The story in Newsweek just can't be true. The American soldiers in Guantanomo Bay are known for their respect for the detainees they are holding. There wasn't a single human rights group, NGO or government that critized the way prisoners are being treated at "Gitmo" so far, so why on earth should we believe soldiers have desecrated the koran? Absolutely impossible!

Idiot.

Next week in NEWSWEEK, perhaps they'll have an article about the rise of facism in the Netherlands, featuring a bunch of Nazi goosesteppers in wooden shoes.

The story wasn't true. Not because it 'cant be true'. Of course it can. Bad people are among us, they are unavoidable. To focus on ours as stereotypical, and ignore your own, is intellectually dishonest.

The story wasn't true because it wasn't. Because the allegations were completely baseless. Because they didn't check their facts, and reported what was essentially rumor, the type of rumor militant nutjobs like you ejaculate over.

What facts MJ? In this case it is always the word of a detainee against the word of guard/soldier. It's not like they flush Qurans down the toilet in front of dozens of TV crews. What do you expect? It is however very clear bad things happen at "Gitmo".

You can't desecrate the Koran because it is anything but sacred. It is impossible to desecrate the profane.

It's a handbook and guide to a backward, demented death cult followed by ignorant savages.

RR - Have you read it?

On what grounds? Says who? What 'bad things' happen at Gitmo you raving nimcompoop?

The CNN headline stating that Washington was pressuring Newsweek to retract their bogus story is adding to the mess, though the arab world didn't need that to think it anyway.

So Timmy, what are your thoughts on other religions having their sacred objects desecrated? Since I am sure you believe this lie of a story, I would be interested to know if you honour ALL religions, or just Islam.

Timmy, America has bent over backwards to accomodate the thugs in Gitmo. Giving them their own type of food, their precious Koran, prayer rugs,etc. You are such a jerk it boggles the mind.

How about "pissChrist", the Virgin Mary's image intertwined with prostitutes, elephant dung with the Virgin Mary.I must have missed the riots and killings that took place by Catholics after those sacreligious displays.

Yah....remember when John Paul II called a fatwah for the murder of Dan Brown?

Oh wait...oops.

I'm not a big fan of religions in general. What I do believe is islam has become more political the past decades. It is in fact being used by people who seek power. They keep the masses dumb so they follow the (religious)leaders. The more you feed them (those leaders)by torturing people, humilate them and their religion, occupy their land, try to force your own religion upon them (over 300.000 American christians go overseas EVERY year to convert people to christianity)the more powerful they will become. It's like your feeding a monster, the more you feed it the bigger it will get. It's time to see your role in all this. Your NOT putting out the fire, you're making it worse.

Tim,

the difference between Americans and certain muslims/muslim countries is that we do show respect for the religions of our captive. We let the terrorists (suspected) do their praying thing at gitmo. Do you think for one second that muslims/muslim countries wouldn't salivate at the chance to take a dump on a bible in front of christian, or piss on a torah in front of a Jew? Not only would they do this, you would not be outraged by it, and there would also not be a holy war declared against muslims for it.

IMHO, defecating on a koran is probably the best form of torture against a muslim (tho, this is not a vote of support for it).

i'm not worried about muslims getting angry but plumbers cleaning duct systems stocked with such kind of "sacred" literature.

good one Alberto!

I think we should hand them that blubber face Ted Kennedy. Let them do whatever they want with him!

A holy war? God, will these pathetic barbarians ever evolve into the modern era?

Pee on the Koran? Why would I want to waste my pee when I find a toilet more honorable.

The problem here is one of mistrust. By putting suspects in Gitmo and by restricting access to them the US made a tactical error. Because so few people have actually been there and more to the point so few people these Muslim leaders can trust have been there - practically anything can be said of the conditions or events that take place. This is one of the more insulting things a Muslim can think of so I'm not surprised when a report like this comes from an American magazine they are sceptical.

Add to the mix comments like those of JustaDog and RR and it's easy to understand that Muslims would believe this of Americans. Gitmo does not build bridges between the two groups, if you want to be believed I suggest you 1) make it easier to believe you by allowing more scrutiny of Gitmo and 2) throw Americans into a better light so that Muslims have reason to believe you when you say something - this means helping Muslims selflessly and telling people like RR and JustaDog they are wrong and insulting.

1) The purpose of the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is not to bring groups closer together, it is to maintain a strategic base in a hostile Cuba and detain foreign prisoners. There are security issues there, and they're not going to allow tours of the facility. Whatever goes on there, it's nothing anywhere near half as bad as what goes on in half the countries that are upset about it. The simple fact of the matter is that there are people, many people, who will hate us no matter what, and who will concoct conspiracy theories no matter what, and speak illy of us no matter what. Some people just need something to hate. Even if the government (at a GREAT detriment to it's own security) made 100% of it's knowledge and dealings completely transparent, you'd still have nutjobs claiming there was some secret base somewhere.

Do not be fooled, just because they might have found a legitimate complaint does not mean their complaining is legitimate. Some people cannot be pleased. Ever.

2) We are allways trying to portray America in a better light. Public diplomacy is a well recognized method by the State department. Nothing can be done however, about 90% of the media and liberals in general who get their kicks by equating the republican government with Adolf Hitler.

As far as RR goes, I think CNN being on Saddam's payroll is a much bigger problem for us then a self-described radical redneck posting comments aimed at leftists on an internet blog, which both are intended for and often are humorous, albeit vulgar and offensive.

As far as 'helping muslims selflessly', well, the war in Iraq or Afghanistan were not selfless, but freeing two whole countries of oppressive dictatorships is nothing to scoff at.

And what about the Tsunami relief? I think that qualifies.

Hi MJ,

I know Gitmo is not a lets bring people together type of place and I didn't argue that you should stop holding people altogether. Yes there are people who will hate you come what may, but the power that these people have can be eroded by letting them have as few supporters as possible. Making Gitmo more transparent will erode their support. The attitude they all hate us no matter what we do is not accurate - some of them will hate you no matter, but some can be persuaded to relent if only a little at first and these opportunities should always be maximised.

Second I could be wrong but I don't think RR and Radical Redneck are the same person. Radical Rednecks "humour" isn't helpful and nor was RR's comment. Certainly I don't see 90% or anything like of liberals describing Bush as like Hitler. If they do I think it behoves liberals to slap them down - smearing conservatives about what they don't believe gets nobody anywhere, better to disagree with what they do believe. Furthermore if people don't correct people who adopt similar position then casual observers see one group putting forward a cohesive view. I don't want to be associated with people who say Bush is like Hitler and I've never seen you say anything like RR or JustaDog have in this post so infer that this is not how you choose to come across.

All I know is that if I hear the term "Qu'ran abuse" one more time, I'm gonna hafta buy another Qu'ran (mine's got my notes in it) and smack the shit outta someone with it.....oops, that must be my "veteran driven aggressiveness" showing.

Brit....very good points, but you DO have to take into account that the Peoples that are run by the muslim tenets only see what their leaders want them to see....so no matter what we do, they can lie about everything and the muslim sheep won't know the difference. Control information and you control the people. Add to that the select group of asses in the world that really WANT to believe anything negative about the Great Satan, no matter the truth...and you've got a great mix of misinformation whose purpose is to control the thoughts and emotions of the People.

.....and those that actually spend their time in Gitmo guarding these terrorists for a year+ tell me all that I need to know. I have very close ties to the 1/181st infantry (NG) out of Cambridge, MA that just spent a year there.....and their views of the media aren't very good to say the least....always looking for something they can twist to fit their agenda.

So timmy....muslims hate us because 300K Christians go out and try to convert the world? Where'd you get the number from? Do all 300K go to muslim countries to get slaughtered or do they go to other regions of the world? Could it POSSIBLY be that their religious guide that we flush down the drain every chance we get tells them not to befriend or trust non-believers? That it tells them to slay the idolators wherever they find 'em, besiege them, and lay in ambush for them.....unless they take on the word of Allah?

