quote:

---

Two US soldiers missing in Iraq since Friday were abducted at gunpoint by masked militants, witnesses say.

A huge hunt has been launched in the volatile area south of Baghdad where the pair were last seen.

Witnesses say they were captured after their Humvee vehicle came under fire at a checkpoint. A third soldier died.

The US military has not commented on the witnesses' claims but says it will hunt for the men until it establishes what has happened to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
U.S. troops seized by insurgents

Now they've gone too far. Capturing their own liberators. I hope they apply the Geneva Conventions thoroughly, including providing them with cable access to Christian evangelical TV.

---

Yes, making light of such a situation. Always known to better one's understanding and compassion. Right or wrong. Human beings will now suffer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SunTzu:

Yes, making light of such a situation. Always known to better one's understanding and compassion. Right or wrong. Human beings will now suffer.

Not just the soldiers, but their families. And I can not help but to wonder at the impact and repercussions in Iraq should those soldiers turn up in a ditch beheaded somewhere...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I call upon babblers -- in advance of this tragic fate of the poor innocent misguided U.S. mercenaries -- to light a single candle and tie a yellow ribbon to their keyboard in memory of their heroic sacrific to defend all that is sacred.

---

I would call upon all human beings to do this for any human being who is likely to face torture and death, regardless if they are an American soldier, Iraqi insurgent, or some poor sap in the middle of no where.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SunTzu:

It's called compassion. A really hard quality for some people to digest.

---

Not at all. I eat some every morning with my milk of human kindness.

Granted, the US should never have gone into Iraq, but now that they have - what is the solution?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Not at all. I eat some every morning with my milk of human kindness.

I just don't invite any U.S. mercenary thugs to my breakfast table. Nor do I mourn when they go down fighting. I stand, snap my heels, salute, and shout: "Mission Accomplished!"

---

I see. So, you are comfortable in your hypocrisy then...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pearson:
Unionist o you think that leaving Iraq is the right thing to do, and if so, what do you envision will happen in Iraq if the coalition leaves?

---

Yes, leaving Iraq is the right thing to do.

What I envision is that the insurgency will cease and so will the small amount of sectarian violence. Why? because both arose after the U.S. invasion.

Will a strongman like Saddam Hussein rise to power? Perhaps. But that is not our affair, so long as he/she does not threaten us and world peace.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert MacBain:
I suggest that the Iraqi insurgents would take an instant liking to Unionist.

He thinks and talks like one of their own.

---

I have always supported people everywhere fighting for freedom. I fully support the Iraqi people's struggle to drive the invaders from their land.

If that's the way they talk, then that's the way I talk. How do you talk?

[ 18 June 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]

I did not support the invasion of Iraq. And I agree with you that if a strongman takes over the country, the West has no business dictating what sort of government they would like to see.

However, there are two questions:

1) Do you see any difference between when the invasion happened, and after the elections? Prior to the elections, we did not know the will of the people. Once we know the will of the people, should we not try and help them achieve that? (all of this is dependent on the elections being fair of course - which is questionable)

2) If a small group (~10%) is demanding things go their way or they will kill as many people as they can. And the way that they propose is unfair to women, Kurds, etc - should we not help the 90% that are oppressed by these demands and actions?

(again, i do not know what the % is)

The solipsism of considering the safety of people like us more important by a factor of hundred fold over the "enemy" is what is being pointed out. This wears down even the most compassionate person, who is sick of the death and suffering, but also the apathy all around.

For me, this isn't some moral play on some stage somewhere.

I hope that the two US soldiers can be rescued or exchanged for other prisoners. My thoughts are with them and their families.

quote:

---

I consider my life a lot more valuable than that of my enemy.

---

And there you have it folks. The quintessential excuse for violence, abuse and terror the world over.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SunTzu:

Yes, making light of such a situation. Always known to better one's understanding and compassion. Right or wrong. Human beings will now suffer.

Not just the soldiers, but their families. And I can not help but to wonder at the impact and repercussions in Iraq should those soldiers turn up in a ditch beheaded somewhere...

