Jim

Maybe they would be better off under Saddam. Maybe they wouldn't. It is not American right to make those decisions. Maybe the terrorists think American people would be better under a different government, so they tried to blow up the Pentagon?

Come on. We're not talking about the difference between our form of government and a parliamentary system. You know that most Iraqi's were not "deciding" to stay under Saddam. He was a despot but, if they want despotism, they will be able to have their say soon enough.

You bemoan any civilians caught in a crossfire but have no sympathy for those killed intentionally by a tyrant. I mourn innocent life lost but objectively Iraqis are better off today than they were before the invasion. They have a chance for freedom.

We were right to think that most Iraqi's would rather govern themselves. If terrorists think that most American people would prefer to live under a religious dictatorship, they are wrong.

My point is that America went into Iraq based on a belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass distruction. They did not.

Wrong. Saddam had the burden of proving that he disarmed. We extracted this concession as a price for leaving him in power after Gulf War I. Saddam invaded a strategically important US ally, lost, agreed to disclose the destruction of his WMDs and then violated that aggreeement even as US forces were building up to attack. It would have been an easy matter to prove what happened to the WMDs but, for what seems to be irrational reasons, he did not. This is not too surprising in that he irrationally attacked Kuwait in the first place and also tried to assassinate a former US president.

Saddam had to go but as a side benefit his atrocities have ceased and Iraq has a chance at freedom. It takes just a bit of imagination to realize that the reality as it exists today is much better for Iraqis.

However, America has stayed in Iraq and this has caused a lot of innocent deaths. You think its for the good of the Iraqi people? Tell that to the mothers who lost children as a result of the American invasion. Tell that to the mothers of dead American soldiers. The war is unjustified. The terrorists in Iraq are a tiny minority. It is not logical to bomb an entire nation to get to a few bad guys.

I would tell them what I just told you. We are there because of the entire history of Saddam as it played out from 1991 forward.

Depends how many innocent people will be sacrificed in hunt for Osama. As a fundamentalist leader, he can be replaced. Lives lost can not.

You said the "death of a leader will only encourage more fundamentalists to retaliate and seek revenge." Why does it depend on how many innocent people are "sacrificed?" Sounds like you would oppose killing Osama regardless of the number of collateral deaths.

Do you know what makes fundamentalists? Its not one guy brainwashing people. Its when a child loses his/hers parent as a result of American bombing and they have nothing to live for but revenge. When a father loses an only daughter. When someones house is destroyed and they have to watch their children starve to death. That's what causes fundamentalists. When you have lost everything, you are an easy person to persuade to become a suicide bomber.

If you are serious about looking for the causes of terrorism, I cannot recommend reading Bernard Lewis enough. tHE Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing acknowleges that Lewis has emerged as "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East."

No matter how many 'leaders' America kills, the seed of hate has already been planted in Iraq.

So, we should cut and run regardless of the consequences? We should abandon the courageous Iraqis who have come forward to join the police forces and man the government?

So why don't they pay property taxes? Not that you could ever ever ever do away with the arrangement in a hundred years, but do any of you actually think this is right?

I believe the idea is that the power to tax is the power to destroy so this is a power government does not have over religion. I'd have to think about this quite a bit more, and research the history, before coming to a conclusion. My gut reaction is that they should pay property and income taxes.

What's the significance of that, though? It's really just the statistics involved; a smaller city will have a higher chance that two randomly chosen people know each other. Have a similar event happen in a town of 1000 and the fraction goes up even further.

It is probably as irrelevant as is the total number of deaths to the amount of per capita compensation which should be awarded. As I said from the beginning, the first step is to consider the principles involved which justify compensation. Only then can we assess whether we should compensate.

America need to seriously consider their foreign policy, and the image they project to the world.

There is no reason to say that we have not "seriously considered" our foreign policy. You may disagree but at least give us the credit that we do think about this war in which we have staked our reputation and lives.

If the policy is correct, the image will follow. If Iraq turns into a stable democracy the benefits are incalculable.

Above all, my emphasis is, if this is a "war", as it has been so often labelled, it is a mental, social and ideological war, that permeates much further than the cold war ever did to this level. The world will never defeat this enemy, unless it reanalyses its values seriously, and takes action in this direction to change itself.

This was a war to remove Saddam. It has succeeded on this level and no we are trying to achieve aditional benefits.

What are the "values" to which are you referring and what actions, specifically, do we need to take to change ourselves?

