Guantanamo pales in comparison to the torture rooms of Sadam's Baathists in Iraq, where they actually tortured and killed thousands. What about the torture chambers in the middle east and all around the world ? What the hell does any of this have to do with the PM anyway ?
The word torture is thrown around rather fast and loose here, humiliation is one thing, but real torture leaves nasty marks and often results in death.
This article is torturous and simply another anti US diatribe.

What is has to with your pm is that he and his "party" are openly supporting the most brutal regime in the entire world.
An illegal and illegitimate regime, I might add, populated by psychopathic, white-collar criminals who murder innocent people for profit.
And that you and your ilk refuse to see this speaks of your own lack of morality and human decency.

Derek O'Keefe said it all here.....which seems to represent the Bush administration's policy.

I don't buy IMAC's argument as follows.

The U.S. has its rules on the treatment of prisoners - which are supposedly humane. However, since Guantanamo is outside American borders, should these rules be ignored? Further, should we denigrate our treatment to compare with that of third world countries - where in some cases a hand is severed for stealing a loaf of bread?

An interesting comparison is that Hitler's concentration camps were mainly outside the German border.

Guantanamo pales in comparison to the torture rooms of Sadam's Baathists in Iraq, where they actually tortured and killed thousands. What about the torture chambers in the middle east and all around the world ?

Yeah, and what of it? This article is about Gitmo, you know, where people are been held for years without trial?

What are your thoughts on the Tipton Three? Or did you even read the article above? How many other innocents are being held in Gitmo, or is that just the cost of war to you?

Are you suggesting that since there are worse forms of torture in other parts of the world, it makes what's going on in Gitmo okay?

Give me an f****n break.

I see IAMC's buddy Limbaugh was recently picked up for possessing Viagra that appeared to have been prescribed in his doctor's name when he re-entered the US in Florida from a junket in the Dominican Republic.

(Guantanamo pales in comparison to the torture rooms of Sadam's Baathists in Iraq, where they actually tortured and killed thousands. What about the torture chambers in the middle east and all around the world )
Hitler killed millions of jews but what has that got to do with what the US is doing to people, they are being held, no courts are being used. The Geneva Convention isn't being followed. The military there can and do what they want because they have the guns and their government simple doesn't care. So because Hussain was a barbarian I guess it's Ok to hold people for years. Get real folks. This is a bloody mess.

It just seems with most of you contributors to this site, that it's all about getting the nasty Americans. Is it because of laziness, being that we get access to all American proximity and media, so we don't get off our journalistic asses and explore the rest of the world, where human rights don't even exist.

Bush's tyranny, and Harper's approval of same, is sickening and sad. I am deeply saddened by Canada's support of an obvious sham war. We live in one of the most highly educated times in the history of the world, yet we are being ruled by autocratic ideologes. Worse, they are promoting the killing of people, including civilians, including women, including children. There is no moral philosophy in the world which doesn't condemn these actions. We are lost.

Jeffrey, relax, Bush isn't a tyrant. He is not a murderer. He is simply a defender of his country. What would you have him do ? Simply lie down and let the terrorists pillage and rape his country ? Or do you not recognise the threat ? It's all about money. The dark third world Islam extremists trying to make up on their shortfall of innovation by trying to shift wealth to them from the West.
Nobody from Canada or any other coalition force is trying to kill innocent women and children. How childish of you and your stupid comments.

Clueless
Bush is a war criminal, so is Rumsfeld and Cheney. The American Supreme Court confirmed the US Govt has violated the Geneva Conventions and international law. I have nothing against the American people but their government is criminal and you're a fool not to recognize it. Where is your head man? You're the one full of hate and prejudice - the real threat to this country, and to the United States, truth to tell, is from people like you.

How utterly childish of you to think anyone with any brains and compassion would fall for your kind of complicity. Nothing you post indicates you have even a modicum of intelligence or a single critical faculty that hasn't been corrupted by your love of money and your hatred for your fellow man.

Here’s something you’ll find in tomorrow’s papers about people killing innocent civilians, by the way – not that you’ll read it, all likelihood:

WASHINGTON, July 7 — The second-ranking American commander in Iraq has concluded that some senior Marine officers were negligent in failing to investigate more aggressively the killings of 24 Iraqi civilians by marines in Haditha last November, two Defense Department officials said Friday.

The officer, Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, concluded that in the deaths, including those of 10 women and children and an elderly man in a wheelchair, senior officers failed to follow up on inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the initial reporting of the incident that should have raised questions.

General Chiarelli faulted the senior staff of the Second Marine Division, commanded at the time by Maj. Gen. Richard A. Huck, and the Second Regimental Combat Team, then headed by Col. Stephen W. Davis, and recommended unspecified disciplinary action for some officers, said the two defense officials, who have been briefed on General Chiarelli's findings. They said they would discuss the report, after being promised anonymity, because it showed that the military takes these incidents seriously and fully investigates them.

"He concludes that some officers were derelict in their duties," said one of the officials, who declined to identify which or how many officers were singled out.

If Marine commanders are found to have been negligent in pursuing the matter, the punishments could range from a relatively mild admonishment to a court martial that potentially could end their military careers.

It was not clear Friday whether General Huck or Colonel Davis, or Maj. Gen. Stephen T. Johnson, the senior marine officer in Iraq at the time, would be personally implicated. But if they were to be disciplined, they would be among the most senior American officers punished since the Iraq war started in early 2003.

An officer who served in Iraq with the Second Marine Division at the time of the killings in Haditha noted that a spate of recent cases in which American troops were being investigated for killing unarmed Iraqi civilians — including the rape and murder of a young Iraqi woman and the killing of her family in Mahmudiya — had raised concerns that commanders may be under pressure to make an example of Marine officers in the Haditha incident.

Now, what was it you were saying?

IAMC
Just one more little story for you to think about, this one from the Los Angeles Times, about someone else who has a real problem with some of your tarnished heros, Rumsfeld this time:

1:56 PM PDT, July 7, 2006

A Los Angeles filmmaker today sued Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other high-ranking military officials, alleging they violated his civil rights, international law and the Geneva Convention by imprisoning him for 55 days in Iraq last year.

Mark D. Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU of Southern California, said the suit was the first civil action challenging the constitutionality of the detention and hearing policies of the U.S. government in Iraq.

Cyrus Kar, a 45-year-old Los Feliz resident, was freed a year ago just days after the American Civil Liberties Union sued seeking his release. His lawsuit, filed in federal court in Los Angeles, says his imprisonment violates fundamental principles of due process of law.

I wonder how many of you haters of America stood up stridently against Saddam, the Taliban and any of the African tyrants?

Not many.

Self-righteous, biased piety is no substitute for defending your country.

In fact, I (and many Canadians I know on a personal basis) thought our government made a mistake in not supporting Bush's Iraq adventure. This was because we were fed the propaganda message that there were actually weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
And, if there were, don't you think that with all the technology America possesses, they could have definitively established that fact before Bush's aggression?

Personally, I felt - and still do feel - that any threat to the U.S. was and is a threat to Canada.

The problem is Bush's deception. Obviously the "Red" states which re-elected him are oblivious to it.