---

Human beings will NOW suffer? Stop the presses! I think they've been suffering there for quite some time. First under Saddam and now under the infidel.

As for repercussions, yes, I'm sure two dead soldiers will stand out like a sore thumb in a city convulsed with violence that leaves a 1,000 dead a week.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pearson:
Unionist:
...
1) Do you see any difference between when the invasion happened, and after the elections? Prior to the elections, we did not know the will of the people. Once we know the will of the people, should we not try and help them achieve that? (all of this is dependent on the elections being fair of course - which is questionable)

---

No. Elections under armed foreign occupation -- with the outgoing overthrown party barred from running (and I don't know how many other parties...) -- don't reflect the people's will in my estimation. The only thing that has changed since the invasion is that the insurgency has been born and grows stronger daily, while the U.S. fishes around for a handy pretext to leave.

quote:

---

2) If a small group (~10%) is demanding things go their way or they will kill as many people as they can. And the way that they propose is unfair to women, Kurds, etc - should we not help the 90% that are oppressed by these demands and actions?

---

By small group, I assume you mean George Bush's Whitehouse? They are nowhere near 10% of anything. I think we should help the 99% of Iraqis who oppose these murderers to expel them.

As for "helping" one group of Iraqis against another, I am totally opposed to that, unless and until the United Nations decides that such action is warranted. Any action taken outside that framework constitutes aggression and counts as a war crime.

quote:

---

What would you say to having a referendum. One question? Do you wish foreign troops to stay in Iraq or do you wish them to leave?

---

What were the results of the referendum on whether Iraq wanted to be liberated? I can't recall.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

What were the results of the referendum on whether Iraq wanted to be liberated? I can't recall.

No, of course there should not be a referendum, unless the U.S. pulled all their troops out first. Then I would support a referendum, under U.N. supervision, asking Iraqis whether they wanted John Wayne, the Lone Ranger, and the cavalry back.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SunTzu:

The compassion here under whelms me. I guess we can not mistake some of you for humanists eh?

---

I think most of us on this site have expressed compassion for the Iraqi people in the middle of this outrageous resource grab on the world's 2nd largest proven oil reserves.

Iraq invasion by the numbers

• Estimated number of Iraqi civilian deaths in the 1991 Persian Gulf War: 35,000.
• Estimated number of retreating Iraqi soldiers buried alive by U.S. tanks in 1991 War: 6,000.
• Estimated number of Iraqi civilian deaths Pentagon predicted in the 2003 war: 10,000.
• Estimated number of Iraqi civilian casualties in the 2003 war so far: 800.
• Percentage of Iraqi civilian deaths that are children: 50.
• Tons of depleted uranium left in Iraq and Kuwait after the 1991 Gulf War: 40.
• Percentage increase in cancer rates in Iraq between 1991 and 1994: 700.
• Number of years the U.S. has engaged in air strikes on Iraq: 26.
• Pounds of explosives U.S.-led coalition dropped on Iraq in 1991 Persian Gulf War: 177 million.
• Pounds of explosives U.S.-British pilots dropped on Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999: 20 million.
• Estimated pounds of explosives U.S.-British pilots have dropped on Iraq since the start of Operation Iraqi Invasion in March 2003: 200 million.
• Years Iraq has lived under economic sanctions imposed by the UN: 12.
• Iraqi child death rate in 1989 [per 1,000 births]: 30.
• Iraqi child death rate in 1999 [per 1,000 births]: 131.
• Number of Iraqis estimated to have died through 1999 due to UN sanctions: 1.5 million.
• Percentage of them children: 50

All that to get to one man, a former stooge of the CIA himself. Yeah right.

[ 19 June 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

I think most of us on this site have expressed compassion for the Iraqi people in the middle of this outrageous resource grab on the world's 2nd largest proven oil reserves.