Can anyone spare a though for the dead woman and children that died during this USA air strike? Only a naive person could think that the death of Zarqawi will make the situation any better in Iraq. If anything, it will get worst. The death of a leader will only encourage more fundamentalists to retaliate and seek revenge. The whole war is largely unjustified and too many innocent people have died on both sides.

It's hard to respond to this post because it assumes so much. It declares that the Iraq war was not justified and appears to assume that the innocent Iraqi people would be better off today under Saddam. It also appears to put no blame one Zarqawi for putting civilians in harms way. It ignores the situation of the Iraqi citizen who may appreciate that Saddam does not rule this country but has hunkered down to see which way the war will fall.

It also proves way too much. If "the death of a leader will only encourage more fundamentalists to retaliate and seek revenge," then we should immediately cease trying to kill Osama.

Don't you do this in the US already?

I thought they just got an insurance policy that was no where near the millions that went to 9/11 survivors.

There's one distinction that must be made' date=' I think. US military, especially today with the all-volunteer system, have an inkling of what they're getting themselves into. You sign your name (repeatedly) on the dotted line, and while you may never visualize yourself getting hurt or killed, it's a risk that's explicitly part of the job. That's not true (or true to a much, much lesser extent) of someone that works in an office building.

 

I don't know what the situation is today, but I recall having $50k of GI life insurance when I was in the navy. Don't remember if that was standard or you could opt-in/opt-out, though.[/quote']

 

Doing a bit of research, it appears that part of the reason this fund was made was to justify cutting off liability of airplanes, airports, etc:

 

Because of concerns that liability claims would clog the courts and create further economic harm, the federal government limited the liability of airlines, airports and certain government bodies. The government established the Victim Compensation Fund to make payments to families for the deaths and injuries of victims. In addition, the government funded a major economic revitalization program for New York City.

 

I suppose this makes sense however, the amounts involved are staggering:

 

Civilians killed or seriously injured received a total of $8.7 billion, averaging about $3.1 million per recipient. Most of this came from the Victim Compensation Fund, but payments also came from insurance companies, employers and charities.

 

Another rationale is to simply refuse to let terroritsts succeed. If terrorists attack us we are not going to let them impoverish families. This rationale should apply equally to domestic terrorism.

 

As far as the relative impact of the act on the community, hands down 9/11 was a vastly more significant event. However, as was noted in the Chicago Tribune:

 

It turns out, though, that while the Sept. 11 attacks were vastly more devastating in both human and economic terms, the Oklahoma City bombing was a more intimate crime. Officials here estimate that more than one-third of the 1 million people in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area knew someone who was killed or injured in the bombing.

 

It does seem strange that 9/11 victims are overnight millionares whereas the OKC bombing famlies are in some cases destitute:

 

"Everybody thought that all the people from the bombing were taken care of," said Tim Hearn, who quit a promising college basketball career to return home and care for his four younger siblings after his mother was killed in the bombing. "That's how the media made it look. But it wasn't nothing like that. We're living day by day."

 

The site where the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building once stood was long ago covered over by a striking memorial. A modernistic--and blast-resistant--new federal building stands defiantly across the way. The scarred downtown has been sleekly remade.

 

But 10 years after the Oklahoma City bombing, which killed 168 people and injured 842 others, the shock waves are still radiating outward.

 

Families in poverty

 

Despite more than $40 million in donations that streamed into Oklahoma City in the days after the bombing to help the victims, more than 60 families of modest means were thrown into such poverty as a result of deaths or injuries that they must still rely on charities to meet their basic needs. Another 70 victims are still receiving psychiatric care.

indeed. She lacks all semblance of tact.

 

 

 

Well' date=' that's just ridiculous. How can you expect funding for the OKC bombing to match that of 9/11?

 

168 people were killed as opposed to 2,000. And, it was carried out by a relatively small, political powerless group, as opposed to a huge terrorist cell with the full support of foriegn governments.[/quote']

 

This all begs the question of the principle behind the compensation to 9/11 victims. If I understood that principle, I could comment on whether the facts you cite distinguish the two cases.

 

Personally, I think if we are going to compensate anyone it should be the families of soldiers who die or are maimed.

I must admit to having some sympathy for her point of view. I don't think the deaths of people in 9/11 were any more tragic than people dieing of cancer or in automobile accidents. As someone who is not American (and live in the country which has been plague by terrorists for decades) I found myself a little bemused by the extreme emotional reaction that 9/11 caused. And it definitely does look like some of the widows are 'milking it'.

