June 20, 2005
Kos: Defeatist Asshole Who Needs Ass Kicked
Kos--"So we are stuck in an unwinnable war, with a Right Wing that's increasingly shrill as they hold on desperately to the what last straws they have ("they hate America!" "Last throes!")."
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Kos--"The insurgency is becoming more deadly, more effective, and it's nowhere near being defeated."
Kos readers, see this for debunking of claims terrorists, who you, like the MSM, like to call 'insurgents' are getting more effective.
Kos--"Yet the same idiots who now claim Saddam's torture rooms gave them justification to invade Iraq (while ignoring torture rooms in allied countries, like Uzbekistan), they now claim torture by our side is no big deal."
What TORTURE asshole? We are not claiming 'torture is no big deal', what we are claiming is that almost every single case of 'torture' you cite is not, in fact, torture. Abuse, maybe, but not 'torture' you fool!
The American military is in the business of rescuing prisoners from torture chambers, not in the business of putting prisoners in them. Example here (hat tip: Tim at Opinion Bug).
These are fighting words. The kind of words that in previous wars would have been censored (yes, there used to be actual, real, honest to goodness censorship during WWII). The kind of words that would land you in jail during times of total war.
If I sound shrill, it's only because I am tired of Kos and company. While they claim there is nothing worse than a soldier dying they forget there is one thing worse: a soldier dying in vain. To claim the Iraq war is lost is to turn the self-sacrifice of our brave soldiers into a futile mockery. Kos even goes so far as to make the claim that the Afghanistan war may have been a mistake since the insurgency is still very much alive there. As if we hadn't already won the Afghanistan campaign.
Kos is a disgusting human being, with no realization that the GWOT will never be won in the conventional sense. There is no nation-state the terrorists belong to to sign a cease-fire with. The truth is that we have already won in Iraq and Aghanistan. What we are fighting now is not the same war. Now it is a war against terrorist forces.
Wait. Maybe Kos does understand this. Maybe he just wishes we would surrender?
[Yes, this post keeps getting longer the more I think about it]
Posted by: Rusty at
01:59 PM
| Comments (66)
| Add Comment
Post contains 400 words, total size 3 kb.
1
If you want to know what torture is, ask Senator Byrd. I am sure he tortured the negro before he strung him up.
Amazing what the libbies call torture. OoOOOooo The air conditioning is not set at 65 degrees OoHoHhhOoOOoOooo someone did not handle the Koran with love and care OoOOooOOoO The nazi soldiers play 50 cent super duper loud ! OoOOooOoo the torture of it alllllll..
I would love to show a liberal what torture really is. I think I could enjoy that.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at June 20, 2005 02:13 PM (yBHNA)
2
Maybe you libs should ask Teddy the drunk Kennedy. He tortured the hell out of Mary Jo- Talk about water boarding.
Posted by: Obsnooks at June 20, 2005 02:14 PM (yBHNA)
3
America can't lose on the battlefield, only in the field of public opinion-- and the Kos Left is doing everything in their power to make sure that happens. It would discredit the Republicans for years to come if it did, which is the Left's only goal here.
When you hear a Leftard say we're losing the Iraq war, that is only his desperate need to see the Republicans fail, even if it hurts America.
Posted by: Carlos at June 20, 2005 02:21 PM (8e/V4)
4
the reports of torture reminded me barracks life.
Posted by: REMF at June 20, 2005 02:23 PM (aLiCo)
5
Yeah, but Kos was formerly in the armed forces. Which, by all good and true logic, means that he and he alone is in the correct position (due to his extensive experience) to issue verdicts on military matters. If Army vet Kos says something, it has to be right!
Posted by: Wine-aholic at June 20, 2005 02:23 PM (Wsn+K)
6
OF barracks life
Posted by: REMF at June 20, 2005 02:24 PM (aLiCo)
7
I am, of course, a liberal myself, but I can summon up nothing but contempt for Kos and his vile coterie.
What is evident about Kos--who by the way should not be referred to as a liberal, but as a fascist--is that he is popular for saying whatever the hate-soaked pinheads who read his site want to hear. His views also tend to pretty much follow the same predictable pattern as the fascist insurgents in Iraq: every time the fascists are dealt a major defeat, both Kos and the fascists become sullen and quiet and given only to occasional outbursts. Then when things are quiet a while, they build up their rage and their attacks until they reach a frenzied clip---and then they're dealt a major defeat again.
