired it, per the BRITISH intel, AND ironically, Wilson. More of that puposeful misrepresentation that's become the hallmark of those infliced with BDS. Or do you have some facts to refute what the British intel concluded?
-
I think the verb Knute was looking for is "reeks." "Wreaks" reminds me of "wreaths" and thus I dub it "a decoration placed on a soldier or Marine for heroism."
-
<<What the frell are you smoking Tee? When did I EVER talk about "purchase letters"? What I ALWAYS spoke about was the FACT that Saddam apparently DID try to purcahse Yellow Cake, but never aquired it, per the BRITISH intel, AND ironically, Wilson. More of that puposeful misrepresentation that's become the hallmark of those infliced with BDS. Or do you have some facts to refute what the British intel concluded?>>
I don't smoke anything, sirs. It's a wasteful and unhealthy habit.
Whether or not you actually talked about "purchase letters" is beside the point. The point was made in the thread that Bush relied on fake documents (which, as it happens, were forged purchase letters, whether you knew it or not) and YOUR response to that was that in fact Saddam DID try to buy yellowcake. In other words, regardless of the falsification of the documentary proof, the fact that the faked document would have established was nevertheless true.
Which is more or less the identical argument that Ami is accusing me of making here - - even if the CBS memos were fake, Bush was still guilty in fact of what the fake memos were trying to prove.
And BTW, sirs, I don't think you or I will ever know what British intel concluded. The most you could ever hope to know is what British intel told others about their conclusions. British intel works for the government of Great Britain, which has its own interests and its own agenda. It does not work for the Bush administration and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they, like others, will from time to time find it advantageous to mislead or dupe the Bush administration into acting in ways that are seen as beneficial to Her Majesty's government.
George Bush had his OWN intelligence services, whose job was to collect intelligence, inform the "President" and keep it all as neutral as they could. Part of their job was to glean information from other intelligence agencies, evaluate it and pass it on as evaluated. George Bush's job as chief executive of the U.S.A. was (1) to stay out of the intelligence gathering process and not direct them towards the conclusions that he needed to put certain preconceived policies into practice and (2) to ask questions, evaluate and determine the validity of the intelligence he was getting. In his arrogance, he failed at both: not only did he direct the intelligence-gathering and evalutating process, but because he was instrumental in producing the result that he wanted, he did not need to ask questions or determine its validity - - he KNEW it was all a crock because it was he himself, and his cronies, who had MADE it a crock. Who had TOLD the people doing the work to cook the books.
The other thing you seem to forget is the principle of executive responsibility - - IF the intel had been merely "bad intel" as you seem to still believe (rather than cooked intel, as it actually was) then the responsibility for the bad intel lies with the head of the agency (whom Bush decorated with the Medal of Freedom) and further up with the Chief Executive who picked the man for the office and continued him in office. That's what Harry Truman meant when he said "The buck stops here." BUSH is ultimately responsible for the alleged failure of intelligence (if that were what it really was, which it's not) and - - the failure having cost thousands of U.S. lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars) - - Bush should either resign in disgrace or be impeached for the high crime and misdemeanour of starting a war of aggression against an unoffending state, in flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
-
<<What the frell are you smoking Tee? When did I EVER talk about "purchase letters"? What I ALWAYS spoke about was the FACT that Saddam apparently DID try to purcahse Yellow Cake, but never aquired it, per the BRITISH intel, AND ironically, Wilson. More of that puposeful misrepresentation that's become the hallmark of those infliced with BDS. Or do you have some facts to refute what the British intel concluded?>>
Whether or not you actually talked about "purchase letters" is beside the point.
Actually, it's precisely the point, since that's the accusation you made, but now that your misrepresentation has been highlighted for all to see, you've got to redirect the accusation in another direction
The point was made in the thread that Bush relied on fake documents (which, as it happens, were forged purchase letters, whether you knew it or not) and YOUR response to that was that in fact Saddam DID try to buy yellowcake. In other words, regardless of the falsification of the documentary proof, the fact that the faked document would have established was nevertheless true.
No, the point I made is that the conclusions made by Bush were corroborated by the British intel. I'm still waiting to see the evidence that debunks the Brits. You planning on showing it anytime soon??
Which is more or less the identical argument that Ami is accusing me of making here - - even if the CBS memos were fake, Bush was still guilty in fact of what the fake memos were trying to prove.