Flush.......

MJ,

I agree about the Tsunami and that freeing two countries from dictatorships can be seen as more selfless (others would strongly disagree). We could have quite a debate on what has been selfless and what hasn't and what has been helpful to Muslims and what has not. My point isn't, of course, that the US has acted badly in every way, but right now many Muslims in the world have problem trusting American foreign policy and due to the likes of RR and Justadog they find is easy to believe that there are American out there who would flush Koran's down the loo.

Well, well, so now the truth is out. The "source" of this bogus report is backing away, since he now admits he didn't SEE what he passed on to Newsweek. Furthermore, it turns out that it was a DETAINEE that tore pages out of his Koran,[courtesy of America], and flushed 'em, so that he could stop up the toilet and cause a problem. Seems like he was a bad little muslim, he didn't treat the Koran with "reverance", now did he? Hmm, will they declare a holy war against that poor sap?

Certainly muslims will continue to believe the original story, because they want to, just like libs and America haters the world over. So what? If someone wants to believe lies that suit them, what are you gonna do?

Lisa....got a link about the "tearing it up himself to clog the toilet" part?

you know Brit, I highly doubt that muslims in the middle east have read R.R. and Justadog saying critical things about them. They find it easy to believe rumour and allegation because they simply don't like us in the first place. Nothing will change until they come into the present, and stop living in the barbaric past.

Hey Sarge! Go to Newmax.com, Gen Myers statements.

I mean Newsmax. com

The biggest problem here is selfreflection. Too many people here don't have it. If you're able to look at your own policies and actions in a critical way, you might start to understand other people and other religions. Many Americans aren't capable of that. They have the best country in the world, God is on their side (God bless America)and they just can't imagine other people do not want them to interfere with their business. How can they not want Uncle Sams help?

MJ, Cuba might be hostile to you, but again that must have something to do with the way you have always treated that country. And if that would be a criteria to have a naval base somewhere than why doesn't Cuba have a naval base in Florida? You always look at things your way, you're unable to see other peoples view.

As for any torturing going on at Gitmo. The only stories coming from that prison are bad stories. People who have been released (among them British nationals) speak of really harsh treatment. I've heard stories about muslims being humilated before. It wouldn't suprise me if some redneck Texan fooled around a bit to upset a few "towelheads" and flushed a Quran down the toilet in front of them. It's quite possible. It might have happened, it might not have happened. If we believe some of the detainees coming from Gitmo it probably happened. If we believe the US government all American soldiers at Gitmo are decent Americans with a lot of respect for other cultures and religions who would NEVER do such a thing.

And MJ you were right; hard core torturing doesn't take place at Guantanamo. You send prisoners to allied countries such as Egypt and Pakistan where torture is less of a problem. You let others do your dirty work.

Sarge, anywhere around 300.000 Americans leave the US every year to convert people all over the globe to christianity. They have been doing that for a long time now. I've met some of them in Sarajevo when I was there. They know people are poor and hope to convert them by promising them everything will become better if they start believing in Jesus. It happens on both sides though. The Saudi's were setting up mosques and organisations as well.

Brit,

You need to consider that anyone who has access to RR's comments certainly has access to more balanced opinions, such as your own.

If information is free, if they have access to the internet and are able to express their views (no matter how wrongheaded) then I do not beleive they will be mislead so easily.

In a place like europe, those who think America is Rome v2.0 think that way because they WANT to. It's that group that won't be dissuaded no matter what. But the information is out there for all to see.

The problem, the people who really have been mislead into beleiving we skin arabs alive at gitmo, getting rid of Al Quaeda talking points won't do anything for them, I beleive.

Because as Sarge said, the flow of information in such places is controlled. The people do not have access to the internet or any alternative mediums. (IE. They don't have access to people like RR anyway, if they did, they'd be better off despite even all the RR's out there.)

The people who WANT to hate us control what information is distributed in such cases, and if we do not provide them with enough opportunity to slander us, then they will just make it up. Nothing will change. The answer there isn't to try and achieve some impossibly perfect stance that avoids all sensitivities. A much more productive goal there would be to break the monopoly on information and let them see everything for all that it is. And we do that too, things like Radio Free Europe and Voice of America in Soviet controlled eastern europe.

The only people who have access www.gitmoisadeathcamp.com aren't to be worried about, because there's nothing that can be done. THOSE are the people who will allways find reasons to scream bloody murder.

The people who are mislead by the secrecy around gitmo? Yes, I see what your saying. But ultimately I think addressing gitmo like that, you are trying to empty a sea of propoganda points with a sensitivity thimble. You have to address the larger sources of the misinformation, rather then trying to deprive them of their infinite ability to lie.

Heh. Tim, you fall into the first category.

If it was up to Castro, he WOULD have a naval base in Florida. If you stopped thinking of us all as 'americans' who, when in disagreement you deem 'uncapable of understanding' your point, you might understand something yourself.

Despite your relative certainty you know exactly who I am, what I'm like, and what America is like, you really don't know jack shit.

Lisa, the link you mentioned was intresting. It proves guards at Guantanamo were suspected of using the Quran as toiletpaper before. British and Kuwaiti nationals who were held there both said that. But like I said before this is a matter of who you want to believe. It is very hard to prove anything. If we wouldn't have had photo's of Lyndie England holding a wounded and naked Iraqi man on a leash, you could have said the guards at Abu Ghraib were decent Americans. Now we know they suck. They're not the decent people you've said they are. They love to torture and humilate. But I guess all the guards at Guantanamo are totally different.

If some news agency said that the troops were pinning the suspected terrorists down and shitting into their mouths....y'all would believe THAT too. Funny....the "stories of suspected terrorists" have more credibility than NON-suspected terrorists. Ask your "British nationals" if they consider themselves British.....or muslim. Well....the "stories of the guards" that I've personally known for over a decade...and was their Sarge for 2+ years...weigh a bit higher than suspected terrorists.

Just because America has "God Bless America" doesn't mean that "God is on our side" and it certainly doesn't mean "God is on our side, but not yours"....it's a motto, nothing more...unless you WANT to make more of it.

If YOU control the information AND you want your People to hate another People.....it's rather easy to get them to have that hatred.

This bit from GOPBloggers:

"UPDATE: (By Mark Noonan); the Washington Post points out in this news story that the US troops in Guantanamo Bay were given strict and detailed instructions on Koran-handling. Boiled down, nothing was to be done which in any way could be considered desecration (they even had to wrap the book in a clean towel when moving it). This, in my view, does go too far; Moslem sensibilities are all well and good, but it is, after all, just a book...but it does show how unlikely, with these sorts of instructions, that anything remotely like desecration could have occured."

Now, I'm not endorsing or even interested in discussing this viewpoint. (I merely don't want to retype the facts illustrated, so I cut & paste this).

But liberals have to understand that this sort of ridiculous special treatment and pandering has reprocussions. I'm not advocating them, I'm merely stating that they (will) exist, like it or not.

Do you understand the concept, used somewhat frequently in US politics, particularly with the homosexual rights lobby, of a 'backlash'?

Going this overboard this frequently, being so ridiculously hyper-sensitive will create a backlash. There will be people like RR who, after being so thoroughly disgusted and fed up with this silly soft-spined behavior, will be quite happy to see something different (even if it goes too far). They will lavish the idea of using a Quaran as toilet paper, if only to counter the silliness of forcing prison guards to not touch a BOOK because they are neither muslim nor chaplains, something that would not be tolerated for ANY other religion. And be certain there are Christians and Hindu's in Gitmo that get their bibles and their bhaglavad gita's (however the hell that's spelled) mis-handled.

So, as far as RR goes, if I do not condemn his comments, keep in mind I fully expected them to come.

MJohnson - Your post is an irrational mishmashing of ideas which aims to place blame on your opposing political party.

First, I doubt anyone, conservative or liberal, was aware of rules concerning the handling of the koran. Certainly RR did not express an awareness of these so his comment can't be backlash against it. He just said something stupid because he's an ignorant asshole. case closed.