That the U.S. populace generally has a total disrespect for the customs of other countries has always been a fact of life. It's been my experience that this is particularly evident with the personel of their military bases abroad.

What haters of America, BobbyPeru? America is not just its compromised government – if you’ve actually looked at an opinion poll lately you might understand that the majority of ‘Americans’ are pretty upset with their own government too. Perhaps you don’t get that from Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh – but it’s true none the less. In my view.

The real haters are those like you and IAMC who ignore the shortcomings and lies from the current government of what could otherwise be a great country and a leader in human rights and freedom around the world. The real tragedy is that so many people who know the truth fail to act and speak out - those are the real haters, in my view and people who simply close their eyes and stick out their hands waiting for a monetary reward. Nothing I wrote implies I hate America or that I supported Saddam, but then, like IAMC, your actual affiliation with facts and the truth is very, very tendentious.

And your typical response, when confronted with a bit of reality, is to fall back to your default, 'hater' position - as you've done just above. Just like a playground bully.

I assume then that you are writing this to us from Iraq or Afghanistan, right?

Of course you are, just like IAmClueless is.

Even at that, I don't particularly disagree with the notion of the need to defend one's country when it is actually invaded or under an immediate and real threat of being so. Outside of that, I largely believe, save maybe in a most extreme example such as Nazi Germany, of leaving folks to resolve their own affairs and problems. (Hitler like Amerikkka was embarked upon a course of serial invasions to build Empire as well.) On the other hand, what we are really talking about here is confusing US empire interests with our own Canadian national interest. Other than yourself and others who keep making this same erronious assumption, I do not equate US imperial interests with the interests of my Canadian nation.

Even Iraq under Sadaam was of no direct threat to the United States itself, and posed no risk of invasion on homeland USA. What weakened risk he did pose was but to Amerikkka's empire interest in controlling the Middle East, its shipping lanes, markets and accessing its resources, especially oil. Now, how that effected our national interest, other than by a gravity defying, extreme gymnastic stretch and playing loose with the language, I find a complete mystery. Were we not so rapidly selling off and shipping out our own oil to Amerikkka, along with all our other natural resources, we would quite nearly be more capable of being self-sufficient to our own needs and economic development. Had we and our ruling class the cojones. :-)

There is no homeland interest of Canada at stake in either Afghanistan or Iraq. We are but there serving our more historical "colonial's" role, taking the hit for and licking the boots of the US Empire in this case, carrying on with them where we left off with the old British Empire.

We are still such a suck nation and state, regrettably. (Again, no cojones.)

I'll defend my nation well enough. Which I do not make the mistake of confusing with the US Empire. Indeed, the US Empire poses as much risk to the independance and securtity of this country, but examine the historical and current affairs record, as it does to any country of the Middle East. We are yet just too stupid frankly, really, and entranced by the rose coloured glasses through which we look at Amerikkka to know the facts from the fictional propaganda. We spread our legs and pull open our butt cheeks for them willingly, and call it love.

Well said - and amen....

The only reason that Gitmo has as good a record as it does is because the US has outsourced all its torture to Syria, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Turkey, who are only too eager to do the bidding of the US to a) avoid invasion; b) keep the cash coming.

Pilger, Cockburn, even every neocon's favourite drunken retard Chris Hitchens has admitted same.

Typical of US foreign policy - "plausible deniability" remains the name of the game. And when the popular press is your lapdog, "plausible" is just another word for bullsh*t.

Harper's just another in the long line of right-wing toady turds who strive for real kick-ass power at the point of a gun. He doesn't clue in that for a country the size of Canada, it takes everything you've got just to stay in the game. There's no chance of winning.

Steve, if you want to live in the US, why don't you just move there? Maybe IAMC will follow you....sucker for punishment that he is...

IAMC writes:

so you are saying that we must condone and allow 'geronimo bay' prisons to continue? Just because the mathematics are better? Just because geronimo is somehow 'less evil'? And because of this lesser evil the US is 'better' than Saddam's regieme? That the US way is the only way to go?

Death of body is only one kind of death.

Death of spirit and mind is another; personally from my reading of your comments posted here on The Tyee I see a dead spirit and a mindless hulk spouting only what is coming from the US administration of 'Dubya' Bush.

At least some of the gitmo prisoners are being subjected to the kind of death you have already succumbed to, thus you cannot understand the fight that the others are still taking on...

IAMC continued:

Nasty Americans? No, as a people the Americans are divided on this issue also, I suspect that the division is starting to tear apart their 'collective' society just as the Vietnam war did. The conversion from republic to empire is a slow one, but at a certain point the external control of resources makes the trasition inevitable - I think that the transition time is upon us and many do not want to become subject to US policy.

Laziness? Only on the part of those, like you, whom accept that the word of the current US admin is the only word. The lazy journalist is the one whom accepts the statements from 'official' sources as the only side of any story.

The non-existence of 'human rights' only comes when all others around the injured parties, or those whom are doing the injury do not speak out against the actions, pointing out their errors.

The american emperor has no clothes, and it is time more of us spoke out against his actions and the actions (or inactions) of his subordinates.

He is just a naked monkey, in a war helmet.

For all the other differences between us Murdock, this is said about as well as I've seen the point made by anyone.

I'll echo that sentiment Coyote. Well done Murdock.

I agree. And what is U.S. foriegn policy in particular? To buy and own the world's commodities and resources at any and all means necessary.

Its simple. Talk governments into selling their resources through world markets by whatever means necessary. Call it "democracy". It doesn't matter what kind of government it is, facist, democratic, republic, monarchy, dictatorship, if they co-operate in the facilitation of "globalization", all is well. If they don't... it war or a coup.

Look at U.S. history for a moment and tell us were wrong. Everywhere the americans have been outside of the Macarthy era and the communist witch hunt in terms of war, has been over resources and ownership over those resources.

And they've all pretty much come from a Republican government through each coup and invasion. So who's behind it? Major shareholders, whether they be CEO's, or rich individuals behind the scenes, or corporations in league with each other for a common cause. "To own". And to own, major shareholders and banks need to have politicians bought to get the military money and resources needed to fight the war for their own prosperity.

What is becoming hard for the rest of us here on the tyee, IMAC, is why you are so slow to catch onto it. What, do you really think a guy like Dick Cheney, a former CEO of Haliburton and holder of 14 million shares, became a politician to "serve the publics interests?" Are you not aware of the more than 200 billion in directly awarded contracts to Haliburton in 2003 alone? Do you not know that since 2002, Haliburton shares has gone from 9 bucks to 85- 90$? Cheney became a billionaire from his war. The Bush family made more than 2 billion! Do you really think this war is about the preservation of morality? Try the lack thereof.

This whitehouse is more corrupt than any other since office and thats saying alot. So when Bush starts handing out compliments on Harpers leadership, its only natural to believe that Harpers leadership is piss poor... cause it is. So far, 20 billion is now being spent on Canada's "peace serving" military... either for directorships, or bribes of another fashion. The bottom line is that it takes a corrupt government to do this kind of bidding.

And last nights latest 21 year old casualty is just prelude of things to come...

