Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iraqi POW Scandal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Iraqi POW Scandal

    Should sec. of defense Rumsfeld resign?
    32
    Yes
    40.63%
    13
    No
    37.50%
    12
    I don't have enough information to decide
    21.88%
    7

    "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
    --Frederick II, King of Prussia

  • #2
    Why?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Priest
      Why?
      Because he's in charge and his job can be sacrificed in the interest of showing the Arab world that serious action is being taken. I don't really know if anything other than converting all of USA to Islam will ever satisfy the Arab world but it might be a good step.
      Last edited by MonsterZero; 05 May 04, 21:27.

      "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
      --Frederick II, King of Prussia

      Comment


      • #4
        Hello, I'm Priest and I approved this post.

        No, Rumsfeld can't be held responsible for that. This isn't going to go much higher than the commanding General of the prison.

        Comment


        • #5
          I say he should resign unless the soldiers were acting directly on orders from his office.

          And you hit the reason on the head...

          Originally posted by MonsterZero
          I don't really know if anything other than converting all of USA to Islam will ever satisfy the Arab world but it might be a good step.
          ...they'll never be satisfied. Swift justice is what those involved should get. This shouldn't turn into the political witch hunt I'm sure is brewing at the DNC right now.

          This episode demonstrates the biggest difference between culture in the Middle East and that in the West. We all think what happened was reprehensible, but if those were American prisoners and Arab guards, half (I don't believe everyone over there would support the acts) that part of the world would be celebrating and calling it a victory for Islam. And that just pisses me off.

          Take care,
          Brian

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by MonsterZero
            Because he's in charge and his job can be sacrificed in the interest of showing the Arab world that serious action is being taken. I don't really know if anything other than converting all of USA to Islam will ever satisfy the Arab world but it might be a good step.
            The whole administration should resign!
            Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

            Comment


            • #7
              I don't think Rumsfield should resign unless President Bush has lost confidence in his capacity to lead the Department of Defense. At the moment, Rumsfield's most serious crime is withholding information from the President of the United States, which could effect his ability to develop effective policy. As Senator Liberman pointed out, technically speaking, the Defense Department reacted rapidly to the case. A soldier came forward in January 2004. Investigators were immediately dispatched, and the report finalized and delivered to Rumsfield in April.

              His decision to withhold the information was clearly a poor one. Rumsfield knew the report could hurt Bush's campaign. So he took matters into his own hand and enforced plausible deniability. Of course the flaw to this ideal is apparent. You can't keep something like this secret. Rumsfield is not a politician. I could see him making this kind of flawed decision.

              As long as Rumsfield took action upon receiving the report, he did his job. There are questions about the system itself. Some are arguing the system was too slow. The Department of Defense is a bureaucracy. Rumsfield should have informed Congress and the President immediately, even if action against those accused occured at a slower pace. (If it did, we need to reform the system.)

              Of course, the final decision lays in the American people. If they hold him accountable, Bush should remove him, or take the political risk to defend his position. Removing Rumsfield during ongoing violence can have serious repercussions. Rummy preferred centralization, which makes him an even more important piece of the equation.

              Originally posted by Scully
              ...they'll never be satisfied. Swift justice is what those involved should get. This shouldn't turn into the political witch hunt I'm sure is brewing at the DNC right now.

              This episode demonstrates the biggest difference between culture in the Middle East and that in the West. We all think what happened was reprehensible, but if those were American prisoners and Arab guards, half (I don't believe everyone over there would support the acts) that part of the world would be celebrating and calling it a victory for Islam. And that just pisses me off.
              The DNC doesn't have to worry about managing a witch-hunt, the Bush Administration has done a great job of convicting themselves.

              I really don't care how Arabs would react Muslims mistreating Americans. Their response poor response has been recorded time and again, and contributes to the reason why most Arabs are oppressed by authoritarian governments. It will be their demise, as time continues to demonstrate.

              All I care about is American soldiers behaved in a manner that I find appauling. They placed their fellow soldiers and the operation in Iraq in greater danger. They defiled the country by violating those ideals which we hold most dear.
              "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

              Comment


              • #8
                i think Rumsfeld has had plenty to resign over before this, and he hasn;t, so why should we expect him to hold the bag on this one?
                Now listening too;
                - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ivan Rapkinov
                  i think Rumsfeld has had plenty to resign over before this, and he hasn;t, so why should we expect him to hold the bag on this one?
                  Good point. I feel alot depends on Friday's Senate Hearing. If Rumsfield appears to be apologetic, he will survive this. If not, Bush might need to sack him.

                  Then again, I question whether Bush's character would allow him to make such a detached decision.

                  I'm certainly no fan of Rumsfield, and would like to see him go, but not at the expense of operations.
                  "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Scully
                    This episode demonstrates the biggest difference between culture in the Middle East and that in the West. We all think what happened was reprehensible, but if those were American prisoners and Arab guards, half (I don't believe everyone over there would support the acts) that part of the world would be celebrating and calling it a victory for Islam. And that just pisses me off.

                    Take care,
                    Brian
                    Nop, I dont think so but thats not the point, far more interesting would be how would the USA react to such an incident (Jessica Lynch anybody ??). Just imagine the second GulfWar hadn't happened but than such pictures would be shown on US television of say US businessmen and women humiliated in Saddams prisons. The outcry would be enourmous, maybe even enough to declare war (If we for a moment forget about WMDs and the oil) or at least order retaliation missile strikes and/or SOF to storm the prison and forcefully free the prisoners.

                    Maybe you are now able to imagine how shocking these pictures are for the Arabs and what (violent) reaction they might provoke.
                    "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

                    Henry Alfred Kissinger

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Kraut
                      Nop, I dont think so but thats not the point, far more interesting would be how would the USA react to such an incident (Jessica Lynch anybody ??). Just imagine the second GulfWar hadn't happened but than such pictures would be shown on US television of say US businessmen and women humiliated in Saddams prisons. The outcry would be enourmous, maybe even enough to declare war (If we for a moment forget about WMDs and the oil) or at least order retaliation missile strikes and/or SOF to storm the prison and forcefully free the prisoners.

                      Maybe you are now able to imagine how shocking these pictures are for the Arabs and what (violent) reaction they might provoke.
                      It did happen. In 1990, Saddam was filmed with a 12yr old kid from Britian, asking him if he was getting milk. The public was outraged. Months later, Saddam goofed again before the cameras by having POWs make statements denouncing the war on video camera. That really pissed off people.

                      More recently, John McCain had some very harsh words for Iraqi militants who kidnapped that contractor and videotaped his imprisonment. There was also alot of criticism for the video showing militants holding knives to the throats of Japanese hostages, who if I'm not mistaken were humanitarian workers of all things.

                      I don't question the outrage of the incidents I mentioned. People had every right to be. However, it works both ways, I know I would be more than pissed if I saw Americans being treated in the manner those prisoners were. I'd equally be very angry at how the family of those prisoners were treated. Some gather all day at the prison in the hopes of seeing loved ones. None of these prisoners were convicted of a crime.

                      I'm not saying the Iraqis, or anyone else for that matter, has the right to use this incident to justify attacking Coalition troops. However, the protest, harsh comments, and loss in trust are unstandable. The worst comment I heard was from an Iraqi man who said "the Americans are worst than Saddam." I don't recall hearing such statements in the past (I'm certain there were some though.) These soldiers compromised what little confidence the Iraqis had in us, and makes going forward that more difficult.

                      Hopefully, this makes America take a closer look at how we are treating those captured in past few years as part of our efforts against terrorism, and insurgency in Iraq. The evidence seems to suggest we are exporting the paranoia and insensitivity that led to the Patroit Act and GITMO. We need to remember what the hell we're fighting for, and recognize that its preservation is imperative to our survival.
                      "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by MonsterZero
                        Because he's in charge and his job can be sacrificed in the interest of showing the Arab world that serious action is being taken. I don't really know if anything other than converting all of USA to Islam will ever satisfy the Arab world but it might be a good step.
                        Well, AFAIK the national command authority is responsible and who was that again?
                        "A platoon of Chinese tanks viciously attacked a Soviet harvester,
                        which was peacefully working a field near the Soviet-Chinese border.
                        The harvester returned fire and upon destroying the enemy
                        returned to its home base."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by mr_clark
                          Well, AFAIK the national command authority is responsible and who was that again?
                          Unfortunately, not Bush. The Bush Administration is like the Reagan Administration. The President only pays attention to "the bigger picture." Bush Jr places a tremendous emphasis on loyalty. More than his father and Clinton. Like Reagan it is both an advantage and disadvantage in political scandals. The advantage being the president is so detached, it is difficult to hold him fully accountable for the errors of his subordinates. The disadvantage being instead of one individual providing leadership, you have a bunch of people with equal power executing foriegn policy with only the broadest guidance and oversight. It got Reagan into deep trouble with the Iran-Contra Affair. It gets Bush into deep trouble as well.
                          "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Deltapooh
                            Unfortunately, not Bush. The Bush Administration is like the Reagan Administration. The President only pays attention to "the bigger picture." Bush Jr places a tremendous emphasis on loyalty. More than his father and Clinton. Like Reagan it is both an advantage and disadvantage in political scandals. The advantage being the president is so detached, it is difficult to hold him fully accountable for the errors of his subordinates. The disadvantage being instead of one individual providing leadership, you have a bunch of people with equal power executing foriegn policy with only the broadest guidance and oversight. It got Reagan into deep trouble with the Iran-Contra Affair. It gets Bush into deep trouble as well.
                            Thanks for the clarification. And a concur on your final statement.
                            "A platoon of Chinese tanks viciously attacked a Soviet harvester,
                            which was peacefully working a field near the Soviet-Chinese border.
                            The harvester returned fire and upon destroying the enemy
                            returned to its home base."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Well let's see if I got the story straight, Bush is POed at Rumsfeld for not mentioning the Abu Ghriab scandel earlier. As it was Bush found out about it from news reports like everyone else did. Bush won't sack him over that.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X