Not even in the same ballpark, unless you can demonstrate memos and evidentiary conclusions made by an outside source that corroborates the "fake memos". You planning on doing that anytime soon either? Didn't think so
And BTW, sirs, I don't think you or I will ever know what British intel concluded.
Actually, we were given that info, and it did conclude that Saddam did inquire as to trying to purchase yellowcake.
The most you could ever hope to know is what British intel told others about their conclusions. British intel works for the government of Great Britain, which has its own interests and its own agenda. It does not work for the Bush administration and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they, like others, will from time to time find it advantageous to mislead or dupe the Bush administration into acting in ways that are seen as beneficial to Her Majesty's government.
Ahhhh, so now Tee is hypothesizing that the Bristish actually consluded something different, and simply trying to dupe Bush & Co, into believing something else. All without 1 shred of proof, and in this case, lacking even a shred of logic. Just that it helps support his POV.....which again demonstrates how pourous in common sense, logic, and FACTS Tee's position is on this, as so many other positions. But you keep playing in that fantasy world, and ignore any & everything that continues to debunk accusation after accusation on your part, yet pull out completely illogcal & non-proven claims. It's good to stay consistent.
::)
-
In the case of CBS using a forged document ...
It seems that they would have used a genuine document if there was such a thing.
What was the motive of the forger?
In the case of the claim that the Saddam regime had attempted to purchase yellow cake from Niger...
There are several documents involved including some now known to be forged , what was the motive of the forger?
Dan Rather seems to have been genuinely taken in by the forged documents that "proved" that President Bush was a shirk, perhaps he can be excused by this mitigation.
At that time when President Bush was presented with the evidence of Saddam's attempts to rebuild his WMD program which was so robust before 91 why should he have been skeptical?
These two cases are diffrent in size and in consequence , but there do seem to be some interesting parallel themes.
-
<<Actually, it's precisely the point, [that the forged documents in the yellowcake allegations were purchase letters] since that's the accusation you made, but now that your misrepresentation has been highlighted for all to see, you've got to redirect the accusation in another direction>>
No the point is that fake documents [they happened to be purchase letters but might just as well have been invoices or even voice recordings] were used to back up an allegation that Saddam had tried to buy yellowcake.
You, when confronted with the fact of the forgeries, stated that it didn't matter that they were forgeries because in fact Saddam had tried to buy yellowcake. That argument that you made did not depend on the forgeries being purchase letters. Your argument would have applied equally well had the forgeries been of invoices or any other kind of document. So whether or not you realized what the forgeries actually were, you claimed that the truth of the allegations was what really mattered, not the fact that the proof of the allegations was forged.
I'm not "redirecting the accusation" in any direction. In fact, I made no accusation. I merely stated to Ami the interesting fact that a line of reasoning that he (falsely) claimed I had used with regard to the CBS memos was in fact very similar to the same line of reasoning that you yourself had used regarding Bush's use of forged evidence in the yellowcake matter. If I claim that an argument that you made is similar to an argument that Ami says I made, that's not an accusation of anything. In fact, you should feel flattered that I made the comparison. Except that you probably don't realize that's what happened.
-
<<No, the point I made is that the conclusions made by Bush were corroborated by the British intel. >>
That's only half your point. The other was that Bush's use of forged evidence was irrelevant because the conclusion would have been the same despite the forgery. THAT'S the argument that I said was similar to what Ami was accusing me of arguing with regard to the CBS memos.
<<I'm still waiting to see the evidence that debunks the Brits. You planning on showing it anytime soon??>>
I don't have to debunk the Brits. They made their case with fake evidence. There IS no evidence that Saddam tried to buy yellowcake ore from Niger. None. Zip. I don't need evidence of a negative. That's just like asking me to produce evidence that I don't fuck hamsters. If you want to prove that Saddam DID try to buy yellowcake ore from Niger, YOU are the one that needs to produce the evidence that he did. (HINT: forgeries don't count as evidence!)
-
<<Ahhhh, so now Tee is hypothesizing that the Bristish actually consluded something different, and simply trying to dupe Bush & Co, into believing something else. >>
The alternative would be to believe that everything that British intelligence tells U.S. intelligence is what they sincerely believe and that they never would lie to the Americans even were it in Britain's advantage to do so. With all due respect, I cannot accept that.
<<All without 1 shred of proof, and in this case, lacking even a shred of logic. >>
There is no proof they believed what they said and there is no proof that they did not believe what they said. Proof of belief is always hard to come by..... but logic says that few people or institutions always tell the truth even to their friends, and that that is particularly true of intelligence organizations.
<<.....which again demonstrates how pourous in common sense, logic, and FACTS Tee's position is on this, as so many other positions. >>
Actually, it makes a lot of sense. Which you have failed to debunk with either fact or logic. (Merely calling an argument "porous in common sense, logic and facts" is not a logical argument - - it's just more of your usual right-wing lunatic babble. As is "fantasy world" etc. ) Get back to me when you have some fact and logic to "prove" that British Intelligence always levels with the Americans, always tells them what it sincerely, truly believes. BWAHAHAHAHAHAH. I am patiently waiting.
<< But you keep playing in that fantasy world, and ignore any & everything that continues to debunk accusation after accusation on your part . . . . >>
Such as . . . ?
<<yet pull out completely illogcal & non-proven claims. >>
It's illogical, unproven and unproveable that British intelligence never would lie to the Americans. But don't let illogic, lack of proof and even lack of proveabilty stand in the way of good right-wing lunatic rant.
<<It's good to stay consistent.>>
You should know. Consistently idiotic.
-
Actually, the alternate is to believe facts on the ground and common sense vs trying to make up completely unsubstantiated lunatic notions when one's POV has been thoroughly debunked by those same facts & logic, and that this is all some British-led conspiracy to dupe Bush.
But feel free to continue....it does have entertainment qualities associated with the rantings (http://www.gifanimations.com/Image/Animations/Aliens/~TS1178573050303/Alien124.gif)
-
<<Actually, the alternate is to believe facts on the ground and common sense vs trying to make up completely unsubstantiated lunatic notions when one's POV has been thoroughly debunked by those same facts & logic, and that this is all some British-led conspiracy to dupe Bush. >>
Not exactly. Try thinking outside your 1-nanometre conservative box once in awhile. S-T-R-E-T-C-H that atrophied brain of yours. Take your head out of your own ass and look around. Try this on for size:
The alternative is the British intelligence service and the Establishment which it serves doing Bush a favour, possibly requested under the table, possibly gratuitously, knowing he'd appreciate it, by fabricating some ridiculous bullshit similar to the ridiculous BS that the Bushmeister and his neocon handlers were themselves fabricating, so that Bush could say, and you too, his most faithful supporter could say, "See? It couldn't have all been an obvious crock of shit because the Brits came to the same conclusion! That proves it was a simple mistake made in good faith."
And apart from placating the Big Tiger Across the Pond, what other motive could British intelligence have for fabricating the same kind of BS that Bush needed to support the invasion? Well, isn't it all just one big coincidence that Great Britain, being the former colonial power in Iraq, was once the beneficiary of all that nice oil? Stranger than strange, huh, that the former colonial power, independently looking into things and coming to the same erroneous conclusions as the Americans did - - now how big of a coincidence is that, they even make the same mistakes?? - - then joined forces with their American senior partners and launched a joint attack on Saddam? Wow, powerful and amazing coincidences, aren't they sirs?
-
<<Actually, the alternate is to believe facts on the ground and common sense vs trying to make up completely unsubstantiated lunatic notions when one's POV has been thoroughly debunked by those same facts & logic, and that this is all some British-led conspiracy to dupe Bush. >>
Not exactly. Try thinking outside your 1-nanometre conservative box once in awhile. S-T-R-E-T-C-H that atrophied brain of yours.
Translated; make up up stuff out of thin air and call it reasonable, sensible, & rational, even if current facts & logic completely contradict one's made up mind of how evil Bush and America is supposed to be. That may work in your section of the universe, but here on earth, I'll keep sticking with the facts, as they currently have manifested themselves
-
<< . . . but here on earth, I'll keep sticking with the facts, as they currently have manifested themselves>>
Sure, go on believing that the British intelligence agencies will never ever lie to their U.S. counterparts and go on believing that they could never collude with one another in fabricating the same BS for a common purpose.
That sounds very realistic and commonsensical to me. Not.
-
<< . . . but here on earth, I'll keep sticking with the facts, as they currently have manifested themselves>>
Sure, go on believing that the British intelligence agencies will never ever lie to their U.S. counterparts and go on believing that they could never collude with one another in fabricating the same BS for a common purpose.
When you can demonstrate some proof or evidence of such, I'li look forward to reading it. Your reference that it's simply plausible is hardly definative or compelling in this particular in this
That sounds very realistic and commonsensical to me.
Of course it would......to you and like minds