Why only a handful of grunts paid for the unspeakable crimes of Abu Ghraib - Page 2

It's a perfectly satisfactory answer.

You can't broker peace among people who are spoiling for a fight.

Until China gets powerful enough, the aftermath of WWII continues to define the international political landscape.

Pax Americana means peace in Europe and the Pacific. As a result, the world is more prosperous than ever.

I'm not up on the history of the founding of Israel, and Wikipedia didn't shed much light on the matter. I know that Marshall (the greatest American strategic thinker of the 20th Century) was against the idea, but Truman was for it. Come to think of it, I should learn more about this. Can you or anyone else recommend a good book on the matter?

In that case, there is no doubt. Gonzales, who never should have gotten the job in the first place, should go.

So why doesn't the US act as moderator for each and every international conflict in the same manner? No, this coupled with the US's record of unilaterally vetoing UN resolutions concerning Israel, and just Israel, speaks more to me of Israel specifically being the US's proxy in the middle east. In the eyes of the US government, Israel, and only Israel, can do no wrong.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Besides, that has nothing to do with the US brokering peace in one particular conflict. The world won't suddenly become less prosperous (except for the defense contractors' stock portfolios) if the US bowed out of the Israel/Palestine conflict altogether. Nothing about the current world situation says to me that the US must be involved in this. Canada or Brazil or Holland could all do this despite the fact that the US was one of the allied nations in World War II.

There's no doubt in many cases. Didn't a gaggle of Republican congressmen storm the White House recently, hand Bush a dictionary open to 'C', and tell him he has no credibility? I think they did. And they're right.

Do you believe the US's claims regarding Iran even though IAEA inspections do not support those claims?

Anyway, I'm not saying the US must be barred from the peace process (although the Bush Administration doesn't seem all that interested in such a peace, so maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea) just wondering why them, and why always them? If the answer is 'Might makes right, and we say so,' then that's the answer.

Dude, that's always the answer.

I think the Bush II Administration has given Israel much more latitude than previous administrations, and it reaped domestic political gains because of that (gains which it has since frittered away). I don't think of Israel as a US proxy so much as a US headache, but I do think of Israel as our unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Eastern Mediterranean.

The US did bow out of the conflict during the Bush Administration. Bush stopped trying to broker a deal, thinking the situation hopeless until the two sides were actually ready to make said deal. As we know, the situation deteriorated dramatically.

Having said that, the US hasn't prevented other nations from stepping up to the Plate. Saudi Arabia tried to broker peace between Hamas and Fatah. Yesterday, Egypt offered to host a summit including Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and other players, and I don't think we were invited (though I do think we'll be there in an unofficial capacity).

I'm dubious about it because it's coming from this administration. If the next administration comes in and levels the same charges, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. These guys, though - well, they're going to have to make a hell of a case.

Might doesn't make right, but it does make the rules.

I don't know how you can think of them as a US military asset but not as a proxy for the US. That's what a proxy is. Someone or something that acts in the name of someone or something else.

I don't think the US bowed out, I think it encouraged Israel at every turn.

Glad to hear it.

Why? The argument either has merit, or it does not. The US's claims are either supported by the evidence, or it is not. Why would the same argument, with the same lack of evidence, have more weight if it comes from the mouth of someone other than Bush? What will you do if the IAEA continues to show the US's claims are false? Suddenly declare them to be wrong or lying?

I don't know why the next batch would get a blank check. I can understand not automatically assuming they're lying like you would regarding the current bunch, but claims still require evidence.

I'm drawing the distinction between a potential asset and a proxy. A potential asset is something that's out there and that you may be able to use in the future. For example, perhaps you ask me to do you a service. Someday, and that day may never come, I'll call upon you to do a service for me. A proxy, on the other hand, is a tool; and Israel is a tool for no nation: Israel is strictly looking out for Israel.

Yes. Until proven otherwise, I would assume that the President had better information than I or the IAEA did.

If the President of the United States says it then, as far as I'm concerned, it's true until that President is proven unreliable.

I told you once, no. I'm not interested in choking your chicken.


That's very odd. Bush claims, right now, that Iran is doing something. There is no evidence this is the case. We both agree there's no reason to believe Bush. If exactly the same case is made using exactly the same evidence by a President Romney (yech) on January 21, 2009, it suddenly has merit? Whereas the day before, when Bush was still president, it did not?

Not me, and I've never even been to Missouri. It's either true or it's not, and that is the case even if the man making the claim had never been born. Politics is one area where skepticism is particularly important. An amateur paleontologist or physicist or whatever is likely to be wrong in good faith, but a politician is likely to be actively trying to deceive.

Anyway, the point is not whether or not you're right or wrong to be such a trusting soul. The point is that you aren't the only one, and it's not hard to imagine people supporting torture for the same reason you're inclined to take the President at his word: he's the President.

As for soldiers supporting this business, I imagine loyalty to one another runs pretty deep. You'd know better than I. You're the Good Guys. Who's going to rat out their fellow Good Guys, especially in a war zone where if you're not cop, you're little people.

Or maybe Terry Pratchett was on to something when he wrote my signature.

(Which I'm thinking of changing, rendering this post even more nonsensical than my usual fare.)

To tell you the truth, I don't think I do. The only time I see guys who'd even be in the polling sample is when I'm flying the wounded home. Even then, I'm not interacting with them beyond saying hello and heading up to the flight deck.