Iraq invasion by the numbers

• Estimated number of Iraqi civilian deaths in the 1991 Persian Gulf War: 35,000.
• Estimated number of retreating Iraqi soldiers buried alive by U.S. tanks in 1991 War: 6,000.
• Estimated number of Iraqi civilian deaths Pentagon predicted in the 2003 war: 10,000.
• Estimated number of Iraqi civilian casualties in the 2003 war so far: 800.
• Percentage of Iraqi civilian deaths that are children: 50.
• Tons of depleted uranium left in Iraq and Kuwait after the 1991 Gulf War: 40.
• Percentage increase in cancer rates in Iraq between 1991 and 1994: 700.
• Number of years the U.S. has engaged in air strikes on Iraq: 26.
• Pounds of explosives U.S.-led coalition dropped on Iraq in 1991 Persian Gulf War: 177 million.
• Pounds of explosives U.S.-British pilots dropped on Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999: 20 million.
• Estimated pounds of explosives U.S.-British pilots have dropped on Iraq since the start of Operation Iraqi Invasion in March 2003: 200 million.
• Years Iraq has lived under economic sanctions imposed by the UN: 12.
• Iraqi child death rate in 1989 [per 1,000 births]: 30.
• Iraqi child death rate in 1999 [per 1,000 births]: 131.
• Number of Iraqis estimated to have died through 1999 due to UN sanctions: 1.5 million.
• Percentage of them children: 50

All that to get to one man, a former stooge of the CIA himself. Yeah right.

[ 19 June 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

When one picks and chooses who they are compassionate about, at what point do they stop caring about any one at all?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
Why should I have compassion for the soldier of the crusader army? They are the ones responsible for the destruction of Iraq, they should be held to account. After all, Rumsfeld has made it quite clear that the Geneva conventions are a quaint anachronism that no longer applies, so why should they expect the Iraqis to abide by rules the Pentagon refuses to follow? At the very least, these criminals should be treated as any Iraqi would be treated in a US torture gulag. And they should thank their commanders for making it all possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SunTzu:

The compassion here under whelms me. I guess we can not mistake some of you for humanists eh?

---

Your definition of compassion is invading a country which has done the U.S. no harm, butchering countless innocent civilians, installing a military dictatorship, and plundering its natural resources.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Your definition of compassion is invading a country which has done the U.S. no harm, butchering countless innocent civilians, installing a military dictatorship, and plundering its natural resources.

I am a humanist. I have compassion for you. But don't push it.

---

You must be a mind reader then. For you to define it that way... A faulty mind reader, because the point I was trying to illustrate and you either missed or ignored is that compassion should be leveled on all we encounter. US soldier, Iraqi insurgent, Chinese farmer, or Toronto street kid. Picking and choosing who we are compassionate about is another way one dehumanises... Once you go down that path, it is very easy to say hurt that someone.

I could care less if I push it with you. I have seen the depths of your "compassion".

[Fixed some spelling, need a new keyboard, some keys are sticking]

[ 19 June 2006: Message edited by: SunTzu ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I think we should campaign for captured US "illegal combatants" to be treated just as the US would treat captured Iraqi "illegal combatants".

They should be transported thousands of miles from their home, denied access to consular and legal counsel, tortured and humiliated to obtain information, and locked in cells with no hope of ever being released. Just like Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I think we should campaign for captured US "illegal combatants" to be treated just as the US would treat captured Iraqi "illegal combatants".

They should be transported thousands of miles from their home, denied access to consular and legal counsel, tortured and humiliated to obtain information, and locked in cells with no hope of ever being released. Just like Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

What about my idea of cable access to Christian TV? Or would that be too cruel even for them?

---

The Mujahedeen Shura Council, an insurgency group that was once led by Abu al-Zarqawi, claimed responsibility today and it is only a matter of time – if the soldiers are still alive – before they will be shown blindfolded and handcuffed on Al Jazeera.

And then, after their propaganda value has run its course, their heads will be sawn off with a blunt knife – complete with the gurgling sound resulting from them choking on their own blood -- and their discarded bodies will be found in a back alley in Baghdad.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert MacBain:

The Mujahedeen Shura Council, an insurgency group that was once led by Abu al-Zarqawi, claimed responsibility today and it is only a matter of time – if the soldiers are still alive – before they will be shown blindfolded and handcuffed on Al Jazeera.