Further, if one article about the mistreatment of the koran can have this affect, perhaps it is logical that such respects can be afforded. It just seems easier to be polite than to quell riots.

You're making up the backlash.

Good Point Sarge.

Besides your point, it's interenting to know that illiteracy rates among muslims is huge, so many don't read the quran because they can't, so i wouldn't be surprised that if i throw any book to the toilet and tell an illiterate muslim that it was a quran, the bigot would certainly want to kill me, not to mention that quran itself is bigot.

If any western author writes a book or a song saying that it's good to beat women, such a guy would be condemmed by society (me included), quran and its "sacred teachings" say so among many other barbarities and it's freely available in almost any bookstore including amazon.... so i don't see any evil in flushing an evil book through the toilet, except for the point i quoted in my first comment.

It is not any one particular incident which causes a backlash but the greater scheme of them. I do beleive most people are aware that there are considerable influences calling upon us to treat murderous terrorists and enemies of the state better then we treat minor drug offenders in prisons in our own country. Case most certainly not closed.

Furthermore, if we look to place blaim upon ourselves for such massive and horrible acts, because of such insular (and alleged) indescretions, I think it shows we give our enemies a leash that is entirely too long by which to lead us. Relenting to irrational anger will only encourage more irrational anger. To what extent will we bend over backwards to avoid such riots?

Hi Sarge and MJ,

You both point out information is power and I agree. I do believe there is an information gap in some areas where Muslims live. The internet is a great antidote to this I agree. I deeply regret that the BBC World Service has been reduced under Tony Blair. Nelson Mandela in fact is on record saying that even when he was on Robin Island he got information about the outside world from the BBC and I hope that in 20 or 30 years times the next Mandela has still managed to get some truth from the BBC. Lisa I agree, RR and JustaDog’s specifically are unlikely to be heard, but the sentiment gets through and too many Americans talk like this. I can disagree with them, but it’s much more effective when people they consider on their side disagree with them. As an added bonus it defines your position more clearly – if a mild conservative only speaks out against what they perceive as left wing then they can come across as very conservative indeed when this isn’t really their position.

On British Nationals at Gitmo – the British Government put quite a lot of pressure on the US to release them. Most have now been released and while I haven’t heard them all speak those I have do define themselves as British and I have found myself sympathetic to them. So do I think all those British Gitmo inmates were entirely innocent – no I don’t. There have been some problems however created because of Gitmo here – all information gained while in Gitmo is unusable in British law and as such those who the government have wanted to monitor have sometimes proved difficult in law to monitor. Laws have been rushed through parliament to try keep up with event. The British prisoners were released in two waves and the first wave of the less dangerous were viewed sympathically by the British public and slowly their story has come out.

There was a programme produced by one of our television stations which used American and British ex Army Intelligence personal (specifically those used to get information from suspects) to create a kind of Gitmo light. Eight volunteers were the prisoners for 48 hours. They had different backgrounds and different views on Gitmo. The techniques used were not as severe as those in Gitmo (they couldn’t be under British law) but followed the techniques very closely otherwise – those techniques that had been agreed to by the US government openly, these did not include techniques that were disputed. The oldest man who was in his late forties had to be removed at about the 12 hour mark due to the onset of hypothermia (temperatures had been mirrored from Gitmo) – he had been pretty neutral about Gitmo before. The second broke at about 16 hours, he was a Muslim who had been about to be stripped naked in front of the other detainees and said that this would be intolerable within his religion – he had been against Gitmo from the start.

The last to be broken was at about the 45 hour mark he was a politics student at University (early twenties) and was half American and half British. The questioners had been told a little of the background of each prisoner and believed that some of them had “information” that they wanted to extract. All the prisoners had been subjected to limited amounts of white noise, loud music, stress positions, some sleep irregularity, temperature variations (including being placed in front of fans for hours while in a stress position), humiliation and the like. They had to some degree focused on this third to break because they believed he had raised funds for a “Peace” organisation with a dubious background (he hadn’t in fact done this). He finally broke crouched naked on the floor, blind folded having been played white noise for about 45 minutes – he’d been in similar stress positions in front of a fan for about 2 hours before after being stripped in front of other inmates and having his head shaved. He was a mess by the end, he had been strongly in favour of Gitmo before the “experiment”. He was against it at the end and his reasons were quite telling. He believed that first using these simple (but psychological complex) techniques prisoners could be made to talk – that was his problem, they would say anything to get out of the situation. Truth became irrelevant all he wanted to focus on was saying what he believed the guard wanted to hear to get him out of the situation. He also said he believed that any interrogation after a certain time was worthless as the techniques were so strong that the subject would become insane.

All the eight had serious doubts about Gitmo after their experience and a number had been strongly pro before it.

The first wave of released prisoners have behaviour as you might expect from people who had been through this. They could have as much airtime on television as they want, be interviewed by newspapers etc, but so far they have shunned publicity, I think to a man. They’ve basically tried to recover. Reporters have gone into their backgrounds and come up with pretty innocuous stories as to why they were suspect. The second wave of released prisoners do have some interesting backgrounds which certainly merit further investigation and these have been exposed.

Where are you getting this bull? You're certainly getting it wholesale. If you are accused of being in any way related to terrorism in this country, you lose all rights. Any rights you might have had are erased when someone from homeland security so much as mumbles "threat to national security". Now, how are we required to treat the terrorists nicely?

Its absolutely ridiculous that we can't examine the actions of our country because it would somehow aid our enemy. Thats a "what we do is always right" attitude which only blinds us to our own weaknesses. Obviously the rioters are in the wrong. However, there are reasons why the riots happened that have to do with our actions as well.

Tim wrote

The biggest problem here is selfreflection. Too many people here don't have it. If you're able to look at your own policies and actions in a critical way, you might start to understand other people and other religions. Many Americans aren't capable of that. They have the best country in the world, God is on their side (God bless America)and they just can't imagine other people do not want them to interfere with their business. How can they not want Uncle Sams help?

Had I written this it would had said

A problem here is self reflection. Some people don't have enough of it. If you're able to look at your own policies and actions in a critical way, you might start to understand other people and other religions. Some Americans just don’t do this. They have the best country in the world, God is on their side (God bless America)and they just can't imagine other people do not want them to interfere with their business. How can they not want Uncle Sams help?

There are two groups really – the we are the chosen people by God therefore all we do is right and the American is best brigade. I don’t say all Americans or most Americans or even a big minority, but both these groups are too strong in the US. I might add that the three regulars on this site Sarge, MJ and Lisa have never in my memory written anything to make me think they belong to these groups. But this isn’t an on off switch and I think these attitudes do permeate in US society even in those who don’t express these views explicitly (again I wouldn’t level this against the 3 regular posters they can with reflection assess themselves far better than I can and as I say I can’t remember anything that make me want to put them into either group).

On Koran handling in Gitmo. I don’t agree with sacred objects personally, but I understand that Islam and Judaism both hold their scriptures as holy. I don’t know about Hinduism and the only Christian “scared” objects I’m aware of are relics which aren’t readily available in a prison situation. Yes I think that people should have their ethical and religious beliefs respected - this is a no brainer for me.

Matt, now your just making things up. Where did I say we "can't examine the actions of our country"?

I didn't.

And don't try to pass blaim for this incident off on the US, the allegations are most likely false. Hence this discussion. Why don't you try reading my posts? Shall I have to go over why I don't think we should get rid of gitmo just to appease the pissy?

The fault here lies with the people who instigated the riots, despite the fact that they probably new better.

Brit,

One common issue is that all you foreigners tend to look at that group (and I'm not saying I'm in it, I don't really know where I fit myself) as 'everything we do is right because we are chosen by god'.

But that's REALLY not the sentiment at all.

