Warning: Graphic & Disturbing Content

Published on January 4, 2005 By hitparade In Politics

Recent developments in the war on terror-- i.e., the clamor over the plan to incarcerate select terrorists for life, and the capture of several of Zarkawi's top lieutenants- prompted posting the following link.

Warning: The link shows the beheading of Nick Berg, an American citizen abducted while on business in Iraq. This is the due process that these dirty rotten SOBs afforded to Nick Berg.

We can't continue to use the kid gloves of a choir boy to fight this war on terror. I say, untie the hands that want to help - not every one is afraid to get their hands dirty- and permit certain parties to get medieval and down right brutal.

http://www.thewednesdayreport.com/twr/twr20v18.htm

Link

Once there, scroll down the page ...

Comments (Page 4)

hitparade

on Jan 06, 2005

Yes, I know. That's what made it such a great movie. I simply said that it was one of the more accurate stories as far as theory is concerned, within limits.

I used the words relativity and relatively as play on words. As I really don't know any thing of substance about time travel, I was just trying to be witty. As to Back to the Future, the plot was so well done that it made it easy for an average Joe like me to follow. It's a great flick. Classic I dare say.

Peace out...

drmiler

on Jan 06, 2005

Reply #39 By: zergimmi - 1/6/2005 9:46:34 AM
dark ages, you morans

It's "morons" you moron!

Rightwinger

on Jan 06, 2005

Gotchya. Heh heh. That was relatively witty, I suppose.

It's "morons" you moron!

"Morans"----I saw that, too. Hey, maybe he's Irish!

Daiwa

on Jan 06, 2005

Ten years of ineffectual government will turn the people against the terrorist ideology and it's only a matter of time before victory is assured.

Problem is, cacto, it's not a decade of "innefectual government" - it's a decade of mass murder & mayhem with potentially thousands of innocents killed. Sure, they are "their" innocents, not ours, but that doesn't lessen the moral imperative to defeat them. This world you conceive of where just turning the other cheek results in the eventual victory of goodness over evil simply does not and never will exist - the likely consequences of that kind of wishful thinking are frightening to contemplate.

Cheers,
Daiwa

cactoblasta

on Jan 06, 2005

It's foolish to assume the international arena is one where good triumphs over evil. First of all, there are no 'good' nations. Every nation does whatever it feels is in its own selfish interests at the time. More often than not this leads to a good result, but if you look at the works of the defining political scientists and thinkers who influence national leaders, you'd discover this is more a side effect than a stated aim. There is no good in international relations, only the grey of amorality, and as long as we persist in believing that world leaders seek to make the world a better place for everyone the longer we persist in our delusion. You can cry moral imperative as much as you like, but IR isn't based on morality, it's based on cynicism.

In addition please note I didn't say 'turn the other cheek'. I suggested that US efforts in Nicaragua were a good example of what could be done. The US did not turn the other cheek. They actively supported rebels with money, arms and drug sales, they funded opposition parties, they organised trade embargoes, they used propaganda extensively etc etc. For most regimes this is enough to either contain them wholly (eg Cuba) or to at least keep any idealistic fighters fighting the regime rather than foreigners. It's war at arm's length, aimed at destroying the soul of a cause rather than killing an easily replaced resource. Far less blood on the carpet.

Daiwa

on Jan 07, 2005

This pisses me off, cacto. The US has used its power and military might for more good, altruistic & noble purposes than any country in the history of the world. You don't spit on the graves of all those who died to make others free. Had you been in charge during WWII, I'd be speaking German or Japanese. And "containing" a regime that is murdering its own citizens by the thousands, openly courting and offering support to international terrorists and thumbing its nose at international sanctions while perpetrating a massive fraud through programs organized to provide humanitarian aid to its citizens is a piss-poor objective. There might be less blood on your carpet, but no less blood shed.

And I guess you've forgotten how our efforts in Nicaragua were trashed by the liberal media and then-Democrat-controlled Congress, characterized as the CIA run amok and the "worst" kind of skulduggery. It was the backlash from Nicaragua, and other similar operations, that created the intelligence vacuum of the 1990's, leading to, among other things, 9/11 and our our overestimation of what Iraq was hiding in the way of WMD.

And it's not an either/or game, cacto. Both military force and indirect means of influence are being employed as we speak.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Rightwinger

on Jan 08, 2005

Well said, Daiwa, well said.

cactoblasta

on Jan 08, 2005

The US has used its power and military might for more good, altruistic & noble purposes than any country in the history of the world.

How do you know? It's far too easy to make blanket statements like that. What do you know of history that qualifies you to make that statement? Have you lived everywhere, everywhen? I haven't, and I'm not going to make any assumptions about US morality when the vast majority of their political science theory, and the foundations of the two major branches of US foreign policy, are founded on assumptions that the world system is anarchic and that morality is pointless without the existence of more strategically useful alternative justifications.

The basis of the international system is that foreigners don't matter. Only misguided liberals care about those outside their country; ask Moderateman and I'm sure he would agree. Sure you could save all the foreigners, but would that make the world a better place? Most of them don't want to be liberated, especially if the price is their independence, their homes and their pride.

As for Nicaragua... well, who cares about the media's concerns? All that matters is that you get elected personally or that your party does. Apparently noone in the US remembers the horrors of Nicaragua, for the Republican Party has returned to power. Noone remembers the terrors of Panama, brought about through Carter's acquiesence. It seems foolish in the extreme to me to blame intelligence failures based on an unwieldy institution dealing with a post-Cold War world on previous covert sucesses on another continent.

And it's not an either/or game, cacto. Both military force and indirect means of influence are being employed as we speak.

Yes, and this part of the reason why there's been so little success. Both techniques work against each other. Subversion is impossible without sympathy, and spreading fear and terror is impossible when apparently the US loves the Middle East. The price of mixed messages is eternal suspicion, and it is only by pursuing a single aim, with all other considerations purely in support of this, that there can be any success in pursuing whatever aims the US has for the region.

Rightwinger

on Jan 08, 2005

As for Nicaragua... well, who cares about the media's concerns

---cacto

I don't know about Down Under, but here in America, the media dominates the entire sphere of public opinion. If the media is against you, it's very difficult to win public support, as they'll only show the most negative of anything you do or say. Same as what's happening in Iraq now, from what I hear. The media is everything here.

Noone remembers the terrors of Panama, brought about through Carter's acquiesence

---cacto

This is a terrible example.....I admit I don't know much about Panama under Herara, but I know that Carter was a self-righteous, smug, condescending, extremely liberal president, and one of the worst in memory. Virtually every decision he made was bad, which was what made it so easy for Reagan to crush him in 1980's landslide election (thank God).
Noriega controlled things in Panama, but we also took him out, indicted under Reagan and forced out under Bush the Elder.

cactoblasta

on Jan 08, 2005

I included Carter more to have a Democrat example so I couldn't be accused of being anti-Republican by only including Republicans. He was the best example I could find off the top of my head.

The media is strong, but offer enough bribes and you'll get the owners onside, and then it's just a matter of time before they start singing your tune. You need only look at Murdoch's press empire to see that. And considering most people's natural suspicion of the media, it's not hard to make agenda-setting work for you. Consider the massive backlash in the recent election, where the media seemed at times wholly against Bush yet he won the election.

Rightwinger

on Jan 08, 2005

You need only look at Murdoch's press empire to see that

Man, am I sick and tired of hearing people beat on Rupert Murdoch; he's not Caesar, for God's sake. He's one conservative voice in a vast swamp of Left-wing-biased media.
He goes against the grain, and all of a sudden he's the Anti-Christ. Besides, I wonder if you've seen some of the shows on Fox Network? "That 70s Show" portrays drug use and sex between unmaried people in nearly every episode (But I love it...it's hilarious).....how about nice, conservative family values? "Arrested Development", "Oliver Beane", "Malcolm inthe Middle"...."The Simpsons"! All of those shows portray familial dysfunction, albeit in a very funny light.....especially "The Simpsons"....which I dearly love.

You libs just don't like the fact that he didn't fall in line with the other liberal-rhetoric-spewing networks and news outlets, and has made a successful business of it. People like having another side of the story to view for themselves. D'oh! As for the media trying its best to sink Bush.....it's just that the Dems backed the wrong horse, and the people saw it. The libs did more harm than good to their cause by constantly whining and harping, and by focusing on issues that had no real bearing on the election.

cactoblasta

on Jan 08, 2005

I was mentioning him because he is a prime example of the media organisation which sways to the political wind. In Australia the editorial opinions of his network has switched according to whoever supports the most liberal media ownership laws at the time. As a result it has gone from Labor to Liberal to Labor to Liberal to Labor and currently he is firmly in the Liberal Party camp. The Fairfax group is much the same, although it has a different set of priorities again. But all media groups can be influenced in the same way; the Fox group is simply the most obvious and therefore the most telling example.

Rightwinger

on Jan 08, 2005

Hmm...here Fox is firmly in the Right. Wonder why it's different there?

zergimmi

on Jan 08, 2005

[Look, how many criminals---drug dealers, theives, rapists, murderers, child molesters (oh, sorry, that one's a "lifestyle choice", right?) here in America get off on technicalities even though they, and we, know they're guilty as hell? They get off and go out and do it again...and again.....and again....] This I agree with whole heartedly, and nothing makes me more pissed of than to see these people walk because of laws put in place to protect those who have commited no crime, and would dearly to see some of these laws reviewed.

[You know as well as I do that the people we have in custody wouldn't be there if they hadn't been captured in the act of committing terrorist acts or for their connection to terror organizations like al-Quaeda; at least they're off the streets. If we put them on trial and we get some looney, touchy-feely, liberal judge who wants to make a show that it isn't a kangaroo court, they could get back out there, and do it again.....and again.....and again.....and maybe, just maybe, they'll come and do it to you....or your family or friends; and you'd have been one of those in favor of giving them that chance. Would you like that? I wouldn't.]

I also agree that the best place for those who would attack us is jail, however the case against them still has to be proved, why because all have to get equal justice, otherwise if we start removing these laws we create a dangerous situation for those who are innocent. It also creates a precedent for those same people for justifying their cause, most us would agree that most criminals get what they deserve, its just getting them there that is difficult, but to say we should bypass the law in an attempt to make sure they the guilty do not get away, will do nothing for our justice system/s nor our image oversaes, again giving further fuel to the arguments to those who would recruit these people and to those that support them, its a catch 22 I know, but using what may seem to be obvious is not neccessarily the correct route.

cactoblasta

on Jan 08, 2005

Hmm...here Fox is firmly in the Right. Wonder why it's different there?

The Liberal Party is on the right in Oz. They're economically liberal, socially conservative. The Labor Party are the main opposition, and are largely the same, except they're a little more economically socialist.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!