You got one thing right. Its about the money. Maybe its time you actually tried to follow the paper trail. Carlyle... Goldman Sachs... Haliburton... Exxon... and take a good look at their players, please, just once, so that you can actually post stuff that makes sense?

The mistreating of POWs by all war participants is nothing new. The nazis and the communists killed literally millions of each others' POWs.

The Americans also killed many thousands, some estimate into the hundreds of thousands, of German and satellite POWs in post WW2 death camps in the first few months after the war with starvation and random shootings into the open fields where they were collected and had to survive in the open without any shelter, food and water.

Well documented, I knew many of the survivors and there's lots of literature on the subject.

Give people, especially minds warped with ideologies and religions, unlimited power over others and they're going to misuse it. It never failed yet.

Ed Deak, Big Lake.

the brain wrote:

I shall not try to say you are 'wrong', just that you are not hearing the larger song and that these verses have been sung before.

Look back at the transition time from Rome's republic of Cato the elder to the rise of Augustus.

It was thru the control of the external resources of the state that the 'families' or 'great houses' of then did it, so now it is the same for the 'families' or 'corporations' of today.

History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme! -- Mark Twain

Unfortunately, the Americans have only a two-party system otherwise I would predict a full recovery of their values.
Clinging to the Republican ideology has made them aggressive and protectionist.
They seem to be brainwashed into believing that a Democratic government would make them weak and would erode their power and influence.

Brain, I think you are completely wrong. Bush/Cheney have no personal goals to clean up financially by creating a war for Haliburton to profit from.
They are simply patriotic Americans, who are defending their country from a dark Muslim attempt to transfer the wealth of the USA to themselves. It's that simple.
They partially used WMD's in Iraq to justify their invasion.
The next shoe to drop is the admission by mainstream media that this excuse was legitimate. You will all soon here about the WMD's that the Americans found, as well as the vamped up effort by Iraq to render castor beans into ricin, a deadly gas.
Anyway, I am happy with George Bush and the American effort to protect all of us dispite of you wimpy leftists who , if ever be given power, would have us all marching to Mecca next year.
God bless America.

They are simply patriotic Americans, who are defending their country from a dark Muslim attempt to transfer the wealth of the USA to themselves. It's that simple.

You accuse posters here of being anti-American, even when they repeatedly (in this and other threads) draw a distinction between the American government and it's people, then go on your own xenophobic rant about a "dark Muslim attempt to transfer..."

History will not be kind to the Bush administration nor those who support it. It will be worse than the McCarthy and Nixon eras rolled into one. How is Bush polling in the US these days?

Actually Bush is polling much better these days, but it's not about polls. Great leaders don't govern by polls, they simply do their job of protecting their citizens well being, and in the case of America, because of their wealth, everyone is trying to shake them down, like N.Korea.
Why can't you believe the USA is a necessary ingredient to world peace ?

Why can't you believe the USA is a necessary ingredient to world peace ?

The short answer is I'll believe it when I see it.

Since WW2 the USA has bombed and invaded close to 50 countries, without any declaration of war, simply to force their multinationals and that GATT and WTO on them. This is what's called "wealth creation".

Terrorists are the cowardly scum of the Earth, even when they wear military uniforms as high ranking officers and sit in warplanes. Even worse when they were draft dodgers, like Bush and Cheney, who had "other priorities".

Anybody who believes their and Harper's claim that the Muslim terrorists are against North America, because they're "envious of our freedoms" is a pathetic nutcase.

As far the justifications for the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq are concerned, the truth about 9/11 my just surface one day. Let's hope so, so we can see the perpetrators in jail forever.

Here's an interesting article from eyewitnesses on the collapse of the WTC towers. The official story is getting shakier by the minite. Of course, all this is a "leftist conspiracy theory" according to some who have no idea what
they're talking about.

I'm still waiting for the definition of a "leftist". How about "people who're still capable of independent thought" ?

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192

Ed Deak.

Oh my gawd, IAMC...

You believe Bush to be a great leader???

Is this the same person that says Castro is starving his people?

IAMC wrote:

Because the 'pax americana' will be no better, nor last any longer than the 'pax romana'.

Both are based on the premise that blood spilled will cow others and 'keep them in line.' Such a policy has never stood the test of time.

Sadly the US can be an important ingredient to world peace , so long as it is not the peace of the gun, but a real, working concept that involves trade and the kind of negotiations that the business world revolves around, not the machiavellian approach that the war-monkey and his organ-grinder 'man' are using currently.

Another Canadian martyr to Harper's crusade. This from the Toronto Star:

What a pathetic waste.

And, a bit more stunning news from Iraq and the American project over there. Just for you IAMC:

Baghdad Erupts in Mob Violence
By KIRK SEMPLE

BAGHDAD, July 9 — A mob of gunmen went on a brazen daytime rampage through a predominantly Sunni Arab district of western Baghdad on Sunday, pulling people from their cars and homes and killing them in what officials and residents called a spasm of revenge by Shiite militias for the bombing of a Shiite mosque on Saturday. Hours later, two car bombs exploded beside a Shiite mosque in another Baghdad neighborhood in a deadly act of what appeared to be retaliation.

While Baghdad has been ravaged by Sunni-Shiite bloodletting in recent months, even by recent standards the violence here on Sunday was frightening, delivered with impunity by gun-wielding vigilantes on the street. In the culture of revenge that has seized Iraq, residents all over the city braced for an escalation in the cycle of retributive mayhem between the Shiites and Sunnis that has threatened to expand into civil war.

The violence coincided with an announcement by American military officials that they had formally accused four more American soldiers of rape and murder, and a fifth soldier of "dereliction of duty" for failing to report the crimes, in connection with the deaths of a teenage Iraqi girl and three members of her family.

With movement in Baghdad difficult after a military cordon was established to suppress the violence, facts were hard to ascertain. The death toll from the shootings alone ranged from fewer than a dozen, according to the American military, to more than 40 reported by some news services. The bombing near the mosque later claimed at least 19 lives and left 59 wounded, officials said.

The military's announcement about the soldiers brought to six the number implicated in the rape-murder, one more than previously disclosed. The case has enraged Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and led to apologies by the highest American military and civilian officials in Iraq. A photograph of the girl's passport distributed by news agencies on Sunday showed that she was 14.

ALCI; I am surprised that you are shocked by violent events in Iraq. You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs, however. You may try to dismiss the death of that fourteen year old girl as a prop in your anti Bush crusade, but I think that is a sick attempt to use an unfortunate incident, involving an innocent child, like Adrianne dickhead did with innocent native children, to advance his political advancement. And to imagine that A.D. now a critic of our Health care system ? aren't you dead yet ?
If not, he will soon try to make you feel that you are near death, due to the Gordon Campbell regime, that puts profit ahead of truly fair health care.

I am neither shocked nor surprised at anything except your ignorance. I have predicted the Iraq disaster from the beginning and if you were worth the effort I'd prove it to you - but you're not.

This is exactly what happens when war criminals are in charge of the most powerful country in the world.

This is no prop, it's the truth of what happens when you take a proud military and give it an impossible job to do as in Abu Ghraib as well. Did you miss that outrage too - or are you still convinced that the only bad guys are the 'dirty' Muslims? You are pathetic!