It's more like the only way we can be sure we won't do any right is to do nothing at all for fear of doing wrong. It's more like 'look, we make alot of mistakes but we're out there trying to do the best we can, TRYING to do what's right and focusing on whats right. Of course we make mistakes, but at least we're trying, at least we're doing something. Should we not all, in some regard at least, try to do what's right? Rather then do nothing for fear of wrong action?

This whole 'we are perfect and ordained by god' stuff is something totally incorrect, often injected into this by foreigners (And sometimes liberals). It's a horrible misunderstanding of the motives. No one's saying we're perfect, what they say is, stop trying to blaim them for trying to be better just because they make a mistake here or there (because they are not perfect, nothing ever is).

Hi MJ,

If this is something "all you foreigners" say what does that tell you?

To me the "we are chosen by God" group is smaller that the "we are best" and worries me less. But this is an issue.

You also said

It's more like the only way we can be sure we won't do any right is to do nothing at all for fear of doing wrong. It's more like 'look, we make alot of mistakes but we're out there trying to do the best we can, TRYING to do what's right and focusing on whats right. Of course we make mistakes, but at least we're trying, at least we're doing something. Should we not all, in some regard at least, try to do what's right? Rather then do nothing for fear of wrong action?

I totally agree. This statement is exactly why I don't believe you belong in these groups and it delights me to see you post it. I understand where you're coming from.

Oops,

bad blockquote. Sorry

matt....I'd love to hear the backing to this:

If you are accused of being in any way related to terrorism in this country, you lose all rights.

Anyone connected to terrorists or even accused of having connections with terrorists IN THIS COUNTRY are afforded the complete protections and rights of the U.S. Constitution, even if they're not US citizens....and they all get their court appointed lawyers, etc...because they are caught IN THIS COUNTRY. Hell, we even gave Taliban Johnny a slap on the wrist for being a traitor, when he SHOULD've faced a firing squad in Afghanistan. However, these are not the ones in Gitmo that were caught OUTSIDE the country...most of which, but not all, were found in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's right matt, nobody can look into the actions of our country (where you got that rediculous notion is beyond me)...that's the attitude all us evil conservatives share. Where do you actually get this tripe?

Always eager to blame everything on America? Blame America, blame "the killers"....just don't blame Newsweek and their reckless FALSE reporting. The deaths that occured in the riots AFTER the Newsweek article are the fault of Newsweek for inciting the riot with their reckless disregard for the truth and their yearning for the prestige among the media-types that could be generated for breaking such a story. They wanted it to be true, so they printed it. Just as CBS wanted it to be true, so they aired it, regardless of the truth.

Only THIS TIME, 15+ people died because of their haste to disregard the truth in lieu of a story.

Only THIS TIME, 15+ people died because of their haste to disregard the truth in lieu of a story.

Now Sarge if only you were 1/100th as upset at W for starting a war where 15,000+ Americans died I wouldnt consider you such a wanker.

Brit, I'm not sure what it means that foreigners said it. I'm not really sure what to make of half your stance on the second part (the part you quoted of mine).

On one hand, you have tiny countries I couldn't find on a map donating enormous portions of their militaries (granted, it's like 200 people, but they only have 2000 people in their armies). You have of course countries like Poland and the UK and Australia.

Then you have countries like France and especially especially Canada who appear to be against the war for purely reasons of personal gain! They were litterally in bed with Saddam (Canada, that is, I know the Oil for Food has touched people in many countries, many in the government, but it doesn't go all the way up to Chirac (that we know), but in Canada it DOES go all the way up to Chretien).

Then you have countries like Cuba or Iran or North Korea, countries that are anti-us, pro-US enemies, pro-corrupt-dictatorships, those ones are easy.

And then you have the complete antithesis of what I described. Countries who really don't seem to give a shit about world events unless it directly affects them. Now, that's a tempting view to me, isolationism. It has perks. But the US MIGHT be able to afford it. Alot of these countries CANT afford it. They'll sit by and do nothing, and if nothing is done (usually by the US for them) there will come a point when it starts affecting them and by then it's too damn late. It's an old lesson. Them I don't get at all.

I guess the middle two groups are more like 1 group as far as motivations go.

Sarge is absolutely right about that.

If a US citizen is caught fighting against US forces in a battle zone, he should be shot by firing squad or hung.

Not just the death penalty either, I don't mean the electric chair, gas chamber or lethal injection. Firing squad or hung, just to make a point.

DIRITA: We’ve found nothing that would substantiate anything that you just said about the treatment of a Koran. We have, other than what we’ve seen – that it’s possible detainees themselves have done with pages of the Koran. And I don’t want to overstate that, either, because it’s based on log entries that have to be corroborated.

That was apparently Lisa's source.

BTW the guy who wrote the story Isikoff is a Conservative.

How do we know his source isnt Rove?

Why are you sell hellbent on blaming Liberals for this?

MJonhon - Would anyone have guessed that a single article could have caused those riots? I don't think so. Its not like publishers look over their articles and ask themselves which ones are going to cause violence - its just not worth worrying about. Would anyone have cared about the article if not for the riots?

Hell, I don't remember riots because of the prisioner abuse images and everyone agrees that was a far worse event.

Whenever someone finds some small degree of fault in the actions of the US, you're the first to say "Don't blame the US!" Well, wouldn't it be nice if cause and effect were so simple. For instance, would the riots have occurred if not for the prisoner abuse scandal? Certainly, the past abuses have made future abuse rumors more credible.

Anyone here ever study the past wars we've (the United States) been in? Excepting perhaps the Revolution against Great Britain, we've been by far the more civil of the combatants involved. Some recent examples: WWI, the Germans introduced gas to the battlefield; WWII, well I don't think anyone here needs me to tell them how much worse the Nazis and Imperial Japanese were than us; Korea, you'd find the treatment of our POW's rather astounding, not exactly Geneva convention if you know what I mean; Viet Nam, made the North Koreans look civilized, just ask John McCain and Co.;Somalia, too. Look also at how others fight when we're not there, Rwanda, Afghanistan for Twenty years, Algeria, 'Palestine', Kosovo... I could go on and on. If you don't know what happens in places like that, read up- If you don't understand evil, you will fight against the imperfect good. We try to be civilized when our opponents try to be as brutal as posssible- that's what makes us different. We're not perfect, but we do try- and the media SHOULD be an important ingredient in that equation, but shoddy reporting hurts everyone. Also, I doubt if you've read the Koran, Mattk. If you had, you'd understand that it advocates, even encourages deceiving ones 'enemies' (that's you and me), and there is NO admonition to be honest with anyone outside Islam. You still believing the detainees? It's their OBLIGATION to lie if it will hurt the enemy.

"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". I wish I knew who to attribute it to.

Johnson, when are you going to admit the US is NOT a philanthropic institution? You're NOT fighting this war for the people of Iraq. You're fighting this war for other reasons. You want to control the Middle East. If you're so eager to leave Iraq to the Iraqi's than why are you building the biggest embassy the world has ever seen in Baghdad? Why are you building huge permanent military bases all over Iraq? You want to stay there and influence Iraqi politics for decades to come. The purpose of that is to change the Middle East your way (not necessarily the way the Arabs want it) and to make sure the oil keeps flowing YOUR way (that means west instead of east). We all know you're NOT in this for the people, so stop spreading lies. We know what you're up to. We all know!!

Doug, give me a break. You were less worse than the Vietnamese? You murdered millions of people in Vietnam, deforrested halve the country, whiped out entire villages, raped, tortured, etc. The Vietnamese treated McCain and his fellow pilotes good in the light of what they did (bombing civilian targets). In any case Graner and other US soldiers could learn a lesson in treating prisoners civilized from the Vietnamese. You always believe you're so damn good, but you're not. You can be on the wrong (evil)side as well.

Anyone here ever study the past wars we've (the United States) been in? Excepting perhaps the Revolution against Great Britain, we've been by far the more civil of the combatants involved.

Off the top of my head go read up on the Phillipines and Vietnam and out involvement.

Tim is demonstrating to us what must pass for American history in the Netherlands.