Let's just face it man. He's one of them.
Posted by: Dean Esmay at June 20, 2005 02:24 PM (Fs6IG)
8
I see Filthy still reeks of damp, summer goat. And his beard is inhabited by a highly evolved ecosystem, rich in flora and fauna, that makes SaddamÂ’s nest look fashionable by comparison. Legend has it that he once survived three weeks in the mountains by foraging for food in his facial hair. He never orders appetizers if you know what I mean.
On the plus side, his schizophrenia seems to be heading towards remission. He has limited his cast of characters to FA and Obsnooks, and has excluded Earl Dittman, Mr. Fancypants and AngryBlackman from his living fantasy.
Let us all wish him a speedy recovery.
Posted by: greg at June 20, 2005 02:36 PM (/+dAV)
9
>>>"I am, of course, a liberal myself, but I can summon up nothing but contempt for Kos and his vile coterie."
God bless your soul. Why do your type of Libs make yourselves so scarce?
Posted by: Carlos at June 20, 2005 02:54 PM (8e/V4)
10
Hey, Dr. S, I was going to email you this one, but did you see what Armando posted in respect to Newt's comments about Durbin? http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/18/181222/724
Posted by: William Teach at June 20, 2005 03:01 PM (cuTsc)
11
Dieing in vain is the question.
Posted by: Another liberal at June 20, 2005 03:03 PM (HFKAk)
12
W Teach,
Dude, what an asshole these guys are defending Durbin's outrage.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 20, 2005 03:05 PM (JQjhA)
13
"What TORTURE asshole? We are not claiming 'torture is no big deal', what we are claiming is that almost every single case of 'torture' you cite is not, in fact, torture."
Kos makes one very strong point in my opinion. The US is known to be using 3rd countries for extraordinary renditions.
“Separately, international human rights groups had reported that torture in Uzbek jails included boiling of body parts, using electroshock on genitals and plucking off fingernails and toenails with pliers. Two prisoners were boiled to death, the groups reported. The February 2001 State Department report stated bluntly: "Uzbekistan is an authoritarian state with limited civil rights."
Now there is increasing evidence that the United States has sent terror suspects to Uzbekistan for detention and interrogation, even as Uzbekistan's treatment of its own prisoners continues to earn it admonishments from around the world, including from the State Department.
The so-called rendition program, under which the CIA transfers terror suspects to foreign countries to be held and interrogated, has linked the United States to other countries with poor human rights records.
Uzbekistan's role as a surrogate jailer for the United States has been confirmed by a half-dozen current and former intelligence officials working in Europe, the Middle East and the United States. The CIA declined to comment on the prisoner transfer program, but an intelligence official estimated that the number of terrorism suspects sent by the United States to Tashkent is in the dozens.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/01/MNGE5CI9MO1.DTL
Posted by: greg at June 20, 2005 03:37 PM (/+dAV)
14
That is a good point, but it is not what Kos means. Kos is specifically talking about Gitmo (although he throws in these 'extraordinary rendition cases in a sly guilt by association tactic). Further, most of these 'extraordinary rendition' cases are not necessarily as described. For the most part, they are nationals caught by the U.S. then sent back to their home country.
What their home country does to them may suck, but surely Kos (and you) wouldn't argue that Ukrainians who fought with the Nazis then captured by the U.S. should not have been sent back to the Soviets--even though there was little doubt about the treatment they would receive?
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 20, 2005 03:42 PM (JQjhA)
15
Rusty:
'What their home country does to them may suck, but surely Kos (and you) wouldn't argue that Ukrainians who fought with the Nazis then captured by the U.S. should not have been sent back to the Soviets--even though there was little doubt about the treatment they would receive? "
Rusty,
I didn't get enough sleep last night. I'm not sure what your point is. Sorry.
