I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.

" wrote:


Mark Hickey wrote:

I should point out that
the tapes showing Saddam's regime's treatment of prisoners would make
being stacked naked look like a picnic.

We are not defined by what they do. We are defined by our own
principles. If we use your logic, we are allowed to do all sorts of
things, short of hacking their heads off. Rape, torture - it's OK as
long as we don't hack their heads off, right?

But I'm guessing you don't actually believe that.

Of course not - and I'm very happy that the guards responsible for the
mistreatment are being punished. My point is that it's disingenuous
(at best) for someone to be horrified by those abuses without making a
sound about the much, much greater ones being performed by those we're
at war with.

OTOH, we have terrorists sawing the heads off hostages, others blowing
up women and children... which doesn't seem to produce a whit of
outrage among those complaining the loudest about AG.

That's because they are rightly judging our own by the high standards
we have set for ourselves.

And we ARE living up to that. We're punishing those who stray from
those "high standards" and in fact are staying well below the
internationally accepted limits (contrary to what some would have you
believe).

Why do you suppose some are searching so dilligently for any misstep
by the US, and shouting anything they find from the highest rooftop -
all while giving a pass to those who kill innocents by the dozen?

Strawman. Nobody is giving anyone a pass.

Funny - I don't ever seem to hear anyone (well, other than me or Bill
S) even mention that the "other side" ain't exactly choir boys.

I expect barbarians to do barbaric acts. I do not expect Americans to
do barbaric acts. That is why we are different from them. And better.

It's a step in the right direction to admit that we're not as bad as
the bad guys in the play I suppose...

Their conduct is not the yardstick by which we measure behavior - our
*principles* are the yardstick by which we measure behavior. And when
we violate our own principles, we need to call those who do it on the
carpet.

The problem is, to a large group of people "we" means "any individual
remotely connected with the US" can bring their hasty condemnation.
Witness the backlash over a few idiot guards in one prison. They've
extrapolated that to "the US government is corrupt and evil and
condone torture".

And keep in mind one thing: the worst of what we do to our prisoners
is the *best* that can be expected if our boys/girls ever get taken
prisoner. So we'd better make sure our worst is principled. Since I
have family members on the ground over there, this is personal for me.

I couldn't agree more with you which is why (again) I'm so glad to see
those responsible for the prison abuse punished. It's horrible to
think that their selfish, twisted acts put other military personnel in
more danger. But in the end, those we're fighting are just sick
*******s - we could put all prisoners in a five-star hotel with daily
massage and it wouldn't change how they treat their prisoners.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

" wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

The fact remains that the vast majority of statesmanship is done over
the phone.

Yeah, the POTUS telecommutes.

This is actually NEWS to you? Perhaps you think GWB is the first
President to handle most of his diplomacy over the phone? Wow.

Good one - I'll have to add that to the list of howlers I have going.

You're easily amused, I take it...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
...
"cc" wrote:


"Bill Sornson" wrote in
message
.. .
Mark Hickey wrote:

Why do you suppose some are searching so dilligently for any misstep
by the US, and shouting anything they find from the highest rooftop -
all while giving a pass to those who kill innocents by the dozen?

Are you kidding me ?!!!

How about when WE kill innocents - e.g. Iraqi civilians - by the dozen?
Covered? No.

It got lots of coverage. Where do you get your news?

Not enough, and not as much as our "noble cause"


The groundless detention and mistreatment of foreign nationals (who are
quite often free to go when they are *finally* returned to their homeland)
at Guantanamo? Hardly.

"Groundless detention"??? Hoo boy. You know of course that the
majority have been released - and many of THOSE have been killed or
recaptured trying to kill more US servicemen and women, right?

I'm not talking about all of them, but there are some horrific stories of
detention without grounds. Regardless of their crime, specifically intending
to violate rights guaranteed by the Geneva Convention (such that you have to
call up your buddies like John Roberts and give them a job as a Supreme
Court Justice to allow you such a privilege) is just plain wrong.


The displacement of millions of Palestinians with the use of US funds?
Funny
how in the media the Israelis are the poor displaced ones, isn't it? Not
really. Israel is the biggest recipient of foreign aid in the world,
thanks
to us.

So? Why wouldn't we prop up the one real democracy in the middle
east?

At what cost?


The list really goes on and on. If you think the media is biased left, you
should look again. Or try reading.

Funny - I read through the above, and don't see any mention of
terrorists killing hundreds of innocents, of PLO and other groups
blowing up hundreds of innocents. But you're not gonna miss a few
prisoners being photographed nude by a few renegade US guards, are
you?

The PLO and the IDF are both guilty of terrorist activities to further their
agendas. Terrorist activities against the US are also seen from this
perspective.