Doug, in regards to the U.S. being the more civil of the two sides in combat, you conveniently overlook dropping to atomic bombs on civilian populations at the end of the war.

Is it less civil for one pilot fly a plane into a battleship to give his life for his cause or for a pilot to drop a bomb that will kill thousands upon thousands of defenseless civilians?

I'm not out to bash the U.S. here, but the dropping of the bomb was not the most "civil" of actions.

Tom, the kamikaze pilot didn't just "give his life for his cause". In the process he killed all or most of our people on the ship. Dropping the bombs on Japan saved more people in the end,Japanese as well as Americans. The emperor, who was their god, had ordered all civilians to fight to the death, and they would have.

Matt, I reiterate now, I don't put all the blaim on newsweek. I do think the media needs to be more responsible, and this is an illustration of that, but the 'fault' of this lies with the people who incited the rioting. I beleive there was more to these riots then just a bunch of people ticked over newsweek.

Many used the riots for alternative points of protest, but they largely started because of pro-terror groups trying to fuel them.

But in absolutely no way will I put any blaim for this on the US military. If you want me to explain that position, try reading my earlier posts.

Tom, specifically I think he was talking about prisoner treatment, the subject of this discussion.

Tom, if you think the kamikaze plains were the most 'uncivilized' thing the japanese did during the war, you know NOTHING about imperial Japan.

We often find suicide attacks to be disturbing, but I don't think that even qualifies for honorable mention. Perfectly fine in my book if the enemy wants to kill himself in the process of attacking. They did things that make that look like boyish antics.

Tim- Even if EVERYTHING you said about us in Viet Nam was true (and it isn't, or at least it's exaggerated) we'd still be better than the North Vietnamese. They 'also' raped, murdered, tortured, detroyed entire villages for TALKING to or accepting aid from us, and millions died AFTER WE LEFT. Were we responsible for that too? And then you're trying to tell us that the North Vietnamese treated pows better than the jerks at Abu Ghraib? Are you nuts? Ask McCain if he would have rather been paraded around naked on a leash with panties on his head, or have many of the bones in his body broken? and that barely scratches the surface of what they did to our servicemen. I also don't recall the investigation and cout-martial of the NVA guards involved in torturing our men. You do at least know that it was a military investigation that brought Abu Ghraib to light, don't you? Tom, as for Japan and the A-bombs, you apparently have never heard of the Rape of Nanking or what they did in China? or know anything about the domination of Korea? or what the Japanese did with both military AND civilian prisoners? Not to mention the experimentation on humans. If the A-bombs were so beyond the pale, why then did they not surrender even six days after the first bomb? They almost didn't surrender after the second, if the military junta of Imperial Japan had it's way, they would not have. Also, the A-bombs were an extension of a tactic that the Nazis made routine- bombing London with buzz bombs is what opened the door to bombing of population centers. And by the way, more died in the conventional bombing of Tokyo than in Hiroshima. Please don't lecture me on history until you read more (and more diverse sources) of it.

The japanese, at least up until the fall of wake island, never took a single POW to my knowledge. They systematically killed everyone everywhere the army went.

But most disturbing is probably the expirimentation. They would infect POW's with various diseases, to see how it would effect them in different circumstances and test out cures.

They would actually disect POW's while still living, for japanese medical students to be able to see the organs while they were still working, see the heart beating.

The naked POW's wearing a scant loincloth were known to pick the maggots out of their ladel of rice per day, and put them in the wounds and scratches they got excavating rocks (or being beaten by guards for entertainment), because it was the only way to stop infection. A little scratch, in the middle of the monsoon season in the Phillipines, was likely to become gangrenous.

Don't forget the Bataan Death March.

No, no, no....Americans are bad....everyone else pales in comparison. Didn't you get the talking points memo?

"You can be on the wrong (evil) side as well." -Tim. Tim, the difference is there are some bad/evil people in the U.S. and also it's military, but the other parties mentioned previously (NVA, Nazis, Imp. Japanese, etc.) were Evil from the top down as a matter of policy. If you don't see the difference...

People believe what they want to. I sure there is someone out there who believes Um Yeah when he posted W started a war in which 15,000+ Americans died. I believe he made a honest mistake, but a magazine like Newsweek should have people checking the facts first, and shouldn't print stuff they can't verify.

I sure there is someone out there who believes Um Yeah when he posted W started a war in which 15,000+ Americans died.

I fucked up it is around 1,500.

While Newsweek is a bunch of shitbirds (they wanted a shitstorm; they were motivated by their fantasy of a socialist/islamic coup to overthrow the US government) everyone (especially you liberal muckety-mucks) are letting the islamic savages off way too easy.

What does it tell you about the slugs that follow that demented death cult that it was COMPLETELY PREDICTABLE that there would be riots and deaths as a result of a stupid article. Also anyone with two working brain cells (rules out ragheads) knows you can't flush an intact book down a toilet. They are all subhuman savages.

Actually ragheads can't be faulted for not knowing how much a toilet can consume - none of them flush shit, they eat it and call it "sacred."

Newsweek is a piece of shit but the useless eaters that comprise Islam are a million times worse. Fuck the resulting dead - anyone who riots over this idiocy is too stupid to waste my air.

Good riddence.

So RR is mad at everyone but the Con who wrote the article?

Doug',

"Please don't lecture me on history until you've read more (and more diverse sources)" - You must be kidding me! I've studied history for seven years and I wrote several papers on the Vietnam War. That's why I know it was government policy to bomb civilian targets in North Vietnam (Nixon).It was government policy to deforest South Vietnam. The Americans tortured prisoners just as the North Vietnamese did. Don't try to twist history Doug. Vietcong prisoners were tortured often by US intelligence and ordinary soldiers. If you want to know what kind of torture I'll be happy to fill you in. But never say it didn't happen.

As for WWII. You must know a dictator doesn't tolerate anyone who doesn't agree with his policy. That was the problem for many Germans and Japanese and many Iraqi's under Saddam. They became victims of YOUR policy to bomb the of those countries without caring about civilians or, in the case of Iraq, deny them food and medicine. Former secretary of state McNamara said the bombardments on civilian targets such as the German and Japanese cities were warcrimes. You've killed millions of innocent women and children. ON PURPOSE!!

Now listen, I'm not saying the others are not as bad as you. The nazi's, Imperial Japanese Army, Stalin, Mao, they all were FAR worse than you. But I disagree with the view you are a nation of heroes and your government never commits (war)crimes, because they do. You've commited warcrimes as well. You're not the great country you always say you are. The sooner you realize you're made of flesh and blood and you don't always make the right decision, you might start listening to the rest of us a bit more (hopefully)! Right now you're to convinced you were sent by God to change the world and not obliged to listen to anyone else (included the people you say you want to help).

.....bwahahaha. Man...that's....completely insane.

We were wrong the bomb the japanese and the germans.

You know what? he's right about the germans.

We should have just let hitler keep tim's pissy little country.

Anti-American tim's angry at all those civilian casualties that we inflicted in Operation Market Garden.

Yep that's right timmy....the policy of the United States has always been and still is to bomb the shit out of civilians. We're not aiming our extrememly precise and accurate weapons at the military equipment purposely put in civilian areas. Nope, we're just blood-thirsty and trigger happy and want to bomb hospitals, schools, and refugee camps....oh and don't forget mosques, we can't leave any of those standing. Always has been that way, well, when we're not targetting journalists, raping torturing and murdering innocent civilians......what a friggin' tool. Don't you have a bright little minds to brainwash?

Johnson,

You've called me an idiot once, but it seems you act like one yourself. Let me explain the difference to you between bombing the Germans and bombing the Germans.