Posted by: greg at June 20, 2005 03:47 PM (/+dAV)
16
Don't think the blame just lies with the Democrats. My back has been killing me all day from the dagger Senator (sic) Hagel slipped in there over the weekend.
http://politics.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050619/pl_afp/usiraqpoliticshagel
"Hagel, a top Senate Republican said to have presidential aspirations, said in an interview in US News and World Report, set to hit newsstands Monday, that US troops are "losing" the Iraq war, and that "things aren't getting better, they're getting worse."
"The White House is completely disconnected from reality," said Hagel. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq," said Hagel, who added that increasingly, fellow Republicans are coming to share his view."
Posted by: CDR Salamander at June 20, 2005 03:57 PM (xGZ+b)
17
The point is that that the realities of the world are such that we must collaborate with dispicable regimes sometimes. The CIA does not send suspects to other countries to get tortured. This is simple propaganda. Why? Because the CIA knows that most forms of torture, especially those employed by third-world goons, are not effective.
The CIA sends some suspects back to their country of origin at the request of the country of origin. It's part of doing business in the world and having strategic allies.
In WWII tens of thousands of volunteers joined the German army. Some of those were captured by the U.S. The U.S. did not keep them but sent them back to the Soviets who then sent them to the real gulags.
Sometimes, you just have to do these sort of things. It's the price you pay for allies.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 20, 2005 03:57 PM (JQjhA)
18
Rusty:
"The CIA does not send suspects to other countries to get tortured. This is simple propaganda."
This is a contentious point, to say the least.
Posted by: greg at June 20, 2005 04:08 PM (/+dAV)
19
It is increasingly ironic that Liberals today decry rendition when they re-elected one of their own who started the process in the first place. It's all politics with Kos and Kids.
Posted by: Chad Evans at June 20, 2005 04:08 PM (dZcXJ)
20
I had a really good rant worked up, but then that bassard Dean Esmay wrote it better.
Posted by: SPQR at June 20, 2005 04:09 PM (xauGB)
21
Kos endorsed 15 candidates for office during the last election - all 15 lost. The DailyPus can generate heat and passion on the far left but not results. If he wants Howard Dean and Dick Durban front and center speaking for the democrat party - let him. If the democrat party wants to position itself as the party for terrorists rights - let them. Me, I am looking forward to 2006.
Posted by: dittybopper at June 20, 2005 04:11 PM (j2M1Q)
22
Well, not for nothing we could look at Mr. Moulitsas's own words regarding his military service.
--------
MoulitsasÂ’s experiences in El Salvador got him interested early in political questions. After graduating from high school, he joined the U.S. Army to pay for college. He served in the artillery from 1989 to 1992 and narrowly missed being sent to the Middle East during the first Gulf War.
“My unit didn’t deploy because the war ended so quickly,” Moulitsas says. “But there is a kind of introspection and self-examination that knowing that you’re about to head out to war forces on you. Our vehicles were in the Gulf; we were ready to go. That forms a basis of a lot of my antiwar views, the fact that I was in a position of potentially heading to war.”
-------
http://www.bu.edu/alumni/bostonia/2004/fall/partisan/
All of which is fine and dandy, but serving your 3 years active/5 inactive for the educational benefits and having your active duty hitch come up before your unit is deployed in a war that results from one country invading another, it means that a reaction like this is a bit over the top, imo:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/9/104813/3757
So, Kos, my fellow brethren in arms, and I say this as a 4 year active duty enlisted USAF who spent two tours in Korea in the mid-80s, save it for the VFW Post.
Save it for the VFW Post.
Posted by: BumperStickerist at June 20, 2005 04:21 PM (Tl0qu)
23
Chad:
'It is increasingly ironic that Liberals today decry rendition when they re-elected one of their own who started the process in the first place.'
Chad,
I'm not positive who you are talking about, but I'm guessing Clinton. I'm certain that Libs would have been just as outraged by extraordinary renditions had they known that it was occurring under the previous administration. I know as a Libertarian, I would have been outraged.
Posted by: greg at June 20, 2005 04:22 PM (/+dAV)
24
Greg, they DID know it was happening. No one cared until now.
And a lot of people are still under the impression that Bush started it. Rusty is correct about these guys being sent back to their country of origin. They're not shipping Egyptians to Uzbekistan and they're not shipping Syrians to Egypt. You may have a problem with them being sent back where they came from, but I'll tell you like I told someone else, "I don't give a shit." I don't care what they do with them once they're sent home. If they're looking for assylum, shooting people up in another country ain't the way to get it.