As usual, you are so utterly ignorant that you are hardly worth the time to reply to. Go listen to your little drug addict friend Limbaugh, he's just the man to help you ignore the pools of blood around your ankles.

It is Bush and his neo conman criminality that have done this and you know it, you phony.

Alchi; Abu Ghraib was highlighted on the front page of the New York Times, I mean FRONT PAGE, for 60 straight days preceding the US election, which George Bush won handily, in 2004. The Democrats are in despair as is our Liberal Party.
The next shoe to drop on your head, is WMD's in Iraq. The MSM can't deal with this revelation, without eating crow.
But I will forward your concerns about Bush to the appropriate authorities, as well as Rush's addition to Viagra.

Well, I guess we don't have to worry about Afghanistan because after Harpers trip there Robert Fife, the Ottawa Bureau Chief of CTV who always travels with Harper on his foreign trips said our troops are "doing God's work" - how can you tell why he is the one from the press that covers Harper on his trips?

I went and saw this today at Fifth ave theatre in Vancouver on Burrard street, this afternoon. I thought it was a very good movie.

Â*It tells how a group of friends travel from Pakistan to Afghanistan to attend a wedding but the American bombing starts and they are picked up and eventually sent to Gitmo. It is a very well done documentry that gives the viewers many different emotions throughout.

It is not for the faint of heart as they show some disturbing scenes actually maybe more than some. Like how prisoners live in cages, over crowded conditions, abused etc.

The movie is done through the eyes of some of the group of friends that went to the wedding and they do cut out from documentry on occasion to hear what the participants felt and went through.

But I would recommend you see this or wait until the dvd comes out. I also see it is available on the torrents if you want to go that route.Â* It should be in DVD in the fall I would imagine as it is not in a lot of theatres. It is about 90 minutes long.

Link to official site

For show times in your city Yes Canadian cities work.

IAMC
No, dummy, Rush's drug of choice is Oxycontin. The Viagra was actually meant to appear to be for his latest doctor - in many jurisdictions he'd already have violated the conditions of his agreement with tht courts. Like most of your heroes, rules and contradictions and lies have nothing to do with reality.

Alcibiades, your quote above from the Toronto Star will only serve to better illustrate the totally demoralized state of the canadian military establishment.

We only ever get to see hints and brief glimpses of these problems, until someone 'goes postal' or gets on with the 'fragging' that will be the result to the continued stress....

Youth of today can see all of this written on the wall, why else is it so hard to find willing 'recruits'?

Alcibiades posted:

Baghdad Erupts in Mob Violence

All of Iraq has simply become an immense Beruit.

shhh, Alcibiades, it is not

the War-Monkey President has no clothes, but don't tell IAMC.

IAMC is still listening to the call from 'the Man'.

FMI see:
http://cluelessgeorgegoestowar.com/html/clueless_page1.html

Be careful of what you ask for, if gitmo closes then these people will be held in remote prisons with no scrutiny, no lawyers and no supreme court to review their cases. Current international law is very weak and not designed to deal with Global terrorism. People also forget that close to half of the camp have been released, with a number of them being caught or killed again. As for the torture claims, I take the with a bag of salt, it is standard for the AQ to claim torture.

If you wanted to consider these people POW’s (which the Taliban could be) then the war is still on and they have no right of release, even the AQ has repeatedly declared war on the US and the West. Until the war is over, the US could hold these people indefinably. I had an Uncle shot down in 1940, not liberated until 1945. He never knew when or if he would have been released. So if they are POW’s they have to stay in the camp until either side wins or they negotiate terms.

If they are illegal combatants, then they have few rights.

So what do people suggest the US does with people they capture while fighting?

IAMC opines:

yes, I am certain that the 'evidence' of these WMD's will be as effective as the materials that were pushed by Colin Powell in the UN. You know, the presentation that ended his credibility with the world?

if the 'evidence' of WMD's is that good, well hey getting all of the UN on-side should be a piece of cake, right?

With rock-solid 'evidence' like that all the moral questions get resolved right?

Well the whole world will then see the correctness and 'truthiness' of the Bush administration and fall in love with their vision!

Only the 'true believers' are going to fall for that line.

Most of us are 'from Missouri', thanks.

Murdock
Actually morale in the army is pretty good, the main problem they have with recruiting is that the process often has taken up to 2 years, so people get tired of waiting and move on. The other problem is that the military can’t pay top dollar for specialists and has always had a problem long before this.

Funny, I have seen posts on another forum from his buddies, that painted a different picture of how he viewed life over there. Keep in mind the old military saying: Things are ok when the soldiers are bit*hing, but you’re trouble when they get quiet.

Colin

On this point you are correct, 'international law' is an oxymoron, like 'military intelligence'.

The real problem in this instance is the insane declaration of a 'war on terror'.

What the hell is that? It is like declaring war on anger, or happiness, or independant thought.

Sure, the first casualty of any war is the truth. But if this is to be a 'war' as you call it then our behaviour in the conduct of the 'war' will reflect badly upon us if that behaviour is bad.

So with the lies of 'we are good' and 'they are bad' we all had better start taking salt with anything our 'leadership' is spouting.

OK, first off, there has been no declaration of war by the US Congress, which is the only US body that can legally declare such a thing. Next, if we accept the AQ (al-queda?) declaration of war, then we should also accept the self-declaration of Joshua A. Norton as the first self proclaimed "Emperor of these United States and Protector of Mexico" (FMI:http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist1/norton.html). The nonsense of a non-nation being able to stir-up the whole of the USA is worse than 12 cossacks being able to get 8000 frenchmen to rush to arms in 1812, at least they were trying to kill one another.

The current situation is total madness and can be set-up to never end. So the endless 'detentions' will continue.

That was 'war' of a generation ago, such a polite activity will never happen again.

Good, since you consider illegal combatants as having few rights, then you should have nothing to say about US (or Canadians) being 'detained' or tortured or whatever in Iraq or Afghanistan since both of those actions can easily be considered 'illegal'. Even by definitions from the original countries that these 'soldiers' are being sent from!

STOP the madness of fighting the sort of wars that they are currently engaged in.

START actually talking with others, not pointing weapons at them and using only military means to communicate.

As far as the current situation goes in 'captured combattants', stop extraditing them from their homelands. Stop taking them anymore, start working with those locals that want to 'stabilize' the situation and allow them the deal with the 'captured combattants'. If the local leadership will not or cannot do this then stop pretending that the 'war on terror' is anything other than an Imperial War of Expansion by the forces of PAX AMERICANA

When it comes to back stabbing, the military has no equal, Colin. Perhaps you're familiar with the Bonus Army and that phony icon General Macarthur - if you're not, you should be.

As to the current weak state of International Law, it would be hard to disagree. It wouldn't be hard though to determine the cause of that weakness though, would it?

Finally some decent news from the United States:

WASHINGTON, July 11 — In a sweeping change of policy, the Pentagon has decided that it will treat all detainees in compliance with the minimum standards spelled out in the Geneva conventions, a senior defense official said today.