And then, after their propaganda value has run its course, their heads will be sawn off with a blunt knife – complete with the gurgling sound resulting from them choking on their own blood -- and their discarded bodies will be found in a back alley in Baghdad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Mr. MacBain has way too much information about the capture of these young men...

---

I think this is the article he meant to link.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert MacBain:
The two U.S. soldiers who have been subjected to ridicule and abuse on Babble since they were abducted by insurgents south of Baghdad on Friday have names – Pf. Thomas Lowell Tucker, 25, of Mardas, Oregon; and Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, Texas.

---

Well, I just skimmed this thread, but I don't believe anyone here is ridiculing these two soldiers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert MacBain:
It would appear that some Babblers are looking forward to that finale. I am not.

---

I get the impression that there would be some satisfaction on your part if we did say something derogatory about the two young American's. Where we feel sorry for them is in their bad decision making for going over there in the first place. We feel badly for all American's who have had to travel to another country and be told that they are there to help those people. The U.S. military told 19 and 20 year olds something similar in Vietnam - that they were there to save those people. It's just that they had to destroy a few villages in order to quote-unquote save them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert MacBain:
It would appear that some Babblers are looking forward to that finale. I am not.

---

UNIONIST: Now they've gone too far. Capturing their own liberators. I hope they apply the Geneva Conventions thoroughly, including providing them with cable access to Christian evangelical TV.

UNIONIST: I call upon babblers -- in advance of this tragic fate of the poor innocent misguided U.S. mercenaries -- to light a single candle and tie a yellow ribbon to their keyboard in memory of their heroic sacrifice to defend all that is sacred.

UNIONIST: I just don't invite any U.S. mercenary thugs to my breakfast table. Nor do I mourn when they go down fighting. I stand, snap my heels, salute, and shout: "Mission Accomplished!"

CETI: Moreover, the capture of US troops is a made for TV drama, which plays well in the US media. We'll see how this goes soon enough a la "Wag the Dog."

MEROWE: As for repercussions, yes, I'm sure two dead soldiers will stand out like a sore thumb in a city convulsed with violence that leaves a 1,000 dead a week.

Why, I'll bet those Americans will just get so angry, why, they might even invade! The entire country! Wouldn't that be crazy!

JINGLES: Why should I have compassion for the soldier of the crusader army? They are the ones responsible for the destruction of Iraq, they should be held to account... At the very least, these criminals should be treated as any Iraqi would be treated in a US torture gulag. And they should thank their commanders for making it all possible.

M. SPECTOR: I think we should campaign for captured US "illegal combatants" to be treated just as the US would treat captured Iraqi "illegal combatants".

They should be transported thousands of miles from their home, denied access to consular and legal counsel, tortured and humiliated to obtain information, and locked in cells with no hope of ever being released. Just like Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib.

UNIONIST: What about my idea of cable access to Christian TV? Or would that be too cruel even for them?

Do you know the names of the 100,000+ Iraqis killed as a result of this illegal US war? Or do their lives not count nearly as much as two US soldiers sent to Iraq by draft dodgers not risking one drop of their own blood or that of their children?

quote:

---

Originally posted by otter:

And there you have it folks. The quintessential excuse for violence, abuse and terror the world over.

And of course, those who embrace this particularily narrow minded perspective will tell you that anyone that disagrees with them, or looks different from them, or who thinks differently from them, or who just seems different from them is... of course... THE ENEMY and therefore not worthy of the same protections or compassion or respect as the 'good' people.

---

Perhaps this should be split off, but I'll answer it here. I do not have an exchange rate to weigh my own life against that of my enemies. I don't necessarily want to kill my enemy, but I would certainly much rather kill my enemy than be killed myself or see my comrades or countrymen killed. I'd keep on killing my enemies as long it was necessary. I'd prefer that he surrender, of course, but it ain't always that easy. When its all over I'll be accountable to my country, my God and myself for my actions.