Posted by: Oyster at June 20, 2005 05:08 PM (YudAC)
25
Dean Esmay, running screaming from those who are defining modern liberalism, said:
"I am, of course, a liberal myself, but I can summon up nothing but contempt for Kos and his vile coterie."
Good on you! Whatever else you may support, you seem to have at least one mooring line fixed firmly to reality.
"What is evident about Kos--who by the way should not be referred to as a liberal, but as a fascist--"
Ding ding ding! We have a bullseye!
"...is that he is popular for saying whatever the hate-soaked pinheads who read his site want to hear."
He is their prophet of hate and their ayatollah of stupidity.
"His views also tend to pretty much follow the same predictable pattern as the fascist insurgents in Iraq: every time the fascists are dealt a major defeat, both Kos and the fascists become sullen and quiet and given only to occasional outbursts. Then when things are quiet a while, they build up their rage and their attacks until they reach a frenzied clip---and then they're dealt a major defeat again."
Kinda makes me wonder... we know he was taking money from Soros, is he also taking money from some Islamic group? He might as well be on their payroll, he's carrying their water.
"Let's just face it man. He's one of them."
Yep, and as long as he and his ilk set the agenda for the Dhimmicrats, then the far Right wing Republicans will only get stronger. I say this as a secular Republican. As much as I despise the Dhimmis, that doesn't mean that I want public schools turned into religious academies and public money given to churches for any reason. Call me crazy, but I'm kinda pro-Constitution, pro-America, and pro-individual rights.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 20, 2005 05:09 PM (0yYS2)
26
The important thing to know about Kos is that if there was a Democrat in the WH and/or a Democrat controlled Senate, we would not be hearing a peep about the things that are 'outraging' him today. He is a partisan hack who will put politics ahead of the country every time.
He is also consistently wrong and horribly innefective in helping his 'side' win. He is annoying as hell however.
Posted by: Defense Guy at June 20, 2005 05:24 PM (lVjfM)
27
By the way, I've been to Dean's site, and in my judgment, when he says he's a liberal, what he means is a classical liberal, not a modern one. I also identify with this description. The two definitions are in NO WAY related. Classical liberalism was born in the Enlightenment, and promotes liberty, equality, and freedom of conscience. Modern liberalism is a digest of key points from the Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, and Mao's Little Red Book, all as translated by Noam Chomsky.
Think well of Dean, he's one of the good guys.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 20, 2005 05:52 PM (0yYS2)
28
Kos said: "That forms a basis of a lot of my antiwar views, the fact that I was in a position of potentially heading to war."
Emphasis on the word "I". He was scared. It was as simple as that. There's noting wrong with being scared. You think all throughout history any man that knew he was heading into a full blown war wasn't scared? What's wrong is his inability to admit it. Instead, he uses ten thousand other things to justify the fact that he was just plain scared. And the worst one is that he blames everyone else.
Posted by: Oyster at June 20, 2005 06:00 PM (YudAC)
29
>>>"Wait. Maybe Kos does understand this. Maybe he just wishes we would surrender?"
He most certainly does. Their desire is to see America suffer a crushing defeat because they believe we've become an empire. This view is rooted in the belief that America is the single greatest locus of evil in the world rather than a force for good.
Posted by: Carlos at June 20, 2005 06:24 PM (8e/V4)
30
Lethal was acceptable for Iraq, really because he threatened us, and we had no means to stop him short of killing him. But we have to kill the machine too. Right now we are in the midst of killing the machine. The war is not over. we fight every day. But the war is over, the war against Saddam. The only ones to die in vain, died at the hands of their own kind, stabbed in the back by someone who should have been watching it, for him. Kos, stop shoot at the backs of my brothers and sisters!Your grenades, and bombvests, are delivered in the form of your native tongue. Let me first state, I believe my family in arms, my fellow patriots, are not affected by your drivel. You don't cruise their neighborhood any longer. If you did, and they knew who you were, we would not be hearing from you, any longer. You cruise the streets where the parents and grandparents of the American warrior live. You are a coward. I wonder if you have the guts to say the things you say at the Viet Nam Memorial, before the people who visit, in front of them, instead of behind the anonymnity of the internet. I know you would not have the sack to say it to my face. You should know what you would likely get if you did not stop and apologize in a fairly quick manner. I will give you that much. A chance to correct yourself. However, you attempt to speack for men and women you have never known, and write them off as failures. Screw You!
Posted by: Kstumpf at June 20, 2005 06:29 PM (hQXkN)
31
I hope someone is taking pictures when religion enforcers are beating the Hell out of Kos first, then making him bow to Mecca five times a day. And if he has a wife, all he'll be able to see are her eyes through the slits in her burka. That's what we are all going to be experiencing if the Left doesn't wake up and get on our team.
Posted by: opine6 at June 20, 2005 11:12 PM (YyWmH)
32
Kos is right. Bush is a liar and you're fighting a losing battle for nothing.
Posted by: BUSH LIES at June 20, 2005 11:51 PM (FV4oJ)
33
Here is a short interview with a North Vietnamese Colonel who explains why the US lost Vietnam war. Simply put, we lost the will to win.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13121
Posted by: av at June 21, 2005 12:03 AM (B54dL)
34
Av, The Vietnamese won by not losing. America lost before it even got there.
Posted by: BUSH LIES at June 21, 2005 12:15 AM (FV4oJ)
35
Rusty: We are not claiming 'torture is no big deal', what we are claiming is that almost every single case of 'torture' you cite is not, in fact, torture. Abuse, maybe, but not 'torture' you fool!
So, abuse is ok? We don't torture people(http://tinyurl.com/dx2x5), we _only_ abuse them? Shouldn't the goal be no abuse & torture?
Rusty: what we are claiming is that almost every single case of 'torture' you cite is not, in fact, torture.
It follows that "almost every single case" does NOT include every case. i.e. Some of the cases cited are therefore in fact torture, by your own admission.
I am glad we agree that torture as indeed occured. Maybe we could move on and discuss what to do about abuse & torture? Instead of spliting hairs over what cases were abuse and which were torture.
Rusty: Kos is a disgusting human being
Personal attacks don't add anything to the discussion... unless of course the object was to troll/flamewar.
Rusty: Kos is a disgusting human being, with no realization that the GWOT will never be won in the conventional sense. The truth is that we have already won in Iraq and Aghanistan. What we are fighting now is not the same war. Now it is a war against terrorist forces.
You really are just Trolling, aren't you. Won in Iraq? Won in Aghanistan? (maybe if you are an opium user, as opium production is at record levels now). Please explain what you mean by "The truth is that we have already won in Iraq and Aghanistan.", I just don't see at all. Warlords control more of Aghanistan than the Aghanistan gov't. Iraq is a complete mess.
"Now it is a war against terrorist forces" - Isn't that what originally brought us into Aghanistan and Iraq? I seem to remember one of the lies George trotted out was a link between OBL and Iraq. I am confused and don't understand that now we are fighting a war against terrorist forces. Is "terrorist forces" code for "guerilla forces"?
Posted by: puzzled at June 21, 2005 05:28 AM (moq9v)
36
I see the tinfoil brigade is active!
You libs are so predictable.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at June 21, 2005 07:56 AM (yBHNA)
37
Saddam only butchered his own people. Leave him alone! Any Americans in those mass graves? I didn't think soooooooo. I bet if you went thru the million or so corpses uncovered that Saddam killed, you won't find one American!
Fight this Illegal war!!!!
Hitler didn't kill any Americans, why did we attack him?
Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal were retired and no threat to the USA, why did we capture them?
Posted by: Harold T. Fancypants at June 21, 2005 08:00 AM (yBHNA)
38
Oyster:
Greg, they DID know it was happening. No one cared until now.
WE did? I didn't, this is news to me. I certainly would have cared if this is true. And I don't care who "started it", it is vulgar, disgusting and un-American.
Oyster:
'They're not shipping Egyptians to Uzbekistan and they're not shipping Syrians to Egypt."
I think you are wrong on this point.
"an intelligence official estimated that the number of terrorism suspects sent by the United States to Tashkent is in the dozens.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/01/MNGE5CI9MO1.DTL
Are you saying these men were all Uzbekis?