The new policy comes on the heels of a Supreme Court ruling last month invalidating a system of military tribunals the Pentagon had created to try suspected terrorists, and just before Congress takes up the question of a replacement system in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today.
NYTimes, July 11, 2006

Which doesn't put us where the world yet needs to be, I don't think, Aciabiades, by a long shot, but is a demonstration that even the behaviours of the US Empire can be some modified and changed in a relatively more positive direction. Though the pressure needs to increase manifold on a world scale, to curtail The Empire's aggressive imperialist behaviours, shut down all their foreign military bases, and return their occupying forces back to the continental USA where they belong-, to the benefit of us all and their own citizens.

Hopefully, this is a serious development, and not more Bushfascist deception, to the benefit of these Gitmo detainees and the cause of peace. Whatever one thinks of these detainees, they actually are POWs, in the battles between the state terrorism of the US Empire and that of nationalist/anti-colonial forces in the Middle East and other parts of the world, increasingly including Africa as well (Somalia and Sudan). And as legitimate prisoners of war, defending against foreign occupation and invasion, they deserve and need the intercessions of the Geneva Conventions on war.

A progressive development this, and a small victory. My view.

Entirely agree Coyote...a very tiny victory...and absolutely no reason to let up the pressure.

Obrador has revealed persuasive evidence that the recent elections in Mexico may have been stolen; you can find an article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/world/americas/11mexico.html

and, in the same paper, another charge against Pinochet, that old villain from Chile:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/world/americas/11chile.html

This, too, is interesting - for anyone who hasn't seen it already:
http://alternet.org/waroniraq/38604/

On prosecuting Bush for war crimes.

Alcibiades..

The military defended their deployment of the young soldier in this morning's Province and I must admit that, as a former military man, I go along with its position.

It would make my day to see Harper deployed in Afgh. for the extra two years which he assigned to our troops...

geezer65

I don't read the province - on principle.

Of course you'd expect the military to defend their position. They are top dog right now with peewee Rambo leading the charge and you'd hardly expect them to accept the criticism of a dead man who can't defend his point of view.

They also dismissed the Senlis council -which has had people on the ground in Afghanistan for years - as nothing but anti-Americanism. I think it took them less than a dozen words to dismiss a report the spokesman clearly hadn't read.

It often seems to me that the most important thing the brass is supplying these poor young buggers with is access to Don Cherry and Tim Horton’s coffee.

I'd like to see pee wee leading the troops into battle too. I bet he'd pick up a supply of cleft sticks at Harrods on the way in.

In keeping with the topic of these posts, which is the atrocities of Guantanamo - the following is a part of the story contained in this morning's Province

The Center for Constitutional Rights in New York released the first major overview yesterday of alleged abuses and torture at the camp, including rape, sexual harassment and vicious beatings.

Muneer Ahmad, one of Khadr's lawyers, has already outlined in some detail claims of abuse from the 19-year-old, who faces life in prison on a charge of murdering a U.S. medic in Afghanistan in July 2002 when he was 16 years old.

"The cumulative impact of the reports of abuse of so many of the detainees is quite shocking and it should be," Ahmad said. "It shows again why Guantanamo is beyond repair. There's no way to fix it."

Now, that's quite something, coming from The Province-, which like Aciabiades, I never read either, for probably about the same reasons. That they would carry this is indicative of the credibility of the evidence and seriousness of the torture charges against US authority in Guantanamo.

It's just about like if IAMClueless issued this same report.

This is anything but a left wing rag we are talking here, The Province.

Coyote - this proves you have a very well developed sense of humour!!!

Incidentally, I agree with you and Alcibiades re the Province.

It's just that I like stories with lots of pictures - which comes from learning to read via comic books.

Well Coyote, I will agree that the Province is a Rag. Although I often find more uses for rags than I do for the Province.

Speaking of the health of the CanWest/Global empire, there is this interesting story from today'a Globe and Mail:

TORONTO -- Dominion Bond Rating Service has placed debt of CanWest Global Communications Corp. under review with "negative" implications.

DBRS said its move yesterday was "due to weakness in more of the company's operating segments, which may lead to a breach in the company's financial covenants."

The rating agency added its review of CanWest MediaWorks Inc., the debt-issuing subsidiary of CanWest Global, does not affect the CanWest MediaWorks Income Fund, which owns part of CanWest's newspaper holdings.

The holdings of CanWest MediaWorks Inc. include the Global and CH television networks, eight specialty TV channels, radio stations in Winnipeg and Kitchener, Ont., and the National Post. Its current DBRS rating is "BB -- speculative" and below investment grade.

DBRS said a violation of bank covenants by CanWest MediaWorks Inc. could occur if there is further weakness in the current quarter ending Aug. 31. That would provoke intensive discussions with CanWest's bankers, including most of the major Canadian banks.

The corporation has long-term debt of about $2.9-billion, including leases, interest rate and foreign exchange swap liabilities, and also including $880-million in outstanding senior subordinated notes rated "B (high) -- highly speculative " by DBRS.

"CanWest's Canadian television operations have been under pressure from weak viewership for some time; however, relatively strong international operations in Australia, together with debt repayments, were sufficient to hold the rating at BB," DBRS stated.

"Recently, CanWest's [earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization] has come under pressure due to a combination of factors, including weakness in the Australian advertising market, strengthening of the Canadian dollar and continued ratings weakness in the Canadian television market."

This "will impact the company's ability to reduce debt in the near term," it stated. "Moreover, this has put pressure on the company's bank covenants, which could lead to a default for their next period."

DBRS added that it believes CanWest could arrange a deal with the banks, and that the corporation intends to use about $200-million from the sale of Irish TV assets to reduce debt.

Its ratings "will remain under review until DBRS is satisfied that CanWest will not violate its credit agreement, be it through stabilized operations or an amendment/waiver from the banks."

This may not be the right place to post, but, given yesterday's observations about the Province, it seemed at least marginally appropriate.

Murdock
I would say that 9-11 was a clear Act of war and certainly a far better reason than what has started many other wars.

I agree that the term “war on terror” is poor, it should read “War on terrorists that attack us” but that’s not so easy to sell and doesn’t roll off the tongue.

Which particular “war” was the US engaged in when 9-11 happened? The US can not disengaged from the world and people will either be supporting them or against them, as they are the worlds biggest super power, their interests and oversea assets become targets for any group wishing to make a major propaganda victory. So they can’t run from it, so the choice is to be reactive of preemptive.

How would talking have stopped the AQ?

The US soldiers are following the International rules of war and following orders of their duly elected government. If captured they are supposed to be treated as POW. If the insurgency wore armbands or badges marking them as an organized force and distinguishing them from the populace, then they can and should be treated as POW. However they wish to hide amongst the civilian population, which is a clear violation of the rules of war and attack as they see fit, generally without regard to civilian causalities, they have also been using Hospitals and place of worship to conduct operations and fight from, another violation. Your comparison is not even close. The US can legally line up any captured fighters and execute on the spot. The fact that they do not normally do this shows that they are exceeding their duty to their charges.

As for extraditing the combatants, it would be simpler if the host country imprisoned them, but knowing what jails can be like in a 3rd world country, I think I would rather be in Gitamo. Another problem cropping up in Iraq is what the US soldiers refer to as: “Catch and release” they capture someone planting bombs or such, hand them over to the Iraqis and next thing they know the guy is back out there fighting them again, causing the soldier to be less likely to take prisoners next time.