As has been pointed out previously, we need to set a standard. We are not
doing so. In any case, the blatant disrespect that the actions at AG showed
is just unacceptable, pointless, and not good for anyone. I also find it
hard to believe that it was a few "renegade guards." This sounds too
familiar to the "bad apple" argument pushed so long about corporate fraud.
Not buying it.

Are you living on some other planet?

Than you? Probably.

I can see disagreeing on personal philosophy on many of the above points,
but I honestly do not see how someone paying attention could say our media
is biased toward the left wing. It is owned by transnational corporations,
whose dollars buy a lot of lobbying - albeit on both sides(of our so-called
two party system, but that's another issue). It would be far from
self-serving for these media outlets to act as disseminators of dissident
opinion, and they are far from that. In fact, our media very much reflects
the interests of its owners.

Bill Sornson wrote:
Raptor wrote:


This war was a bad idea from the beginning. Anyone who looked at the
available information knew that.


Like Hillary, Kerry, Edwards...

They have been proved right.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

Mark Hickey wrote:
Raptor wrote:


Bill Sornson wrote:

cc wrote:


That's all anyone needs to see or hear. Comparing Hitler's Nazi Jew-killing
thugs to Coalition forces in Iraq.

No wonder you post anonymously...

Compare them to what you wish. Latest news is that the abuse of
prisoners is more widespread than we thought, Abu Graib being just one
example. This is not acceptable. Where is the outrage?


I see plenty of indignation over any legitimate abuse that occurred at
AG. Heck, it was front page on the New York Times for weeks.
Fortunately, those who are responsible are being punished
appropriately - that's how our system works. I should point out that
the tapes showing Saddam's regime's treatment of prisoners would make
being stacked naked look like a picnic.

OTOH, we have terrorists sawing the heads off hostages, others blowing
up women and children... which doesn't seem to produce a whit of
outrage among those complaining the loudest about AG.

Why do you suppose some are searching so dilligently for any misstep
by the US, and shouting anything they find from the highest rooftop -
all while giving a pass to those who kill innocents by the dozen?

The only passes I see being handed out are by people who actually try to
argue that we're so much better.

It's NOT about them. It's NOT about who our enemy is.

It is about US: you, me, our country.

WHO are we? WHAT do we stand for? WHAT is this war about, again?

The prisoner abuse is not acceptable, and anyone who tries to make it
look "not so bad" is flat wrong. To do so is to deny your sense of honor
and discipline, if indeed you have any. To refrain from swooping down
like an avenging angel on this cancer that has invaded the ranks of our
military is a source of shame to all Americans, whether we ever wore the
uniform or not.

Being "the better guy" in this fight is not good enough. We need to be
"the good guy." We are not.

This is just another example of our ahem leaders leading us astray.
Like the other myriad missteps, this will take years to redress.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

Bill Sornson wrote:
Mark Hickey wrote:
Why do you suppose some are searching so dilligently for any misstep
by the US, and shouting anything they find from the highest rooftop -
all while giving a pass to those who kill innocents by the dozen?


Two words: media bias.

Bill "left out 'blatant'" S.

Two words: no honor.

(The media is biased against whoever's in charge.)

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

wrote:
[other good stuff]
And keep in mind one thing: the worst of what we do to our prisoners
is the *best* that can be expected if our boys/girls ever get taken
prisoner. So we'd better make sure our worst is principled. Since I
have family members on the ground over there, this is personal for me.

E.P.

You get it! You certainly do.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

Bill Sornson wrote:
wrote:

Their conduct is not the yardstick by which we measure behavior - our
*principles* are the yardstick by which we measure behavior. And when
we violate our own principles, we need to call those who do it on the
carpet.


We do. And did.

The second you cite "their" behavior as mitigating, you betray yourself.
That's just a personal problem when it happens, but our frat-boy
president (and/or other leaders) does it too, and it then becomes a
national problem.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

Bill Sornson wrote:
G.T. wrote:

"Bill Sornson" wrote in
message ...

Man, if a pro-Bushie wrote that last part, he or she would be
attacked big-time.


Yeah, they would be accused of hypocrisy.

Only from the American left. The criticism from abroad would be about
perceived arrogance -- but at least they know that America won't resort to
car bombs in public squares and decapitating hostages.

Big deal. Some cultures fear humiliation more than death.

Is that the message you want some furriner to get when they see a US
soldier? "At least they won't decapitate me."

Doesn't that sound at least a little pathetic to you?

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

Raptor wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:
Raptor wrote:


This war was a bad idea from the beginning. Anyone who looked at the
available information knew that.


Like Hillary, Kerry, Edwards...

They have been proved right.

They all voted FOR the war, so I guess you're correct! LOL