Av:'Here is a short interview with a North Vietnamese Colonel who explains why the US lost Vietnam war. Simply put, we lost the will to win.'
We lost the Viet Nam war because the enemy was willing to take more 'pain' than we were. We lost over 50,000 men and they lost over 2,000,000. That's a 40:1 kill ratio in the US's favor and yet they won.
They out bled us. It's that simple.
Posted by: greg at June 21, 2005 08:25 AM (/+dAV)
39
"They out bled us. It's that simple."
Not quite. Those numbers would indicate that we were not losing. The press and some in the public were busy telling a different story. Does that remind you of anything more recent?
Posted by: Defense Guy at June 21, 2005 09:00 AM (jPCiN)
40
DG:The press and some in the public were busy telling a different story.
No DG!
The press was eagerly publishing body count numbers provided to them from Gen. Westmoreland's office. If one adds up all of the body count claims, North Vietnam would have been wiped out several times over.
I can tell that you're too young to remember Viet Nam, because you don't have your facts straight.
You're obviously under 40. Why don't you join up, young man? I know why, you're making too much money as a defense contractor!
Posted by: greg at June 21, 2005 09:16 AM (/+dAV)
41
The Tet offensive, which was a horrible loss for the N Vietnamese, was reported as a setback for the US. I don't put all the blame on the press, as the government clearly didn't have the stones for that war.
I realize that you are obsessed with what I am doing for the war effort greg, but you will just have to learn to deal with disappointment.
Posted by: Defense Guy at June 21, 2005 09:39 AM (jPCiN)
42
DG,
We lost a lot of men in the Tet offensive. I believe it was the worst weakk of the war for us. The press simply followed their practice of reporting the body count figures of both sides. They used numbers provided by Gen. Westmoreland.
What should they have done? Should they not have reported the figures? Are you for censorship?
Posted by: greg at June 21, 2005 10:19 AM (/+dAV)
43
It wasn't the numbers greg. It was people like Walter Cronkite going on the air and telling people that the war is lost.
As I said before, the press was only part of the problem. The government was busy tying the hands of those they were forcing to fight. The US government did not try to win that war, and the press helped them lose.
Posted by: Defense Guy at June 21, 2005 10:22 AM (jPCiN)
44
DG:'The US government did not try to win that war, and the press helped them lose.'
They tried everything in the conventional war tool bag. The only way they could have won that war was to resort to nukes.
Posted by: greg at June 21, 2005 10:37 AM (/+dAV)
45
Greg: Are you prepared to tell me you know for a fact that these guys weren't from Uzbekistan? Look where it's situated in the middle east. Uzbekistan has a long history of religious extremism and I have no doubt that its citizens have flooded, by much more than just mere "dozens" into the terrorist program throughout Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. It's awfully convenient that these reports of the "horrors of rendition" always leave out any mention of where these guys are from.
You know, it would stand to reason that if we wanted to use another country for "interrogation techniques" then why would we go to several different countries? Unless of course we were deporting them back to their own countries. What happens to them after that - I personally don't care.
I'll repeat myself here; if these detainees want assylum from the possibility of being tortured back home, then don't go to another country and starting killing its population indiscriminately and committing acts of terrorism.
The Iraqis want and deserve to have these idiots uprooted from their country and sent away so they can get to the business of rebuilding their country.
Posted by: Oyster at June 21, 2005 10:38 AM (fl6E1)
46
Greg, I do agree with DG on one point. The government was tying the
hands of the military. When you can not cross an invisible line to
wipe out the enemy, that is BS. I know the reason, (fear of another
Chinese or Russian assistant), but it was there. It was not to very
late in the war that we allowed our planes to bomb north Vietnam.
Posted by: Butch at June 21, 2005 10:59 AM (Gqhi9)
47
Butch,
We killed 2,000,000 Gooks and only lost 56,000 of our own. Even had we killed 10,000,000, they would have kept fighting. We didn't want to expand the war to provoke China and Russia, who were providing weapons to the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong. In order to win, we would have had to bomb Russia and China. Both had nukes. The conflict was a delicate situation and not winnable unless we went NOOKULAR. Goldwater and his Veep nominee invoked the nuclear option in the 1964 presidential campaign and it was soundly rejected by the American people. Recall the "Daisy" commercial used by the Johnson campaign. This was before the peace movement swelled.
Posted by: greg at June 21, 2005 11:27 AM (/+dAV)
48
Oyster:'Are you prepared to tell me you know for a fact that these guys weren't from Uzbekistan?'
I'm prepared to tell you for a fact that we are using THIRD countries for extraordinary renditions. Are all the men from Uzbekistan? Probably not.
Posted by: greg at June 21, 2005 11:33 AM (/+dAV)
49
Oyster,
I could swamp you with examples if I were so inclined.
‘Thanks to Mayer, CBS News' "60 Minutes," the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and other reporters and outlets focusing upon the issue, the whole world now knows about people like Mahar Arar, a Canadian citizen who claims he was tortured after being subjected to extraordinarily rendition by and between the U.S. and, of all countries, Syria. Likewise, the whole world now knows about Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who reportedly was taken out of FBI custody by the CIA and shipped to Egypt, where he promptly, according to Mayer, gave the U.S. bad information about the use of chemical weapons in Iraq.’
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/18/opinion/courtwatch/main674973.shtml
Posted by: greg at June 21, 2005 11:39 AM (/+dAV)
50
Whew!!! tough thread. I do agree with greg on one thing in particular.
"Simply put, we lost the will to win".
We can't fall into that again. We just can't. Could it be possible that all those old trailers and war propaganda may have helped in WWII. I note we don't do that anymore. Which kind of like gives the enemy an advantage since bad news travels fast and sticks like glue. One Boom and they get free press all day long. Maybe we should try that again to balance the bad press. The press is going to report what makes money. We need to find a way to balance against that without censoring independent media. The morale of the population is important. Blogs are good for that but it take enlisting and keeping journalists on the battlefield. Of course you would have to consider the source but no information breeds imagination.
Have a good one guys.
Posted by: Howie at June 21, 2005 01:13 PM (D3+20)
51
Ooops please read that as:
. But it may take.
Posted by: Howie at June 21, 2005 01:15 PM (D3+20)
52
>>>"Even had we killed 10,000,000, they would have kept fighting."
The only reason the gooks kept fighting is because they knew time was their friend given they were winning the war of public opinion back in the States thanks to the anti-war Left. Had America stayed resolute, goook morale would have decreased rather than increased as their casualties mounted.
America can't lose on the battlefield, only the in war of public opinion back at home. Vietnam is repeating itself in Iraq thanks to the same anti-war Leftist forces.
Posted by: Carlos at June 21, 2005 01:41 PM (8e/V4)
53
Carlos:'Vietnam is repeating itself in Iraq thanks to the same anti-war Leftist forces. '
Another concession by a neocon that the war is not going well. But to blame it on the leftists? Come on!
Posted by: greg at June 21, 2005 02:03 PM (/+dAV)
54
Greg: Maher Arar was a Canadian software engineer born in Syria. Al-Libi, I'll admit, has certainly been around the block. He was reportedly, "reportedly" taken out of FBI custody by the CIA and shipped to Egypt. Before that he was training al Qaeda members in Afghanistan and later was captured in Pakistan. Actually, until April of this year, he was still on the USS Bataan somewhere in the Arabian Sea. They're holding several of the worst offenders there. You're going to have to do better than that.
Posted by: Oyster at June 21, 2005 02:27 PM (fl6E1)
55
Maher Arar IS a Canadian citizen. He was sent to Syria, a third country. End of story. What part of that do you not understand?
Posted by: greg at June 21, 2005 02:39 PM (/+dAV)
56
Maher Arar, though, is not a terrorist. He is one of the few "ghost prisoners" who have emerged to testify to the reality behind extraordinary rendition. A Syrian-born Canadian, Arar was detained while changing planes in New York in 2002. His name was on a terrorist watch-list but he was not charged in the US or even extradited to Canada, a friendly country with an inconvenient regard for the rule of law. Instead he was flown to Jordan, then sent on to Syria, a state that the US categorises as one that practises torture.
    One CIA agent explained to a reporter how it worked in the 1990s. "We'd arrest them and send them to Jordan or Egypt, and they'd disappear," he said. They were not charged in the US, he said, because the evidence would not hold up in court.