By the way it is not a “War of expansion” as the US is not interested in acquiring territory. In fact over the last decade the US has generally being drawing down it’s forces overseas, until 2001. You might be able to refer to it as a “War of interests”

Sorry a couple of grammer errors, typing in a hurry.

borrowed from elsewhere:

From:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib.../army/fm/27-10/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...7-10/Ch3.htm#s1

Regarding Illegal combatants:

80. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Engage in Hostilities

Persons, such as guerrillas and partisans, who take up arms and commit hostile acts without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), are, when captured by the injured party, not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment.

81. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts

Persons who, without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), commit hostile acts about or behind the lines of the enemy are not to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment. Such acts include, but are not limited to, sabotage, destruction of communications facilities, intentional misleading of troops by guides, liberation of prisoners of war, and other acts not falling within Articles 104 and 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Article 29 of the Hague Regulations.

From:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...-10/Ch3.htm#s15

160. Courts

A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.

In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defence provided for in Article 105. (GPW, art. 84.)

161. Acts Committed Before Capture

a. Treaty Provision.

Prisoners of war prosecuted under the laws of the Detaining Power for acts committed prior to capture shall retain, even if convicted, the benefits of the present Convention. (GPW, art. 85.)

b. Applicability.

The foregoing provision applies only to personnel who are entitled to treatment as prisoners of war, including prisoners accused of war crimes under international or national law.

c. In signing and ratifying GPW several nations indicated that they would not consider themselves bound by the obligation which follows from the foregoing provision to extend the application of the Convention to prisoners of war who have been convicted of having committed war crimes and crimes against humanity and that persons so convicted would be subject to the conditions obtaining in the country in question for those who undergo punishment.

All of what you say, Colin, was not necessarily the case until yesterday - alas. Still, even if the wake-up call comes 'rather' late in the day - I'll say it is appreciated. I do wonder if it will also derail the proposed changes to the Army Handbook?

WASHINGTON, July 11 — In a sweeping change of policy, the Pentagon has decided that it will treat all detainees in compliance with the minimum standards spelled out in the Geneva conventions, a senior defense official said today.
The new policy comes on the heels of a Supreme Court ruling last month invalidating a system of military tribunals the Pentagon had created to try suspected terrorists, and just before Congress takes up the question of a replacement system in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today.
NYTimes, July 11, 2006

Well, it is expansionism, just a different kind. More of an ominous knotted web...underground routes, hidden seams of influence, controlling corporate connections.

An ever expanding web extending even into space now - the armed guardian and the ever-watchful eye on behalf of Amerika's interests...territories and borders, the expanse of space itself no longer obstacles...made meaningless in fact.

Colin,

The US has been militarily active, invading, occupying and seeking to control other countries, well outside their own borders, including a global system of military bases imposed upon, with the aid of numerous despotic and corrupt regimes, many, many countries for a very long time now. Certainly they have been expanding their influence, military and economic control reach over the course of my entire life.

Now, if that does not define "expansionism", I have no understanding of the concept whatsoever. And I bloody well do.

I know you are not this naive Colin, so there must be other rationales in play here, on your part.

The Middle East War rampage of the US is precisely a war, in part of expansion, in part to secure additional access to other people's resources, and to control this entire region-, with the aid of Israel, and anyone else they can hoodwink or maneuvre into aiding them. Canada comes quickly to mind as such a stooge state. 911 was all the excuse they needed, to do what they had already done and were preparing to do again anyway.

Like Fait Lux said somewhere on these threads, maybe here, it may take some years before we know precisely what was going on around the events of 911, and who was involved, but the history of US interferences in the Middle East were already historically extensive. Likewise their concerns about access to the oil resources of the region have been around for a long, long time, and increasing steadily, with or without 911.

Again Colin, if this is not a pattern of expainsionism and expansionist ambitions which I have been living through, observing the US for the better part of my life, you had better explain to me in very plain and precise language, exactly what this pattern of US behaviours has been, since before even the Second World War, but escalating thereafter.

It boggles me, your capacity to deny the realities that stare you in the face.

Coyote:

I've oftne wondered the same thing about Colin. He seems so nominally sensible at times and then this sort of thing comes bubbling to the surface.

I think it's part of the military training. Once it's actually taken hold the ability to distinguish reality from illusion is lost.

Either that or he's just stirring the pot and hoping for a response.

Eisenhower recognized the way things were going before the end of the Fifties - and spoke about it at the time he left the presidency.

My memory of my own time in the Canadian military, from youthful cadets through the regular force over a fairly extensive period, is that they did talk of global politics, to their troops that they wanted to follow them into hell, in a similarly naive and shallow way as Colin sometimes does. Fortunately, for me, eventually, I picked up on it, and rejected the military's jingoistic and formulaic analyses rather early in my military "career". Though it took a rebelious direction and got me in a lot of trouble before we... me and the military, agreed to part company.

Colin seems to have not got beyond that, "Rah! Rah! Rah!" Gung ho! I blindly follow, young soldier stage of things.

At other times, he says really quite adult and sensible things, with real insight into global realities.

Go figger.

Colin posted:

Nope, 'act of war' requires an active population or leadership that has no desire to hide nor to evade counterstrike.

Casus belli is a Latin expression from the international law theory of Jus ad bellum. Formally, the expression (which can be translated as "risk of war" or "occasion for war") is the grievances section of a formal public declaration of war by a state, which lists: the grievances it has against another state which are or may become the cause of war; the intentions it has in prosecuting the war; and the actions the other state could take to avert conflict or restore peace. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/w038.htm
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d108.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/casus-belli

This event can only be termed a causus-belli, and without a real definable 'target', perfect ground to plant the seeds of madness that the war-monkey president and 'the man' need.

Take a good look at causus-belli, especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli, switching Lebensraum, for "interests" such as unfettered access to resources.

Yes there are choices.
First, there was no need to INVADE Afghanistan; the current government was prepared to hand over Bin Laden, it may have been a ruse and a delay, but so what? Containing him was just as good as killing him. The invasion has just caused a re-emergence of the mountain warlords and allowed chaos to reign yet again. Pinning Bin Laden in Kahbul (or some mountain hole) then makes him a better target for a sniper team.
Second, invading IRAQ had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. None of the perpetrators were Iraqi, none were in the pay of Saddam, none were trained (that can be proven) in Iraq. The entire Iraq operations are totally contrived, and therefore (in the modern parlance) illegal. The US attack on Iraq is a war crime, in the classical definition as used by the Nuremberg trials.

Not talking has not stopped them either.

Talk, would not have been with AQ (Al-Quieda?), it would have been to conduct ever more trade with the opponents of AQ. This would be why Bin Laden tried to 'hit' WTC before (in the early 90's). He knew that to threaten the financial capitol of the US could bring about a violent counter-attack and thus give him and his followers the 'jihad' so longed for.