The enemy is entitled to protection when he becomes a non-combatant (basically when he surrenders). Till then, if he's in my battlespace I'm going to do whatever I can to take him out. I expect no less of him with regards to me.

What is your alternative vision of war-fighting?

quote:

---

What is your alternative vision of war-fighting?

---

quote:

---

At the same time, you can support the troops by opposing the war in which they're engaged. Some of the comments in this thread directed against frontline soldiers are completely uncalled for and lacking in empathy.

---

Love the sinner, hate the sin? And what's this about lacking empathy....

quote:

---

The young American Marine is exultant. "It's a sniper's dream,' he tells a Los Angeles Times reporter on the outskirts of Fallujah. "You can go anywhere and there so many ways to fire at the enemy without him knowing where you are."

"Sometimes a guy will go down, and I'll let him scream a bit to destroy the morale of his buddies. Then I'll use a second shot."

---

Thanks, N.Beltov.

quote:

---

Till then, if he's in my battlespace I'm going to do whatever I can to take him out. I expect no less of him with regards to me.

---

Your battlespace is is home. Why is that so hard for you to understand? They are defending their land, theirhomes, and their families against a lawless, plundering crusader army. Wouldn't you do the same? Or is self-defense a right entitled only to white folks?

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: Jingles ]

Now, I'd much rather not have to kill anyone. The point that I am trying to make is simply that I value my life over that of the enemy. I've also stated that I assume that my enemy feels the same way against me.

Perhaps that is what JINGLES had in mind when he suggested that: “At the very least, these criminals should be treated as any Iraqi would be treated in a US torture gulag. And they should thank their commanders for making it all possible.”

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
"You" are in their country and they are the enemy you will keep on killing until they are all gone? Jesus! And we are the civilized ones? Holy fuck.

Peace fighting.

I have little faith in humanities ability to be humane and see beyond today to the possible. And mostly because of people like that guy.

---

Indeed. The world can be a nasty place, red in claw and tooth. Until you do have faith in humanity I'll keep watch on the door.

Cheers,

TK

quote:

---

I never said anything about us being civilized.

---

quote:

---

The two American soldiers who were captured on Friday were brutally tortured before they were killed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Tortured? Or coercively interrogated?

Apparently their captors received the same legal information from their advisors as Ganzales delivered to George W.

---

quote:

---

Now that the soldiers are dead, UNIONIST can “stand, snap my heels, salute, and shout: ‘Mission Accomplished!’”

---

That's right. Unionistis a terrorist sympathizer, as is anyone not sufficiently beating their breasts in grief for American heros or publicly denouncing Muslim violence against the west. Report him immediately to the CSIS before he goes to the local Co-op and buys some golfgreen.

quote:

---

I'll keep watch on the door.

---

My, my, we love our little myths, don't we? Wasn't that a Jack Nicholson line from "A Few Good Men"?

I'll bore you with a little story. In Kabul two years ago I was leading a small convoy of soft-skinned vehicle. I had been in-country for about four months, so I had some sense of what to look out for. I noticed two young teens hanging out by a traffic circle and I sensed that something was up. As we got close I could then see that they were holding pistols.

I decided in a split-second to let them have the first shot if they were indeed going to shoot. One raised his pistol and took aim. I had the vehicle stop (it was an open-topped/side jeep) and got out, squaring off with him. They then took off. I figure that they were either replica guns or simply not loaded. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for the first shot.

The officer in the back of my vehicle took a picture at the moment the kid (well, teenager) aimed the gun. I'm glad it turned out the way it did, but the point to note was that I was willing to err on the side of him not being my enemy.

Cheers,

quote:

---

CTV quotes a senior Iraqi military official as saying that the recovered bodies showed signs of “barbaric torture.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Is the above just plain old torture? Or barbaric?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
I don't know, Sven. With three dead prisoners apparently having "committed suicide" at Gitmo recently, I don't think it's much of a choice.