I agree there is a grain of truth to what she wrote BUT she always goes several steps beyond necessary. Tucker Carlson said the other night that he thinks she must have masochistic tendencies.

I will also say that there is some resentment in my home state as to the relative financial treatment of the 9/11 vrs the OKC bombing victims.

I think Alan Colmes has Ann Coulter figured out. She's a troll. She's no different from revprez. She says things which are controversial for two reasons: to get a rise out of people who disagree with her' date=' and to get attention.

 

The best way to deal with people like her is to ignore her. DNFT.[/quote']

 

Guys, shouldn't we get over revprez, eventually.

 

Like it or not, she has a valid point. When she talks about the specific 9/11 widows who have taken an outspoken political stance, those people are fair game, and that particular interpretation, while nasty, is a valid one.

 

I agree that if you enter the public arena you are fair game and that she may have some valid points about specific widows. HOWEVER, sheesh, to say what she said seems self-destructive. I know she doesn't pull punches but good grief, to say that never have widows enjoyed the deaths of their husbands?

If you've not seen the clip, it's worth watching. "I Have Never Seen People Enjoying their Husbands’ Death So Much??" Yowzers.

Yipeee! That being said' date='

 

Far more terrorists have been mobized because of the war in Iraq, then have been disuaded by Zaquwi's death. The beneficiaries Bush's "leadership" of the war on terrorism have been Al Queda, and the military industrial complex.[/quote']

 

Yet those newly mobilized terrorists have not attacked any United States targets.

 

As a side note, ABC reports that Arabic networks are emphasizing the harm resulting from killing Zarqawi. By this logic should stop looking for Osama.

I think a family should have the option to have a private funeral' date=' in which case there would also be no option for the media to be present. If they do not opt for a private service, and use it as a soap box to make political statements to the media, then in general protesting should be permitted.

 

I don't like the idea of people using funerals to make soap box statements free from the risk of protesters, but if they are just there to mourn the loss of a loved one, they should be able to do so in peace.[/quote']

 

I assumed they were protesting only in the public points of ingress and egress from private funerals. I'd want to read this bill before coming to a conclusion but it does make me nervous.

Pangaloss was right: this is revprezing, along with defending it by classifying it as 'calling a spade a spade'.

Behold the posthumous power of rezprez. His name has now become a verb.

Without reviewing the whole thread to see who said what, I can see how the question of bigotry could be a legitimate topic of debate. I suppose it all comes down to the race analogy. 1. Is the discrimination based upon an immutable characteristic? 2. Has the class at issue been subjected to a long term history of damaging discrimination? 3. How compelling is the state interest in the discrimination?

1. Probably. I'm willing to be educated on this issue.

2. Yes, albeit not as severely as were African Americans.

3. There was no good faith argument that there was a state interest in discriminating against African Americans. Is there a good faith argument that there is a legitimate state interest in not allowing gays to marry?

The analogy is imperfect but not frivolous.

I doubt very much whether Zarqawi's death has an anti-morale effect because (a) their morale derives from religious fervour whipped up by moslem clerics. As far as I know he was no such thing. (b) The terrorist structure is based on cells acting autonomously. Any broken links re-grow organically.

 

They have adopted well tried and documented standard communist insurgency methods. Named leaders are important for publicity purpose only. There are a thousand more waiting to fill the breach.

 

It makes good propaganda only for the forces of occupation.

This makes a difference on two levels. The more invincible Zarqawi seemed' date=' the more emboldened his followers would become. From the coalition perspective, Osama, as the democrats like to remind us, has not been caught and I'm sure the failure to capture or kill Zarqawi while our allies constantly took hits was damaging to morale.

The more Iraqis believe this war is winnable the more of them will take a risk to join the police forces, provide tips, etc.

There's little question that this helps although no one is claiming a few deaths will end all terrorist attacks.

Edit: Here's a collection of National Review comments on the issue. My personal hero, Victor Hanson, writes:

Zarqawi’s death is very important at this juncture, for symbolic in addition to operational reasons. Although al Qaeda in Iraq was decentralized, the loss of its prime strategist there will insidiously have long-term repercussions. And in the short-term it adds to the sense of momentum following Prime Minister Maliki’s selection of the remaining key three cabinet posts, in addition to tranquilizing, if only for a few days, the media’s obsession with Haditha. The Americans were wise to lower expectations, give center stage credit to the Iraqis, and note that Saddam’s capture likewise did not end the insurgency. Yet in a region where honor and sway are everything, the demise of this mass murderer only adds to the prestige of the new government at a time when it was desperately needed.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1658782.htm

 

 

 

Does this event change anyone's perspective on the situation in Iraq? Does it in some way justify the record numbers of deaths which have occured in the past month?

It's a good thing. I would not justify deaths caused by terrorists with the death of another terrorist.

Their relationship doesn't need validation from Christians, just the secular Republic they live within and support with their tax dollars.

Validation isn't the right word but we all do want to be accepted. You could give gays all the legal rights of married people without calling it a marriage. I don't think this would be, nor should be, acceptable to gays.

I can't see any ground for the religious argument any more than I can see the FDA being offensive to Islamic and Jewish people due to their approval of pork based meats. Does allowing pork to be classified as a proper editable meat and non-kosher foods "cheapen" or "threaten" religous peoples' choice to eat kosher and non-pork meats?

Could you see a religious argument if you believed that marriage was an institution created by God for men and women?

I am yet to see a single example of how allowing gay people to marry hurts me or any other individual in this country. Offend their religious views...yes...offend their hardwired instincts on sexual attraction...yes' date=' but harm....yet to see any evidence for it.

[/quote']

 

I would vote to allow gay marriage were I in a state legislator (which means I could never be in the Oklahoma state legislature); however, for many Christians marriage is a religious, as well as legal, institution. When you say it offends their religious views, you are saying that it violates the primary purpose of this institution for them. They would argue that the reason gays want marriage, not just civil unions, is to obtain that validation of their relationship.

 

When religious people say marriage is between a man and a woman they are speaking, usually, in a religious sense. I disagree with this POV but usually I do not second guess their sincerity. In this instance, I do because it is so blatantly political. Next we get a flag burning amendment etc. It smacks of desperation.

It's a stupid statement (on Reid's part) because a lot more than 24 Iraqis (like several orders of magnitude more) have been killed by American soldiers. The difference being that most of those were accidental' date=' caused by proximiting bombing or stray fire, but in this particular case it looks more like a deliberate act. But he can't SAY that about Haditha yet because it hasn't been tested in court, so the best he can do is allude to it in a false and idiotic manner. He's just being a petty demogogue here. But that's typical for Washington, and the statement in general doesn't bother me more than most of the garbage that seeps out of the beltway these days.

 

Regarding the subject of the Haditha incident itself, I find myself in rare agreement with the left. The incident (if it's true) should not have happened, the fact that it did strongly indicates a larger problem with troop training and morale, and the obvious cover-up is beyond inexcusible.[/quote']

 

I don't see the massacre, if that's what happened, indicates a larger problem with troop training. I'm not sure how a problem with troop training could lead to a massacre of civilian men, women and children. If there was a systematic problem, we'd have other cases. Maybe we do but there is no proof of that as of yet.

 

I agree it could be indicative of a problem with this group's morale. It depends on what happened. It could be that there was a charismatic sociopath that led a group astray. We just don't know. It seems chauvinistic for Americans (not talking about you here, Pangloss) to assume that we can't have bad actors in our military. I guess that's the problem with idealizing the troops that it is hard to simply assign fault with the young man or men, no matter how dire the circumstances who shoot a helpless child (if that's what happened).

 

In any event, I would like to think that if I were a politician I would not use a massacre by US troops as a political talking point. There are a variety of reasons this seems beyond the pale, out of bounds, or whatever metaphor you want to use to say, "let's for God's sake act in our common interest and not use this politically." Let's understand it as best we can, punish the bad actors up and down the chain of command, keep it in some historical context, improve training if we can, address morale issues but let's not include it in a laundry list of talking points. Talk about it as a matter of national soul searching, consider the policy implications but this is not an issue on which our leaders should make glib political points.

I just love how if you want to push a law thats unconstitutional, from flag burning to banning rights of certian minorties, you make it a constitutional amendment.

In theory, I don't have a problem with the people refining their Consititution. In this instance, my BS meter is pegged to the max.

You should probably start a separate thread on Haditha under a more appropriate subject line. I'd hate to see this one get derailed.

 

You have an interesting point about the timing of the gay marriage amendment. I'm sure that it is part of the ongoing push to recapture the base and bring up those approval ratings so he can get a last shot at passing some legislation.