Much of the muslim world speaks of a sense of loss or 'humiliation' (as pointed out in "The World is Flat"). Due to a percieved lack of sophistication in many of their countries as compared to the US and UK or western europe. Often this is blamed on past colonial slights, or other items. Much of the muslim youth now knows the truth; that their leaders through continued isolation and lack of trade have 'devolved' from a high point starting in the 1500's. A wonderful opportunity to 'catch-up' has been missed since WWII and the 1950's and now that youth is very angry - lashing out all over the place, some have been better at directing that anger towards the USA and 'the west'. By attacking after the events of 9/11 this youth has now been given further proof and easy access to a target (in Baghdad).

to be continued...

continued for Colin:

NOPE, not then and still not now. This was why the Supreme Court put out the ruling that it did indicting 'the executive' for its behaviour - that you have been trying to justify.

OK so in 1807, Bonaparte contrived to have his troops enter Spain (then an ally) so that they could get into Portugal to enforce the 'continental system'. Under this pretext some Spanish nobility and 'governance' became 'enfrancisados' (supporters of France) many others (arguably the majority) did not like the French troops being there, nor transiting Catholic Spanish soil. Then Bonaparte orchestrated a 'coup' in the nobility of Spain, bringing his brother Joseph to the throne; and nominally 'in power'.

Why the history lesson?

Well the US led a 'coalition' against Iraq in 1991, then left 'observers' then did economic warfare to keep Iraq down - none of which was working since the UN Oil for Fraud program showed. The US kept troops in south Iraq, Saudi and air assets in Turkey, Saudi and on carriers all over the Indian Ocean. All of these places are muslim (holy mecca in Saudi).

Now these troops are launched again into battle against Iraq.

So just as the juntas in 1809-13 Spain did not wear armbands, nor have anything even remotely like a Napoleonic 'uniform' so too do the soldiers of these jihad units. The Spanish soldiery tried not to fight from their catholic churches, but gave that up in 1810 after the French chose to massacre wounded soldiers kept in a small chapel being used as a hospital. Thus started a series of counter-atrocities, just like the mess that is facing the US in Iraq.

So then the einsatsgruppen approach is 'OK by you'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatsgruppen

If so then you need to learn more about the Nuremburg trials and what qualifies as a war crime before you spout any more nasty crap.

Back to my first commentary, leave from the region if there are none to support you - otherwise all you get is another Vietnam.

Sounds like the transition from Republic to Empire to me.

Try reading The Twelve Caesars and come to an understanding of how a republic (which rome was in 350 bce, but no longer by 54 bce) changes to an empire.

Colin borrowed from elsewhere:

81. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts

How can there be an 'armed forces' of Iraq now that the USA has smashed it to pieces?

The remnants, were they to wear a 'uniform' would be treated just as badly.

The Whermacht was nasty to the Polish resistance fighters in Warsaw for years, then when the Soviet army was only 100 km away or so they 'suddenly' started treating partisans, whom had no uniform markings at all, as if they were enemy combattants, with the geneva rights attached.

The US army needs to have some very nasty 'persuations' to behave correctly. Until such a force is present, I expect the 'better angels' of their nature to be kept locked up and tortured as well as anyone that decides to 'get in the way'.

161. Acts Committed Before Capture

Even Eichmann was "entitled to treatment as prisoners of war, including prisoners accused of war crimes under international or national law." Yet you are now trying to twist these reasonable provisions into some sort of dark version of the Geneva Conventions.

The Nuremberg trials were convened with mind to german and other european common law. In the end they did have more US influence, simply because the MP's and prosecutors were all US nationals.

Without a self-regulating mechanism, any nation-state will begin to become a world bully. The Supreme Court is at least standing up to be what it was created for, a 1/3 of the governance of the United States. Time now for the House of Representatives to start the impeachment proceedings, or at least stop being a 'rubber stamp' for the executive branch and their war-monkey president.

Again, my compliments on a very good analysis above, Murdock. We may not always agree on many other things, but you do have some outstanding insights into this issue, no bloody doubt.

A good read.

My view too, murdock. I'd only add one small thing to the analysis and that, mostly, pertains to the way power is retained by incumbents at the level of the House/Senate in the US at between 80 and 100 percent from election to election.

We may actually see some new personnel after November but, in all probability the compromised nature of the 'elect' will not be much different even if the balance of power in both (or either) house changes. The system is so constrained, regulated and paid for by special interests that it would not be untrue to say America is no longer a democratic republic even without its foreign adventuring.

I'll echo Coyote too - a very good read - and await Colin's riposte - if it is forthcoming.

Precisely dear Watson.

Alcibiades

I have yet to read the courts decision, but my brief understanding of it’s ruling is that it pertains to a narrow judgment that says that the current legal situation is in conflict with US law and that modifications to law by congress can allow the administration to continue with the military tribunals. The GC basically says: “illegal combatants may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment"

Where the US has failed is in not creating the military tribunals in the first place and treating the prisoners as illegal combatants without the tribunals to determine such.

Don’t expect that the administration has to close the camp down because of the ruling.

To all of you
None of you are so bright and perfect to judge my ability to think, your comments are at the best patronizing and shows an “elitist attitude” which is way people get disgruntled with the left.

Murdock
Had you bothered to read what has been said in various Arab and Jihadist media and propaganda, you would realize that the Arab populations had been conditioned to support such actions in a similar way as was done to the Japanese population prior to World War II. Arab/Muslim grievances, real or imagined, have been listed and greatly discussed prior to 9/11.

The US did give the Taliban the ability to avoid war as did they with Saddam. 9/11 is the opening act of an all out declaration of war against the US by the AQ. Again similar to the Japanese attack on Pearl Habour (although they did intend to declare war immediately before).

Your opinion of the need to invade Afghanistan is purely your opinion.

As for Iraq there was a suspicion of a certain amount of interaction or collusion with AQ and documents seized prove that indeed there had been certain amount of cooperation (case of a common enemy than alliance). There had been enough breaches by Saddam to invalidate the ceasefire that was in place since 1991 to justify continuation of the conflict.

Bin Laden’s jihad predates the gulf war 1 and it would seem that Bin Laden formulated the jihad with others either during the fight against the Soviets or in a time that he’d spent in jail (I’m not 100% sure that he was jailed but I seem to remember that he was for a period of time).

Arab culture languished up until the time post WWI with the defeat of the Ottoman empire whereupon Arab nationalism begin to rise. It stalled during WWII however heated up again using a model based on the German national socialist party (Baath party). But you are correct that the Arabs have missed the boat as regards the promotion of culture and education one of the main obstacles of such has been the rise of fundamentalist Islam.

Getting back to Iraq it was your favourite organization that ran the observers and it was Saddam who continuously evaded and ignored the requirements laid out by the international community which would have spared his population great suffering, not that he really gave a damn about that.

As simple a solution as summary execution is, no I do not agree with it and applaud the Americans and others for not following this path.

The VC were signatories/observers of the rules, the Geneva Convention, to an extent. Iraq was closer to Vietnam under Saddam than it is now, you could consider the Sunnis similar to the Catholics in Vietnam.

Iraq has held elections and has re-established its military. In this regard the US is following law.

You constantly critize the Americans yet acknowledge that they continue to self-judge and self-correct, even in times of military conflicts against an often dangerous and brutal adversary. Your expectations of perfection are unrealistic given ordinary human fallibility.