Military targets are ALWAYS legitimate. Civilian targets could be legitimate targets if the military is using (abusing) them. Just plain civilian targets are NOT legitimate targets. Have you ever visited Germany or Japan? I have. All their cities and I mean all of them are new. New buildings, new houses, schools, everything is new. You bombed the cities and killed the civilians in those cities for only one reason. You intended to kill those women and children, because they were Germans or Japanese. Dresden is the best example. A beautiful city with absolutely no military installations, full of refugees, in one the last months of the war (february 1945) and you firbombed the shit out of that city to cause more casualties. The technic you learned during earlier bombardments on Hamburg, Berlin, Tokyo and other German and Japanese cities. The purpose was simple; TO KILL THE CIVILIANS!! Stop acting like mister wiseguy MJ!

Let me explain something to you tim:

War is not choreographed like proffessional wrestling.

You can piss and moan all you like because we blew up a few german or japanese civillians in the middle of WWII, but we almost lost that war.

If you expect a war for the very survival of a country, with the lives of hundreds of millions (perhaps even billions) of people at stake to be nice and clean, you don't know jack squat about war.

You can complain all you want because we played to win, we bombed civillian centers, just like they were bombing our civillian centers. But if you actually think and expect that we were to fight with our hands tied behind our backs, we would have lost the goddamn war. You'd be speaking German (assuming you weren't gassed in a camp somewhere).

Tough times call for tough measures, and inevitably, tough times root out all the weak people who do nothing but cry because the men who saved their ass were just a little bit too tough for their sensitive pallets.

You excuse the actions of other countries with a calloused realpolitik, but when it comes to the US, you address all our doings with the morally superior fantasy ideology of a 12 year old who thinks the world is full of chocolate and fluffy bunnies.

And just in case you missed the point above, (it appears you have) in every war we've fought, we've done what we felt it took to win and achieve the greater good. It allways, ALLWAYS means lesser evils, and it means that for everyone, your country too.

But in every case we've taken the higher ground, we've tempered our actions to the extent we fealt it was safe to do. We displayed a desire to at least TRY to not be ruthless monsters, even if we failed, which is 99.9% of the time a hell of a lot more then we can say about our enemies. And on a consistent basis, we've managed to to act better then they have, yet WE'RE the ones you fixate on, which shows you have no objectivity.

Towards the end of the war the British fire bombed Dresden causing appalling casualties to the civilian population. "Bomber" Harris who was in charge of the Airforce was seen as a controversial figure here thereafter. The argument from his point of view was that if we saved one allied life and brought the war to a quicker end then it was justified. Churchill also thought that it was important to wrap things up as quickly as possible as then more of Germany that fell to UK and the US the more could be kept out of the USSR's hands. By today's standards this would probably be unacceptable. But today's standards are different from those during WWII, most wars fought now by Europeans and the US are pretty uneven and opposition doesn't usually hurt us on our soil. The UK was being hit by the V rockets and the Germans were while damaged still able to hurt us pretty badly. War crime or justifiable. Well if you were sitting in the east end of London (where I now live) at the time probably justifiable. If you lived on the edge of the board between East and West Germany on the Western side maybe debatable. If your whole family were burnt to death in Dresden probably a war crime.

Bomber Harris never recieved the honours that others in his high position did after the war. Since my mother was a 5 year old hiding in the London Underground at the end of the war perhaps I should be slow to call him a war criminal.

Oh Tim's already raised Dresden. I think you'll find as I said this was the British rather than the Americans who did the damage there.

some nice quotes from one your boys in Iraq:

about civilians watching him and his crew -

I pictured firing into them, people falling, blood misting as bullets struck home. I could get off maybe three bursts, more like two, before they started to scatter and run. Before the initial shock wore off. I'd have to switch to SEMI and pick my targets. I pictured myself hunting them down one by one in the back alleys and streets.

About Iraq and Iraqi's -

My head felt like it was going to explode, the only thing holding it together was my helmet. Immense pressure pressed on the back of my eyes. No more mercy. I was sick to death of being nice. Fuck this place. I wanted to fire every single weapon system in this country until it was depleted. I wanted to destroy entire blocks and cities.

About handling iraqi police -

SGT Agie and I ripped four young men out of a hatchback VW, slamming them to the car, rifle muzzles pressed into backs and faces. I pictured broken noses and lips, blood spooling down the front of shirts, thinking pain into their minds. Willing fear on them. The Blackness was pulling at me again, demanding attention. They were IPs, Iraqi cops.

Just a few comments from the personal website of a US infantryman in Iraq. For those of you who want to read more, go to:

http://www.thisisyourwar.blogspot.com/

And you know what Sarge, I don't care the guy is national guard (which I still don't believe he is), he's a soldier in your army. his feelings probably reflect the way many US soldiers in Iraq feel.

Brit, the British went first, the Americans finished the job (in Dresden). But I must say I don't understand your remark about Bomber Harris. The fact this man was British doesn't mean he can't be a warcriminal. London was bombed, so was Coventry, but it was nothing compared to the German cities. Yes, the nazi's were definitely commiting one warcrime after another on a huge scale. That doesn't mean however the British can't commit warcrimes. If you look at what a warcrime is: attacking unarmed civilians with no clear purpose other than to kill them, Dresden was a warcrime and Bomber Harris a warcriminal. Dutch soldiers commited warcrimes during our colonial wars in Indonesia. A cousin of my grandmother died there, but I am not afraid to say we (the Dutch) commited warcrimes there on a large scale.

Johnson if you would have read my comments more closely I did say you are less worse than Stalin, Mao, the nazi's, Pol Pot and others. That doesn't mean however you're always on the good side. In Vietnam you were not. And it also doesn't mean your reasons to go to war are always noble. In Iraq they were not.

Hi Tim,

Of course the British can (and very definitely have) committed war crimes. I'm from east London and this was the main target for the Germans at this period. My Dad had been evacuated out of London during the war, but my mother was as I said hiding in the Underground system when bombing raids and doodlebugs (the name given to the V series of rockets) went over - in fact this is one of if not her first memory. If Bomber Harris and Churchill were right and this did indeed shorten the war and reduce the number of rockets that fell on London it's quite possible that it saved lives in London perhaps my mothers life. It's easy to condemn 60 years later, but it's just possible I owe my mothers and so my life to Bomber Harris.

Brit, Dresden wasn't necessary to shorten the war. The city had no military purpose, the war was almost over and the place was filled with refugees. The British (both Churchill and Bomber Harris)wanted to bomb and the Americans went along with it. It looks more like an act of revenge than a necessity. BTW, my grandmother nearly survived a British bombing raid. They wanted to hit a trainstation (Haarlem), but because of the wind they ended up bombing an entire residential area. My grandmother and her two kids (my uncle and aunt, my mother was born after the war) were the only ones in their street who survived. My grandfather was in another part of the city and rushed back as soon as possible. Just as he entered their street and saw all the destruction - he feared his loved ones had died - he saw his wife (my grandmother) alive and well in the midst of the carnage and fainted. In this however I agree with MJ. War is terrible and mistakes are being made. But if they would have bombed that neighboorhood on purpose to kill as many civilians as possible that would have been horrific. That is what happened to entire cities in Germany and Japan.

Tim, your whole argument consists of 'you're not perfect!' followed by examples of inhumane behavior. You don't have any point to make except to state the obvious, and then make slams against the US and focus on all the things we have done wrong.

Wow anti-American timmy...lemme know when the alleged infantryman, er...National Guard soldier actually commits a crime or actually DOES something other than "think"...instead of just posting his poetic thoughts, feelings and what he "pictures" in his head. I sure hope you aren't trying to criminalize thought...but it wouldn't surprise me considering how those you spread propaganda for think about speeach and thought "rights".

Still bent out of shape that we killed thousands of civilians in Operation Market Garden? Still passing the propaganda I see. That's right anti-American timmy....we target civilians. Always have and always will. Better watch out....we might just wanna target some more Dutch civilians while we're at it.....of course, after all the journalists are gone, we'll have to direct that murderous trigger-happy rage somewhere.

Keep on spreading the propaganda...tool.