 

Unfortunately I don't think it's going to work' date=' and in fact I think it's going to backfire. The additional attention to this issue is going to lead to public opinion turning AWAY from the "traditional/conservative" side on this issue.

 

But hey, I've been wrong before.[/quote']

 

I think you are right. They've gone to this well one too many times.

I'm repulsed by Reid's blatant use of Haditha along with another laundry list of complaints.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Democratic_leader_enumerates_issues_gay_marriage_0605.html

Raging in Iraq is an intractable war. Our soldiers are fighting valiantly, but we have Abu Ghraib and Haditha—where 24 or more civilians were allegedly killed by our own—and no policy for winning the peace.

What an irrational mishmash of concepts. Atrocities occur in war, sometimes by military "necessity" (How could airborne troops make prisoners of every German that surrendered the night before D-Day and still accomplish their objectives?) and other times simply because a kid with enough firepower to level a small city blows a fuse. The ultimate test of character is not adversity but is to be given power over other human beings and Americans, like all nationalities, will fail this test from time to time.

You won't get such things to simply "stop" and to act like this is a question of Presidential leadership is false and cynical in the extreme. I can accept cynical politics in some areas but not in questions of national security.

As Americans we are ashamed when our own commit atrocities and we should insist on prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. If those up the chain of command tried to cover this up, they should also pay the fullest price allowed by due process.

However, it should stay out of the political sphere. I had been fairly encouraged that not many had tried to use Haditha for political ends.

Edit: Note Reid's sleight of hand: First he praises the troops when it was troops that caused the atrocity and then mixes the issue with that of the war being a stalemate. Well, sorry, but if Haditha is as reported it was the fault of the troops involved and, to a lesser extent, those who tried to cover up the atrocity. It's a question of personal responsibility.

Look at that again in slow motion: The troops are valiant and "...24 or more civilians were allegedly killed by our own—and no policy for winning the peace..." Is he excusing the atrocity of the few troops involved just so he can make political hay at a higher level? Seems so to me.

(Pangloss edit: Fixed the URL.)

I allow for the strong feelings which might exist on this issue on both sides yet the timing appears cynical, the remedy disproportionate to the pretext and, worst of all, Republicans are provoking a pissing match on hollowed ground. I defend the Bush administration these days more than most here, sometimes out of a contrarian stubbornness. Not this time.

Two wrongs do not make a right but Reid's diatribe qualified for a far distant second place "outrage of the week:"

Raging in Iraq is an intractable war. Our soldiers are fighting valiantly, but we have Abu Ghraib and Haditha—where 24 or more civilians were allegedly killed by our own—and no policy for winning the peace.

How can any American make political hay out of Haditha? This is a week where there are no limits.

We abuse freedom to the farthest extent (which is fine...but).

Could you explain what you mean by this?

What are we doing? Sweet F.A. Except to make them legal by hook or crook so that they don't show up on official statistics as illegals.

 

Why? You would be bored to tears before I listed 25% of them. But how about these:

 

1. Once they are in' date=' and in the system even with forged papers, they contribute to the tax take and have votes. What politician is going to chuck away votes and revenue?

 

2. Bleeding heart Liberals. (You might call them left wing democrats) whose kneejerk reaction is to scream "abuse of human rights" and demand loads of public money to defend illegal actions because the perpetrators are poor, misunderstood, and sweet innocent victims of broken homes, vicious regimes and economic deprivation. They call themselves civil rights activists. The fact they make a nice living out of it is purely accidental.

 

3. The Treaty of Rome, aka, Common Market, aka European Union. Formed with good intentions to lock Germany and France into economic handcuffs to prevent another war. Now a bureaucratic beanfeast with Napoleonic delusions of grandeur. It is now so big and unwieldy with holes in its borders that make your Mexican border look like the Berlin wall.

 

So you have heard nothing because we can't and wont do anything. You have my sympathies, but dont look to us for positive news.[/quote']

 

 

Heh, for some strange reason this makes me feel slightly better.

It didn't seem we ever got a satisfactory answer as to what the Brits are doing to control their own borders. I received an emails with a bunch of Arabic protesters carrying outrageous signs ("slay those who insult islam;" "Europe is the Cancer; Islam is the Answer;" "Islam will Dominate the World.").

My first reaction was assume that this was a put up job, so I went to snopes who actually validated the photos.

This has me wondering if Britain borders might be as out of control as our own.