---

Huh?!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
How's this one for size, how many people on this thread would be willing to put on a U.S. army uniform and ship out to replace the two fallen soldiers in Iraq?

---

The implication being, I’m assuming, is that if someone wouldn't want to do that personally, they no one should, right?

That’s kind of like asking: “How many people on this thread would be willing to be a cop in south-central L.A.?”

Thus, if one wouldn’t want to personally be a cop in south-central L.A., then no one should.

It’s also like asking: “How many people on this thread would be willing to give up all they own and move to an impoverished place in the world to live for the rest of your life in order to provide food, education, medical care or other basic services to a people in need?”

Thus, if one wouldn’t want to personally do that, then no one should.

ETA: To correct typo "would" to "wouldn't" in first sentence.

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Like I said, what would you rather experience, "coercive interrogation" by the US or "torture" by Al Qaeda?

---

It is amazing the way apologists just buy right in to the cleansed language of barbarity.

I hope the Ignatieff supporters are reading this as now the US no longer tortures but coercively interrogates. What a laugh. And I bet Sven has a straight face as he writes his own bullshit.

quote:

---

“How many people on this thread would be willing to be a cop in south-central L.A.?”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
It is amazing the way apologists just buy right in to the cleansed language of barbarity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Why wouldn't someone want to be a cop in south-central LA, sven? What is there that is so dis-tasteful?

---

quote:

---

Okay, let's get away from "cleaned" terminology and ask this simple question: Would you rather be in the captivity of Al Qaeda or the USA?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
And just like in Iraq the people tend to have a darker skin pigment?

---

That's silly. Would you rather be a cop in south-central L.A. or in a small town rural Alabama that is heavily African-American?

I'd take the small town in Alabama any day.

It has nothing to do with race. The small town is going to be safer to be a cop than south-central L.A., very likely.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Prove to me there is an Al Qaeda and I will answer that. Otherwise it is just more bullshit from an aopologist for a war of aggression that has killed more than 100,000 people and has been executed by war criminals and liars.

---

Now, you're the one hung up on terminology:

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Yes, leaving Iraq is the right thing to do.

What I envision is that the insurgency will cease and so will the small amount of sectarian violence. Why? because both arose after the U.S. invasion.

Will a strongman like Saddam Hussein rise to power? Perhaps. But that is not our affair, so long as he/she does not threaten us and world peace.

If you believe that is our affair, then you supported the invasion of Iraq in the first place, and our discussion is at an end.

---

quote:

---

I'd take the small town in Alabama any day.

---

quote:

---

Would you rather be in the captivity of the insurgents in Iraq or in the captivity of the US?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Why would it make a difference? I suppose the question is would I prefer to be tortured and gang raped by Americans and their Iraqi stooges with broom handles or tortured and decapitated by guerrilas? I guess the answer depends on how much I abhor being gang raped by Americans and their Iraqi stooges. I suppose if I picked the US and Iraqi stooges I could end up hanging myself in Gitmo anyway or find myself and my children filled full of bullets as a result of Americans on a rampage.

So, now it is your turn. Would you prefer to be decapitated by Iraqi insurgents or gang raped by Americans with brooms and their Iraqi stooges?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
I'd take the small town in Alabama any day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Somehow that isn't surprising.

---

I suggest that Frustrated Mess check out today’s BBC report which says: “An insurgent group linked to al-Qaeda in Iraq, which claimed it abducted the men, has now said that it killed them.

“An internet statement posted by the Mujahideen Shura Council - a grouping of insurgents that includes al-Qaeda in Iraq - said it had abducted the men and slit their throats.

“The posting, whose claims cannot be independently confirmed, praised the new leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq - Abu Hamza al-Muhajir - for ‘implementing’ a Sharia law tribunal verdict on the soldiers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

The implication being, I’m assuming, is that if someone wouldn't want to do that personally, they no one should, right?

That’s kind of like asking: “How many people on this thread would be willing to be a cop in south-central L.A.?”

Thus, if one wouldn’t want to personally be a cop in south-central L.A., then no one should.