Does it make you feel better to say war-monkey?

C'mon Colin, you ought to be able to do better than that. The administration is obviously in retreat. You should check out Ron Suskind's new book, The One Percent Doctrine.

As far as the charge of elitism goes, I'd say it's much more valid to direct it at the neocons these days. They, and you, seem disinclined to utter anything but the same dogma despite the fact that time and again the premises have been shown to be false. That, to me, is a far worse kind of elitism because it says that 'we know best' despite:
a) the evidence;
b) the terrible results;
c) the many mistakes and illegal acts - which the Supreme Court affirmed by the way; and
d) the clearly worse situation today than when this whole embarrassment began.

How is it even possible for you, or anyone else for that matter, to accuse the left of being elitist in this matter?

No one expects perfection from any government.

But would it be too much to expect a little honest and humility and a humble admission that US and British policy and actions were wrong?

The only correction that has gone on is in response, this very week, to the decision of the US Supremes. In my view that is hardly self-correction.

As to the state of affairs in Iraq, well, you haven't been paying attention. It is closer than ever to all out civil war. Any similarity to Iraq under Saddam and Vietnam is so fanciful as to be pointless. The Vietnam conflict began because the US failed to live up to its international obligations and permit the elections which would undoubtedly have led to the reunification of the north and south after the defeat of the French. All America's efforts in Vietnam achieved was more than a decade of war and death - if things continue apace ther results may be even worse in Iraq - not to mention the wider middle east.

BY the way, I thought the remarks about your nominal and rather knee-jerk reactions to any criticism of the military (here there and everywhere) were pretty fair - everyone acknowledged that you often contribute many comments with real value in addition to your uncritical adherence to military esprit de corps.

What more would you want?

Colin:
As to your disquiet with Murdock's label for the Potus, I can only observe that it is extremely hard not to see the Monkey in Mr. Bush every time he steps behind a podium and makes a TV appearance.

Did you see him tonight going on about how much he was looking forward to slicing the pig with Chancellor Merkel? I'd say, furthermore, that there was little if any reticence about a certain kind of name-calling during the Clinton years and I know you're fond of referring to the last couple of Canadian Prime Ministers in derogatory terms too.

Seems to me it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, my friend. Both you and nightbloom need to hone your sense of humour a little more finely, don't you think?

Alternatively, is it only fair game when it doesn't touch your friends in khaki?

Well, first of all, insofar as the above quoted issue goes, I agree with GWest's comments.

I would only add that neither is any of us above criticism, of which the left receives and takes more than its share in the ruling class controlled media system which capitalism spawns, and in a ruling class dominant social environment generally of greater tolerance and weight given to rightist opinion . (No complaining. We'll deal with that issue in good time too.)

If one really pays attention here Colin, in fact, it is your own neocon right who have the most difficulty in advancing ideas and analyses that are anywhere near original and non-patroning, or which do not play on the presumed ignorance of the "plebian masses".

And, like I say, if you are going to dish it out, you have to be prepared to take it as well. The right can certainly not, and will not, have it all its way.

But basically yea, War Monkeys does seem an apt and amusing description of this current Whitehouse political regime-, sliding rapidly into discredit for its global war monkey antics.

And of course we are "bright and perfect enough" to make judgements about your analyses Colin, even if just barely, no less than you are of ours, and which you have never been hesitant to do. Which is why we find your presence here useful; for the debating points you raise and afford us. (Which doesn't mean we have to kiss your ass. True. Nor you ours.) :-)

Colin wrote:

While it is not my occupation to do so, I shall consider your opinion of the information as factual.

Please do consider that your, knee-jerk reaction to my opposition, is also very much like the war-party members of the WWII Japanese government.

Yes and the Taliban in Afghanistan were in the process of complying with all of the provisions of the US demands when the date was 'revised'. Making the response impossible, thus creating another causus-belli. The entire incident is very much like Sir Bartle Frerr adding provisions to the border commission in 1879 that would automatically be rejected by the Zulu's and bring about the war that he so badly wanted.

Thus the 'war-party' in the white house changed the conditions for the extradition of Bin Laden (I don't think they ever really wanted to capture or kill him anyway) so that they could not be met.

Well that would make the opinion of why Canada did participate in the invasion only an opinion.

Pretty sorry excuse for so many dead, and so many more to come.

Oh yes, 'documents seized'.

Would those 'documents' have a living author? Habeus corpus baby, habeus corpus.

Yes Bin Laden is another CIA/NSA creation, just like Saddam, handy that eh?

Oh thank you so much for at least recognizing that there may be some substance to the greivances of the common man in Baghdad.

My favorite organization?

Nope, my favorite organization has had nothing to do with any of these activites.

As to Saddam's evasions, why not, that is the bahaviour of a bully, sort of like the evasions of the current world bully The commander in Chimp: Clueless George!

http://www.cluelessgeorgegoestowar.com/html/clueless_page1.html

more for Colin continued:

...and there was much rejoicing, yay.

perhaps the constant talk of war crimes has the 'trigger-men' becoming a bit more apprehensive about 'simply following orders?'

Those of good conscience need to continue to talk about these events, otherwise the message will be missed by those whom most need to hear it. The private soldiers and corporals whom are most likely to 'pull the trigger' and have to face their own moment at the other end of the equation.

OK, the whole Vietnam reference is interesting but cannot be used as a real reference point here. There is no nearby North Korea or Communist China funneling manpower and weapons into the region, nor threatening nuclear attack on the Americans. So because of it they are behaving very very badly. If the Vietnam comparison must be made then we are closer to 1946-51 situation where the French were just running amok making loads of enemies for anyone coming in later...

OK, this is just garbage.

If tomorrow the Little Green Men from MARS rolled into Vancouver with tanks, shot the occupants of city hall and most of the bureaucrats, then jailed and began torturing any of the policemen that survived their onslaught...would you then have anything but contempt for the 'duly elected government' that followed those others into City Hall that did anything but oppose the continued murder of the citizens of Vancouver?

Now you are trying to tell me that during a time of military occupation with people still being shot, kidnapped, tortured, mutilated, etc that any kind of election can happen?

You are mad.

Good, yes I do see some glimmers of hope, sadly they keep getting stamped down with the jackboots of the US military machine.

If you do ever read about the transition to empire of Rome, pay attention to the effects of first Sulla, then of Sejanus. Currently I see Rumsfeld as the new Sejanus, and I only hope that the transition away from his brutal end can be avoided.

No, but it does make me laugh, then cry, when I consider the end of Pat Bagley's comic and see it coming true more and more every day...

it is not all here:
http://www.cluelessgeorgegoestowar.com/html/clueless_page1.html

but enough is to get the idea, perhaps you could spend less time feeling nasty about things and laugh a little.

Finally for Colin,

Thank you for accusing me of being a liberal or NDP, with others here calling me a neo-con this will place me where I thought I was anyway - in no part of the classical political spectrum.

Cheers

And, just for you, from the TImes of London, just one more indication of how bad things in Baghdad actually are:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2268585_1,00.html

I'll include just a few lines to whet your appetite for the rest of James Hider's report: