From 'Gook' to 'Raghead'

[RightinNYC]

Here's a followup column from today's NY Times. I can hardly wait to read the denials regarding the photos mentioned. Is it really OK to glorify and revel in the killing of anyone?

Does it really surprise you that a soldier who was so against the war that he received CO status would claim that the conditions over there were horrible?

And here's a tidbit of info for Mr. Herbert, although I'm positive he already knows it, but plays dumb: Any and every war is horrible, and if the public saw the photos from any action we took, they would oppose it. Much as they would oppose leaving Iraq alone if we saw any and every photo from Saddam's reign. It's actually surprising that Herbert has stuck to this topic. It seemed uncharacteristically weak for him last time, and this one doesn't improve much.

I'm not denying that any of this happened, because I'm not there and I didn't see it. I'm simply saying that it's not surprising, and to make it out like "What barbarians our troops are, can you believe it?" is disingenuous. Herbert could have just as easily written this column before the war started, and then waited for the first to come back and complain to attach a name to it.

 

[26 X World Champs]

This isn't even possible. First the US military wouldn't have cameras in Iraq and if they did the film would certainly be destroyed in the long transit. It would be stored in damp containers on ocean going ships. It would get wet. It just wouldn't work even if it did make it to Iraq. Second the physic involved in taking the photos would never work. The gravitational pull on that side of the earth messes with the f-stop on the cameras, so they wouldn't work either. So there's no way you could ever have any such photos. This is all a fable. When will you ever learn?

I believe they were employing the Fred Flintstone Camera, you know where the Little Bird pecks the picture onto a stone. I mean, didn't someone here say that Iraqis are back in the stone age?

 

[Pacridge]

Two against one is a bit lopsided don't ya think? The question I have for you is why do you care what happens to the Iraqi people now? You didn't care when Saddam was murdering, torturing, raping or poisoning them, so why now? The NY Times prints these stories just to make the Administration look bad and pander to the left wing hate of the war. It only hurts our men and women in the service. You don't know for a fact what happened, how often it happened, or the circumstances under which it happened.

I cared about the Iraq people prior to the invasion. It's a fairly large leap to go from not being in favor of invading their country to not caring about the people of that country. I care about the people of North Korea as well. I'm certainly not in favor of any military take over.

 

[Pacridge]

Does it really surprise you that a soldier who was so against the war that he received CO status would claim that the conditions over there were horrible?

And here's a tidbit of info for Mr. Herbert, although I'm positive he already knows it, but plays dumb: Any and every war is horrible, and if the public saw the photos from any action we took, they would oppose it. Much as they would oppose leaving Iraq alone if we saw any and every photo from Saddam's reign. It's actually surprising that Herbert has stuck to this topic. It seemed uncharacteristically weak for him last time, and this one doesn't improve much.

I'm not denying that any of this happened, because I'm not there and I didn't see it. I'm simply saying that it's not surprising, and to make it out like "What barbarians our troops are, can you believe it?" is disingenuous. Herbert could have just as easily written this column before the war started, and then waited for the first to come back and complain to attach a name to it.

I agree with a lot of what you've said here. I think you also have to keep in mind these are 'isolated incidents' as the article states. I think that by far the vast majority of our troops are doing the right thing over there. They're trying to cope in a stressful, difficult environment on a daily basis. And I talked to guys returning that tell me about building school rooms and getting power turned on etc... I also read about them doing these things on sites such as the BBC, Yahoo, Reuters and CNN. And yes I've read stories about our troops doing good over there in the Times as well. The simply fact that a few 'bad apples' make the NYT's doesn't mean that the norm. I would think it would make it harder for those 95% that are doing the "right" thing. Because just like here- people don't discuss positive events nearly as much as negative ones. A few bad apples you know.

 

[RightinNYC]

I agree with a lot of what you've said here. I think you also have to keep in mind these are 'isolated incidents' as the article states. I think that by far the vast majority of our troops are doing the right thing over there. They're trying to cope in a stressful, difficult environment on a daily basis. And I talked to guys returning that tell me about building school rooms and getting power turned on etc... I also read about them doing these things on sites such as the BBC, Yahoo, Reuters and CNN. And yes I've read stories about our troops doing good over there in the Times as well. The simply fact that a few 'bad apples' make the NYT's doesn't mean that the norm. I would think it would make it harder for those 95% that are doing the "right" thing. Because just like here- people don't discuss positive events nearly as much as negative ones. A few bad apples you know.

Yea, it happens in every military operation. The picture of the peacekeepers in Bosnia kicking the man in the stomach just floated to the top of my head. When you put young men in an incredibly stressful situation where death is a reality, bad things happen. I just hate to see that fact used to try to condemn the intentions of the military action itself.

 

[Fantasea]

Here's a followup column from today's NY Times. I can hardly wait to read the denials regarding the photos mentioned. Is it really OK to glorify and revel in the killing of anyone?

Since Mr. Herbert's e-mail address is included in his article, I sent him the following, which in my opinion, is innocuous. What's the guess? Will He respond? If he does, I'll post every word.

Dear Mr. Herbert:

I read, with great interest, both stories describing Sgt Delgado's experiences in Iraq.

In this connection, a dispute has arisen and if you can find the time to reply, it would be quite helpful and greatly appreciated.

The bone of contention, as it were, revolves around the following statement which appeared in the first story.

""Guys in my unit, particularly the younger guys, would drive by in their Humvee and shatter bottles over the heads of Iraqi civilians passing by. They'd keep a bunch of empty Coke bottles in the Humvee to break over people's heads."

The concerns expressed are these.

1. Coca Cola available in Iraq is not packaged in bottles.

2. If Coca Cola available in Iraq is packaged in bottles, their capacity would be six ounces.

3. Regardless of capacity, the glass bottle, if grasped in the hand as a weapon, would be difficult to use to strike a person from a moving vehicle. The target would have to be within about one foot of the vehicle moving past him. It is unlikely that a person would remain that close to the path of an oncoming military vehicle.

4. If a bottle swung from a moving vehicle struck the head of a person, the blow would be a glancing one. The bottle would not be likely to break because of its thickness and the relatively short portion of it, which extended beyond the hand that grasped it, which actually came in contact with the head.

5. If, instead, the bottles were thrown, the distance traveled would have to be at least ten feet, and most likely, farther than that. Two factors come into play. Accuracy of aim, and the reduction in velocity of an object as it travels. Glancing, rather than direct blows would still be the norm. The thickness of the glass used in Coca Cola bottles renders breakage against a human head less and less likely as the distance thrown increases.

6. In the event that any target heads were covered by a hat or traditional Iraqi garb, the likelihood of broken glass is further diminished.

I await your response.

Cordially,

 

[Pacridge]

Yea, it happens in every military operation. The picture of the peacekeepers in Bosnia kicking the man in the stomach just floated to the top of my head. When you put young men in an incredibly stressful situation where death is a reality, bad things happen. I just hate to see that fact used to try to condemn the intentions of the military action itself.

I’ll agree with that too. But coming up with crazy hypothesis as to why these events could never happen such as the shipping of Coke products or the physics of throwing a bottle from a moving Humvee or masses in Iraq wearing protective turbans is rather absurd. Doesn’t mean I think our troops are all heartless murdering assh*les. Just means I don’t think any of that makes any sense.

 

[Fantasea]

I received an automated acknowledgment of my email to Bob Herbert. Will there be a follow up to this? Will he respond personally? Will we get some answers? Stay tuned for further developments.

I wonder what I should be concerned about in connection with his admonishment?

Thanks for your thoughtful email. It was greatly appreciated. Please be assured that I read every message but because of the volume I cannot respond individually to each one.
Take care,
Bob Herbert

 

[Fantasea]

I’ll agree with that too. But coming up with crazy hypothesis as to why these events could never happen such as the shipping of Coke products or the physics of throwing a bottle from a moving Humvee or masses in Iraq wearing protective turbans is rather absurd. Doesn’t mean I think our troops are all heartless murdering assh*les. Just means I don’t think any of that makes any sense.

Not to you or me, perhaps, but to the Max Klingers and the Aidan Delgados of the world, it makes complete sense.

 

[RightinNYC]

I’ll agree with that too. But coming up with crazy hypothesis as to why these events could never happen such as the shipping of Coke products or the physics of throwing a bottle from a moving Humvee or masses in Iraq wearing protective turbans is rather absurd. Doesn’t mean I think our troops are all heartless murdering assh*les. Just means I don’t think any of that makes any sense.

I'm with you on that...I've been avoiding getting into that discussion for that very reason.

 

[Fantasea]

I cared about the Iraq people prior to the invasion. It's a fairly large leap to go from not being in favor of invading their country to not caring about the people of that country. I care about the people of North Korea as well. I'm certainly not in favor of any military take over.

It may happen. And sooner than you think.

A BBC quote: "The North Korean leader is said to be a vain playboy, but it is still not clear whether he is a cool strategist or a paranoid fantasist."

Perhaps Kim Jong Il finally got around to seeing the following film and figures, as the Peter Sellers character did, that in allowing the US to defeat him, he would be rewarded with a Marshall Plan type aid package which would rescue his nation from the poverty in which it wallows.

The Mouse That Roared (1959)
Directed by
Jack Arnold

Writing credits
Roger MacDougall
Stanley Mann

Genre: Comedy / War (more)

Plot Outline: An impoverished backward nation declares a war on the United States of America, hoping to lose. (more)

User Comments: Totally wacky and hilarious! (more)

 

[26 X World Champs]

I’ll agree with that too. But coming up with crazy hypothesis as to why these events could never happen such as the shipping of Coke products or the physics of throwing a bottle from a moving Humvee or masses in Iraq wearing protective turbans is rather absurd. Doesn’t mean I think our troops are all heartless murdering assh*les. Just means I don’t think any of that makes any sense.

I do not believe that anyone here is against our soldiers. What I am against is our government putting our soldiers in a position to mistreat. We wouldn't be having this debate if not for the disastrous decision making by Bush.

You know it would be one thing had we actually gone to Iraq to liberate them. We didn't. We were lied to. We went there due to an imminent danger to the USA!

The soldiers are victims too, and Bush is the villain....

 

[RightinNYC]

You know it would be one thing had we actually gone to Iraq to liberate them. We didn't. We were lied to. We went there due to an imminent danger to the USA!

Revisionist history.

Bush made the claim many times before we went to war that we should go to liberate them, but he was shouted down by liberals who said that that was not enough.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Revisionist history.

Bush made the claim many times before we went to war that we should go to liberate them, but he was shouted down by liberals who said that that was not enough.

How can you believe that? Do you have amnesia? I'm not going to recant, again, the obvious. The "liberate Iraq" spin was not why we went there, period. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply not accepting the truth.

Go read Bush's State of the Union speech in 2003 and Powell's presentation to the UN in early 2003.

Are you one of the 33% of Bush voters who still believe that there WERE WMDs in Iraq when we invaded?

 

[Fantasea]

I do not believe that anyone here is against our soldiers. What I am against is our government putting our soldiers in a position to mistreat. We wouldn't be having this debate if not for the disastrous decision making by Bush.

You know it would be one thing had we actually gone to Iraq to liberate them. We didn't. We were lied to. We went there due to an imminent danger to the USA!

The soldiers are victims too, and Bush is the villain....

I wonder why the the military chose to name it, "Operation Iraqi Freedom"?

 

[26 X World Champs]

I wonder why the the military chose to name it, "Operation Iraqi Freedom"?

Propaganda! You think Operation Steal The Oil would have worked?

 

[shuamort]

I wonder why the the military chose to name it, "Operation Iraqi Freedom"?

To sell the operation. Australia and the UK had different names to sell the operation as well (Operation Telic and Operation Falconer respectively).

 

[RightinNYC]

How can you believe that? Do you have amnesia? I'm not going to recant, again, the obvious. The "liberate Iraq" spin was not why we went there, period. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply not accepting the truth.

Go read Bush's State of the Union speech in 2003 and Powell's presentation to the UN in early 2003.

Are you one of the 33% of Bush voters who still believe that there WERE WMDs in Iraq when we invaded?

Really? The "liberate Iraq spin wasn't there?"

I'm REALLY going to enjoy this.

I'll start right where you directed me. SOTU 2003.

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. . . .

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity.

That sure sounds like he's talking about liberating Iraq. Huh. Interesting.

How about this: Bush's address to the UN General Assembly in 2002

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

Sounds like he's putting forth that "liberate Iraq spin" there too, doesn't it?

Or this:

Bringing democracy to Iraq was also stated as one of the reasons for going to war in the congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Iraq.

"Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;" - Bush 2002

"In fact, bringing democracy to Iraq has been this nation's policy since 1998, signed into law by Bill Clinton. And here's what President Clinton said in his own speech way back then"

"The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership. " - Clinton 1998

Dang. That's a pretty clear statement that this war had a foundation in liberating Iraq. But I guess that's just a case of that Right winger clinton spinning things, right?

Your revisionist history is symptomatic of the left. Just a few weeks ago, the NYT noted:

The only plausible reason for keeping American troops in Iraq is to protect the democratic transformation that President Bush seized upon as a rationale for the invasion after his claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be fictitious. If that transformation is now allowed to run off the rails, the new rationale could prove to be as hollow as the original one.

In that editorial, they're clearly implying that Bush never initially mentioned liberating Iraq, but instead seized on it recently. Only problem with this assertion?

The times editorial board, a year before that:

President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a ''free and peaceful Iraq''...

Do you see what is happening? The media has successfully convinced you and numerous others that Bush never wanted to go to war to liberate, when in reality, they had originally criticized him for just that. They've screwed up so bad that they're contradicting themselves.

I can't WAIT for the explaination for this.

 

[Pacridge]

I do not believe that anyone here is against our soldiers. What I am against is our government putting our soldiers in a position to mistreat. We wouldn't be having this debate if not for the disastrous decision making by Bush.

You know it would be one thing had we actually gone to Iraq to liberate them. We didn't. We were lied to. We went there due to an imminent danger to the USA!

The soldiers are victims too, and Bush is the villain....

I don't know of anyone against our troops. Doesn't stop the likes of of Rush Limbaugh from running around telling our troops that Liberals aren't happy because not enough of them are dying on the battlefield. I hear that all the time on right wing radio "liberals hate the troops, liberals hate the troops" It's some mantra. You know what I heard when I listened to Air America? Ads on how to donate to our troops and their families. Strange way to hate people.

 

[Fantasea]

Propaganda! You think Operation Steal The Oil would have worked?

How's your headache coming along?

 

[Mixed View]

Today's Bob Herbert OP-ED piece in the NY Times is truly upsetting. For any of you who think this is some sort of sick liberal bias I suggest that you check out the credentials of all involved. I also realize some of you will say this stuff happens during times of war, but wait until you read about the Coke bottles before you make up your mind. I am curious as to what you all think?

Those are the most retarded people on the planet. When they come home they will have coke bottles smashed over their heads. they shall get beat with intennas of an suvee, and they will have guns pointed at them for no reason. You see. eye for an eye and ear for an ear. That is how it should be done.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I can't WAIT for the explaination for this.

Have you ever considered yourself to be brainwashed? Check it out, you might want to watch The Manchurian Candidate (either version)?

The REASON we went to Iraq was due to the IMMINENT threat posed against the USA by Saddam. He had WMDs, remember? That was THE reason. If your brain has been so scrubbed that you believe the reason we went to Iraq was to liberate them then I would like to offer you an outstanding deal on a great, great apartment I have in Kansas City with terrific views of both the Atlantic & Pacific oceans! Try to find a better value!

Being brainwashed and the victim of propoganda is not your fault. No one chooses to be used like that. I'm sorry that they've reached you.

For an alternative to The Manchurian Candidate you might also watch Invasion of the Body Snatchers (either version).

President Bush's statements on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction

Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the nation, March 17, 2003

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/

Liberate Iraq! Hardee HAR HAR! :ind:

Want more? This is what Bush said in Cincinatti in October 2002.

And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

Source? How about Whitehouse.gov:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

 

[Fantasea]

I don't know of anyone against our troops.

When one's military mission is criticized, how does one not feel personal criticism?

When one is in harms way, how does one feel better knowing that there are those back home whose words and deeds are giving aid and comfort to the very people who are trying to kill him?

When one is obliged to follow military orders, how is one's confidence in one's leaders enhanced by the never ending stream of charges of incompetence leveled against them?

When one returns from the war zone how does one feel to see the media playing up anything that can be remotely construed in a negative light while suppressing positive accomplishments personally witnessed?

Yes, everyone has the right to exercise freedom of speech. They also have the right to exercise freedom of speech irresponsibly. Too many take advantage of both.

 

[Squawker]

Hey Champ, ya need a new perscription for your reading glasses, buddy. RightatNYU had the quotes for liberating Iraq. You just want to look at the WMD quotes. How long are we going to rehash this? Can we find common ground on anything?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Hey Champ, ya need a new perscription for your reading glasses, buddy. RightatNYU had the quotes for liberating Iraq. You just want to look at the WMD quotes. How long are we going to rehash this? Can we find common ground on anything?

All that I'm trying to say is that the reason we went to Iraq was not to "liberate" them. We were told, as I've shown a zillion times, that if we didn't go we would all end up in a mushroom cloud.

The liberate thing was/is a smoke screen. It's a classic CYA....