It’s also like asking: “How many people on this thread would be willing to give up all they own and move to an impoverished place in the world to live for the rest of your life in order to provide food, education, medical care or other basic services to a people in need?”

Thus, if one wouldn’t want to personally do that, then no one should.

ETA: To correct typo "would" to "wouldn't" in first sentence.

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Well that's a lot of Ralph Cramden humming and harring to avoid the issue as to why you're not shipping out for Iraq yourself if you really believe in what the U.S. Army is doing over there, Sven. I'm sure you'll be able to invoke any one of a dozen perfectly good reasons for not backing up your right wing rhetoric and that have already been used by dozens of war mongering hypocrites across the U.S. I think Rush Limbaugh cited a boil on his posterior as the reason for not showing up in Vietnam.

---

I think your question is simply off base. In other words, are you seriously asserting that something shouldn't be done unless you are personally going to do it? I think having cops is a great idea. I'm not personally going to be a cop. Nor a firefigher, a nurse, a soldier, a bricklayer, a farmer, or etc., etc., etc. Does that mean that I can't legitimately say those are things people should be doing?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
I didn't mention anything about cops, Sven. That was you trying to change the subject, because apparently you were uncomfortable discussing it.

---

I'm not trying to change the subject. I simply pointing out the silliness of the question by the use of analogies.

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

I'd rather be gang raped by Americans with brooms. I watched (and listened to) the decapitation of Nick Berg and it was pretty ugly. Did you watch and listen to it, by any chance?

---

quote:

---

today’s BBC report which says: “An insurgent group linked to al-Qaeda in Iraq, which claimed it abducted the men, has now said that it killed them.

---

The BBC would never report stuff invented by the state department or the British Home Office, would they? The BBC does independent reprorting with unemebedded reporters, eh?

Say Al Qaeda three times and click your heels and suddenly the war against Iraq will have meaning beyond imperial aggression and the petty crime of looting.

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Yeah.

And a prisoner in Abu Gharib listened to the screams of a 13 year-old boy being raped in the cell next to him. To each his own, eh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert MacBain:
Now that the bodies of the two captured American soldiers have been found in Baghdad, perhaps there is no further need for comments such as:

UNIONIST: I call upon babblers -- in advance of this tragic fate of the poor innocent misguided U.S. mercenaries -- to light a single candle and tie a yellow ribbon to their keyboard in memory of their heroic sacrifice to defend all that is sacred.

UNIONIST: I just don't invite any U.S. mercenary thugs to my breakfast table. Nor do I mourn when they go down fighting. I stand, snap my heels, salute, and shout: "Mission Accomplished!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert MacBain:

Now that the soldiers are dead, UNIONIST can “stand, snap my heels, salute, and shout: ‘Mission Accomplished!’”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Huh?!

You seem to be equating suicide with murder.

---

quote:

---

I suggest that Frustrated Mess check out today’s BBC report which says: “An insurgent group linked to al-Qaeda in Iraq, which claimed it abducted the men, has now said that it killed them.

“An internet statement posted by the Mujahideen Shura Council - a grouping of insurgents that includes al-Qaeda in Iraq - said it had abducted the men and slit their throats.

---

This goes back to the earlier Berg comment as well...

Look into AQ in Iraq a bit further plz. The recently deceased leader Zarqawi had a much different name for his group originally "The Monotheism and Holy War Group" ... The AQ in Iraq term came much after the invasion, infact I've yet to see any evidence that links AQ to Iraq prior to the invasion. AQ is simply a public relations godsend for the Bush admin as it links the AQ attacks of 9/11 (conspiracy re 9/11 aside) to the terrorists in Iraq. Of course, once Zarquawi was eliminated, it was exceedingly important to crown a new king of AQ in Iraq to ensure that we all knew the horrific enemy that we need to fight. Remember in the 21st century the key to war has absolutely nothing to do with war itself, the key is the media and what the worlds populace believes... Win the media and the worlds opinion and you win the war.