Oh, Tim- I NEVER said we didn't EVER commit war crimes. Please go re-read that post,especially the last line. Dresden probably was a war crime, but you seem to wish to ignore context- it's all black and white to you. You did back off a little and admit we're better than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Hirohito, etc. Thanks, I guess, for the left-handed compliment. Thanks Brit for your perspective- Very useful. Look Tim, there are few saints in war, but the question is who controls the impulses to let the dark side take over? You bring up thisisyourwar again- I looked at it, it seems questionable (I live in California, and Camp Roberts is indeed NG), but let's assume it's real- It actually supports us, not you. I notice that he always talks about WANTING to shoot stuff, or PICTURING broken noses and bloody lips. That means he HOLDS BACK against the darker impulses he has. We ALL have those impulses at times- at least I do in LA traffic now and then- so what really matters is how we act- I'm not going to convict someone based on their THOUGHTS- are you? I'd love to know what texts you studied about Viet Nam. Many older texts are less than accurate, and have significant skew. You've also demonstrated a skewed vision as well, so I suppose even if the texts were accurate, your impression going away might be similar to the way you interpret our posts...

Tim, I'm also trying to figure out, if we were as callous as you imply, and we desired to target innocent civilians in bombing, why are there ANY North Vietnamese left??? Heck, why didn't we just NUKE NV? Or perhaps we're not quite as 'evil' as you'd like to believe?

Since war crimes don't have a statute of limitations.....when is everyone in the chain of command of those that dropped the big ones on Japan gonna get called up to the Hague to face their crimes? Some of them HAVE to still be alive. When are you gonna come across the big pond and get 'em?

No doug...timmy's just trying to criminalize the thoughts of an American National Guard infantryman to make a blanket statement as to how horrible American troops are as a whole.

Tim, Given what happened to your Grandparents, you should be thanking the U.S. government endlessly for spending trillions to develop weapons like GPS guided bombs, and the like, so that incidents like that might be reduced by a factor of hundreds if not thousands... Instead of all the criticism, where are the kudos?

I realize my comments can sometimes offend people. I've said many times I am not anti-American. Some people here might not believe that and/or try to discredit me by saying I am, but I ain't. I have many friends all over the US. So let it be very clear I have nothing against the US.

What does irritate me is the arrogant attitude of some Americans who act like their country is always right and never commited any (war)crimes. My whole point here is to prove to them, their country isn't always right and sometimes makes very selfish decisions that influence the lives of many people in a bad way. All I want for you is to admit to that. Unfortunaly some people can't do that, they start telling me stories of how evil others are and how evil must be fought. To me that is very obvious, all I want is for you to look at your own history and polices in a critical way every now and than.

As for the 'thisisyourwar'blog; the guy who writes these stories is a soldier in Iraq. He's not enjoying his tour of duty and clearly has difficulties with the people who live there. That is not weird. He was sent there to fight a war that has gotten very complicated. The culture and religion of the country are totally different from what he is used to back in the states. The enemy attacks him and withdraws without him being able to fire back. I agree Doug, for now he didn't snap, but you've got to admit his thoughts are scary. It seems pretty hard to believe he's the only American soldier who feels like that. A lot of soldiers probably feel like this guy.

As for Vietnam, I can give you a lot of titles of books I've read. I've talked to veterans, watched countless documentaries and visited museums. I know a lot about this war, about different aspects, not just miltary aspects. That's why I believe Vietnam and Iraq are so similar in many ways.

http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=538

Going back to the earlier comments, I really don't think it matters what the hell the Israeli's are doing in Gaza as far as Iran is concerned, when movies like this get made.

In that same regard, I really don't think what goes on in gitmo (whether it is innocent, or even if they were actually butchering people) has absolutely any effect at all on our image in places like that. The reality is completely detatched from the fiction. That's what we need to address.

Tim says: “I realize my comments can sometimes offend people. I've said many times I am not anti-American. Some people here might not believe that and/or try to discredit me by saying I am, but I ain't. I have many friends all over the US. So let it be very clear I have nothing against the US.” Yes, we’ve heard this from lots of people, it’s essentially the I don’t hate the PEOPLE of the US, I hate the Government… as if the government were wildly different from the people who elected it. Tim then says: “What does irritate me is the arrogant attitude of some Americans who act like their country is always right and never commited any (war)crimes. My whole point here is to prove to them, their country isn't always right and sometimes makes very selfish decisions that influence the lives of many people in a bad way. All I want for you is to admit to that. Unfortunaly some people can't do that, they start telling me stories of how evil others are and how evil must be fought. To me that is very obvious, all I want is for you to look at your own history and polices in a critical way every now and than.” If the need to fight evil is so obvious to you, what exactly is the point of you disagreeing with people like most of those here who know what the US has and hasn’t done in the past and where that stands in history? You keep talking to US like we are the people you claim you need to reach… I don’t get it. Am I one of those arrogant Americans? Am I not? I don’t think I’m any more proud of America than the average Dutchman is of the Netherlands. And I recommend you use always and never a little more judiciously. Tim goes on: “As for the 'thisisyourwar'blog; the guy who writes these stories is a soldier in Iraq. He's not enjoying his tour of duty and clearly has difficulties with the people who live there. That is not weird. He was sent there to fight a war that has gotten very complicated. The culture and religion of the country are totally different from what he is used to back in the states. The enemy attacks him and withdraws without him being able to fire back. I agree Doug, for now he didn't snap, but you've got to admit his thoughts are scary. It seems pretty hard to believe he's the only American soldier who feels like that. A lot of soldiers probably feel like this guy.” Yes Tim, I’m sure a great many soldiers feel like that AT TIMES. I doubt they walk around consumed by those thoughts EVERY MINUTE OF THE DAY. I also feel that you SHOULDN’T be surprised that they would feel like that- to me it seems to be normal human nature to have such thoughts- just don’t act on them, and follow them up with better thoughts. Like I said before, if you ever drove on L.A. freeways, you’d feel like that now and then too. I also think your statement of “for now he didn’t snap” says MUCH about your predispositions- you seem to believe it’s only a matter of time- I don’t. Lastly, Tim: “As for Vietnam, I can give you a lot of titles of books I've read. I've talked to veterans, watched countless documentaries and visited museums. I know a lot about this war, about different aspects, not just miltary aspects. That's why I believe Vietnam and Iraq are so similar in many ways.” So why exactly is your opinion more correct than mine? Was one of those museums the one in Hanoi, sorry, Ho Chi Minh city? Documentaries are usually the WORST source of information, as they usually pretend to be academic and neutral and are usually neither. I should go down to Santa Ana (about 45 minutes from here, and the largest community of ex-pat Vietnamese) and see what they think of your view of Vietnamese history. I’d still like to know some of the more influential titles you read in your seven year study of the subject so I can research your POV.

Oh, and Tim, I don't think it's that I'm OFFENDED by your comments, I just don't understand your position- I want clarity- yours and mine.

Doug,

What part of my comment do you not understand? I thought I was very clear, because it is so simple. Your country has done bad things too. I've named a few a them to make you understand that. I really believe the US was wrong to bomb German and Japanese civilian targets during WWII, I was against the interference in the Vietnam War (that was a Vietnamese war, you should have stayed out). You've commited a lot of (war)crimes during that war. I am also against the way you interfered in Iraq, because I believe the real reason of your invasion wasn't the Iraqi people but rather strategic and economic motives. I hope I filled you in enough about my points of view now.

As for thisisyourwar; you understand what I was trying to say. The Iraq War is not a normal war, it's a guerilla war. If soldiers can fight a war with a clear objective and enemy, they can work towards that (like WWII). If people see them as liberators and treat them like that, it gives them a good feeling (like WWII). If they can't trust the people, because the enemy can be anyone from a young boy to an old woman that does something to you. You get paranoid and you develope a grudge against the people you're supposed to help. It was like that in Vietnam and it seems like it is it that way in Iraq as well. The comments of this soldier is supported by many stories I hear from Iraqi's here who have family in Iraq (Baghdad and the north).

I really feel it was wrong for the U.S. to undertake Operation Market Garden. All those civilians we killed and all. When are we gonna be charged with war crimes for freeing Holland?

I really feel it was wrong for the US to occupy europe for 40 years. We clearly didn't respect it's sovereignity. They do things differently then us over here.

In the US, we tend to see it as a bad thing if say, 200 tank columns come rolling over the board waving red flags. But that's what the people WANT over there. We can't impose our will upon Europe! We should have just gone back home.

Tim, I'm in a hurry right now, so: I understand your general position, I just don't understand what undergirds it. History doesn't seem to. I'll just say this- you say Iraq was about strategic and economic motives- So was our involvement in WWII- we even tried staying out of it all, that ended up working great, didn't it? Who knows how many MILLIONS may have been saved if we had gone into WWII earlier? Also, since one of those strategic motives is keeping me alive, I'm not really into knocking it. And I'd still like to know if you thank us for spending trillions on GPS munitions and the like to reduce all the bad stuff you dislike?? We didn't have to do that, we could've relied on sheer power. How do you explain that we don't?

Tim, Another thought- by the logic you use, that you need to tell 'us' about our misdeeds so that we will know we are not perfect (and then what, I'm not sure). Should I be telling you about Prince Bernhard's numerous scandals and crimes? Surely I don't need to talk to you about the Acheh War do I? Or about Dutch support of the Boers? What would be the point if I did? That's what I don't understand- your objective. I've heard what you've been saying over and over. Tim, I suggest you listen to a few more voices out of Iraq, ours and theirs. I don't think you understand the American Soldier, even given your study of Viet Nam (or perhaps because of it). Try Michael Yon online magazine. He's blogging from the ground in Iraq.

Doug, I have emailed with Michael Yon a few times. He seems okay. I really try to get my information from more than one source and definitely from different kind of people with different prespectives.

WWII was different from Iraq. First of all there was a real threat. Fascism was trying to conquer the world and was making progress. Germany and Japan were real threats. Saddam Hussein was not (not anymore). Second, you were attacked by Japan and Germany. Iraq did not attack you. The link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein has been proven false by numerous investigations. Thirth, we Europeans were glad you liberated us and although most Iraqi's are glad you got ride of Saddam they do not trust you (and I really believe that goes for most Arabs and muslims all around the world).

I guess the question is why are you really in Iraq? What do you think your government is up to? Will their policy succeed? You know what's intresting, we had a class on Syrian history yesterday and we had a guestspeaker. A diplomat from the Dutch embassy in Damascus. She told us the US state department advised the US government not to intervene in Iraq, because they knew it was going to end up like this. She knew from her contacts with American diplomats in Damascus they were againts an attack on Syria. Not because they liked the Assad regime, but because they believed it would be unwise. The weird thing is the US government and the pentagon are not really listening nor taking the state department very serious. Apparently they have another agenda. It's been like that for for a long time now. Since even before the Vietnam War.

Bravo Doug, you seem to know your part about Dutch history! I was delighted to read about prince Bernhard, the Acheh War and the Boer Wars. But like I've mentioned before, I agree with anyone who says we commited numerous crimes in Acheh (and the rest of the Dutch Indies). I agree with anyone who says Prince Bernhard was old pervert (he had sex with an 19-year old girl when he was in his fifties and made her pregnant. Not just her, several other women as well). The Boer War was different though. The Boers formed independend states and the British wanted to expand their territories to the north, because diamonds and gold were found there. That caused several wars with the Boers (who had Dutch ancestors). It were the British however who've commited warcrimes. They invented concentrationcamps (not the Germans) to lock up all the Boers, together with their women and children. Supporting the Boers was a good thing to do in the light of British agression.

Well, Tim, WWII was certainly different from Iraq, and I think given the limited number of FACTS with solid evidence, ON EITHER SIDE of the debate, we'll both have a tough time changing the others mind on that. I do think your understanding of the Arab/Muslim is flawed, but how can I prove it? All I can do is ask you read as much as you can from their own media, and if possible, talk to them. I also think that regardless of Saddam being involved with 9-11 or not, he is a smart enough man to know a 'good' idea when he sees one- and from his perspective, 9-11 must've been pure genius. It'll be hard to convince me that a man who tried to assasinate a sitting POTUS, wouldn't want to also help out people flying planes into skyscrapers here. The strong possibility of that is enough for me to invade Iraq (with whom we were only at state of truce- which was consistantly violated by Iraq). Regarding your comment that Euros were grateful for liberation- I'm not so sure that all the Germans were- we had insurgency problems then too, and I guarantee many Japanese were not happy at all to be 'liberated', but the Emporer ordered surrender- they had no choice- it'd be like God speaking directly to the Muslims to stop Jihad. Oh, and Arabs don't trust ANYONE, especially outsiders to their own Family/Tribe/Nation/Ethnicity/Religon, in that order. Please understand that the US Department of State is a world unto itself. For many Americans, the bureaucrats at State don't have a clue, and so even when they may have a good point, they've become mostly wrong, and end up getting ignored even on the one good point. I'm also wondering why, if they were so sure it would 'end up like this', did we not hear that from them BEFORE it happened. I mean, what would it have taken to make another well planned leak? It has the stink of CYA to me. 'We've been wrong so much, so let's sound right about something...' Re: Dutch history- I honestly didn't know much detail, but I had a hunch, and it didn't take me five minutes to find enough specifics to make my point. Thanks for the inspiration to do some research on a new subject. Prince Bernhard did a little more than just be a pervert (Nazi ties prewar, mafia ties in the 70's, World Wildlife Fund Mercenaries involved in South Africa...). As for the Boers, you're making a lesser of two evils argument, aren't you? I'll bet the natives didn't think much of the Boers. I'll also extend that to include the Diamond trade, and the economic support that gave to apartheid from Amsterdam/Rotterdam. I expected you'd be against what was done in Indonesia. But I still want to know what is the point is of discussing all this other than adding to our general knowledge base (which certainly has it's merits)?

I don't know why I always have something pop into my head after I post... let me add: "Germany and Japan were real threats. Saddam Hussein was not (not anymore)"- Tim. That's exactly it, we THOUGHT that containment would work to protect us, and under the OLD model, it did work. 9-11 (11-9 if you like) changed the model- made that strategy outdated, and dangerous. No longer could we limit our concerns to Saddam's military (which had been greatly reduced), we had to be concerned about asymmetrical warfare now, in ways we weren't before. Thanks for making my point about Iraq.

Doug,

I have a few things to say about your last post.

"I do think your understanding of the Arab/Muslim is flawed, but how can I prove it." You continue by advising me to focus on their own (Arab) media. I am already doing that. I've studied history, currently I am a (part-time) teacher and study Arabic at the the university of Amsterdam. If all goes well, I am done in two years. I read en watch Arab media every day. The thing is, you've got to know what to read and watch. I'll give you some good and very decent sites to check out for yourself.

http://english.daralhayat.com/ http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/

I agree Arab media is sometimes biased, but that goes for our media as well. But these sites are really good. Let me know what you think of them.

I still don't see any connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. In fact it is a proven fact he had nothing to with it. But I guess you see what you want to see. The war in Iraq is being sold as part of the war against terrorism, while in fact the terrorists only came to Iraq after you invaded. And I am not saying something else than the US military which complains about foreign fighters entering Iraq to fight the US army. I trully believe this war made you even more impopular, to the point millions of people hate you. It is - I think - a fact many more people are now willing to fight you. But it's not just that. Anti-American feelings can cause people not to buy American products, harrass American tourists, switch from dollars to euro's etc. This war is not productive, it is counter-productive.

You asked me what the point is of discussing the things we're discussing now. The point is simple and extremly important. We should be able to look at our own history, know it and be critical of it at some points. Not look at it and say "wow, we're so damn good, we never make mistakes and are always the best". We have to understand our history and learn from our mistakes.

As for the Boers. Of course if we look at the locals the Boers were the lesser of two evils. In fact, there was probably not a big difference between them. B