    The evidence against Maher Arar did not even hold up in a Syrian court. His crime was that his mother's cousin had joined the Muslim Brotherhood long after Maher moved to Canada. After 10 months of torture and incarceration in a cell the size of a grave, he was allowed to resume his journey home. Now he is suing the US government.
Posted by: greg at June 21, 2005 02:50 PM (/+dAV)
57
All this OUTRAGE from the posters here makes me think that KOS is really doing a great job these days. If the right (most of you here)are this stirred up about Daily Kos > dailykos.com then you must realize that KOS is getting really BIG and important. It is. He is. KOS keeps me informed about you all. Happy KOSniac here and big time Progressive Lefty.
Posted by: AustinSF at June 21, 2005 02:57 PM (SLwQb)
58
Habib, a 48-year-old Australian CITIZEN who grew up in Egypt, was about to disappear for six months into an Egyptian prison. There, he says, his Egyptian captors shocked him with high-voltage wires, hung him from metal hooks on the wall, nearly drowned him and mercilessly beat and kicked him.
The former coffee shop owner soon confessed to a litany of terrorism-related crimes, including teaching martial arts to several of the Sept. 11 hijackers and planning a hijacking himself. Habib later insisted that his confessions were false and given under "duress and torture."
Habib's more than three years of incarceration came into sharp focus this week, when the Bush administration agreed not to charge him with any crime and to repatriate him to Australia. Once home, he will be free, Australian officials said Wednesday.
Posted by: greg at June 21, 2005 03:04 PM (/+dAV)
59
Given his track record, were I a candidate I'd pay for Markos to support my opponent.
Seriously.
Posted by: BumperStickerist at June 21, 2005 03:07 PM (Tl0qu)
60
>>>"There, he says, his Egyptian captors shocked him with high-voltage wires, hung him from metal hooks on the wall, nearly drowned him and mercilessly beat and kicked him."
You mean the Egyptians actually tortured him? Like a REAL gulag???
So why did the Americans release him? Answer: because he was innocent.
Posted by: Carlos at June 21, 2005 03:23 PM (8e/V4)
61
You mean the Egyptians actually tortured him? Like a REAL gulag???
WE sent him to the gulag where he was tortured for 3 years and made to sign phony confessions. That does remind me of Hitler.
Posted by: greg at June 21, 2005 03:30 PM (/+dAV)
62
The vast majority of detainees are innocent. Their misfortune is that they have names that sound similar to someone on the list.
Posted by: greg at June 21, 2005 03:32 PM (/+dAV)
63
Habib was released to Australia with explicit promises that Australian officials will watch him. Look Greg, here's the deal - the military has released a LOT of these prisoners and everyone is under the impression that it's because they're innocent and are not a threat. That is completely false in most, if not all, cases. At least 20% of these "non-threatening" guys have been picked up again in more fighting. Your argument makes it seem as though each one of these guys are innocent because they've been let go. They're not. Habib was born in Egypt (he was only in Australia for ten years or so and became a citizen sometime during that time) and he "says" he was sent back there for torture. Seems like an awful lot of money spent sending this guy around the world and back for being so "innocent" or "non-threatening". He says he was arrested in Pakistan then sent to Egypt then Afghanistan then Guantanamo? I'm having a hard time swallowing all this if he's so innocent.
He's probably happy to go back to Australia even though he's been a "person of interest" to them since '93.
You ask that I question authority. That I question what we're being told. I ask the same of you.
Posted by: Oyster at June 21, 2005 03:44 PM (fl6E1)
64
The focus of our argument was whether or not extraordinary renditions are being done in 3rd countries. I think I have shown you that they are.
Now, if you want to concede the point and move on to another topic, that's fine with me.
Posted by: greg at June 21, 2005 04:27 PM (/+dAV)
65
greg,
for the record, I disagree with our policy of rendition. We should torture them ourselves.
Posted by: Carlos at June 21, 2005 10:15 PM (UWO6N)
66
Just looking at Bush is torture.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at June 22, 2005 06:46 AM (ScqM8)
61kb generated in CPU 0.1144, elapsed 0.2438 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.2241 seconds, 302 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
118 queries taking 0.2241 seconds, 302 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