The Iraqi insurgents kidnapped, televised and killed: the woman director of CARE International in Iraq; British and American contractors; a Japanese youth who was backpacking in Iraq; Iraqi and Jordanian truck drivers and countless other civilians.

Not one of those defenceless victims bombed any Iraqi civilians.

Nor did they have anything to do with the deaths of countless Shiite women and children who were bombed to bits as they were praying in the mosques by Sunni insurgents.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TK 421:
We are neither lawless nor plundering. We are supporting the democratically elected government of this country (Afghanistan). I fight alongside Afghans, namely the security forces of that same democratically elected government in their battle against the insurgency.
TK

---

Oh sorry I forgot those are people we don't like unlike the warlords and drug dealers in the Afghan government.

quote:

---

The Iraqi insurgents kidnapped, televised and killed:

---

Exactly, this isn't a war of soldiers, this is a war of the media. You have seen the countless footage of Iraqi insurgents and their activities. Spot the difference: An insurgent group beheads an American vs American soldiers going bezerk and slaughtering dozens of innocents (including 2 year old children being executed with several bullet wounds to the head, which aren't released but instead are classified by the CIA). The key difference is media... The American crimes are covered up for and ignored (up the line and not just at a soldiers level) while the insurgents video is broadcast ad naseum. 2 American soldiers kidnapped and killed makes international headlines while thousands upon thousands of Iraqi citizens are slain manage to make back story reports by the CIA guessing at how many they've killed so far. Lets see... Terrorist atrocity = best headline ever, American atrocity = classified documentation.

While you see this as a lack of empathy towards the slain soldiers, I see this as yet another assault on the world by the USians media war machine to make sure the world knows how evil the 'AQ in Iraq' is. Edited to add that it might be important to note that Al Zarqawi's group was known as the "The Monotheism and Holy War Group", "AQ in Iraq" is a name that got associated to Zarqawi after the USian invasion (media effort to attach AQ links to the invasion of Iraq). Hard to tell exactly who started calling that group that first.

Complete side note...

quote:

---

the deserts of the Middle East four thousand years ago.

---

4000 years ago, the Middle East wasn't a desert. Fertile Crescent ring a bell?

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]
and editted again for horrid grammar

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
So when are you going to redeploy to support the democratically elected government of Palestine.

Oh sorry I forgot those are people we don't like unlike the warlords and drug dealers in the Afghan government.

You are in the middle of a civil war and both sides have innocent blood on their hands. Do the right thing and desert.

---

The only ethical thing left to do in Afghanistan is stay, and influence the ANA and ANP as long as possible, or until they can convince us that they are ethical, and will uphold human rights. The ANA and ANP are not there yet. We leave now, there will be a blood bath in QAfghanistan which will make Iraq look like a Sunday school picnic with a mild food fight.

Second, last I checked, it was a criminal code offence to insight desertion within the CF... It is covered off in the Criminal Code of Canada under section 53 Inciting to mutiny, also of interest would be sect 54, and to a lesser extent section 46, para (1), sub para (c). I know that most of you could care less, and that is your right, however as members of the CF, these have meaning to us, as they could be levied against us as well.

Whether you like it or beleive it or not, we are in Aghanistan currently as the supported guests of their internationally recognize government. Whether you recognize the status of said government is a moot point, and can be debated amongst yourselves till the cows come home. The ISAF and OEF missions have UN approval, and the support of the Afghan government, and it is recognised as a legal action.

You are right, it is a civil war, and all civil wars it is the unarmed civilian populations that pay the price, not so much the warring factions. We set the oppotunity for this civil war, yes, and rightly so. Every piece of information I have seen, both there and here tells me that we did the right, moral, and ethical thing. Having read the articles and discussions here, nothing has changed in my opinion, and I am sure that TK could expand with his/her own opinion being there currently.

Some suggest that we remove the "dainty" language... Well, TK is talking exactly as soldiers do in the field (less the profanity), this is the terminology we use. If you prefer, I can give you the role of the infantry (my background: "The role of the infantry is to close with and destroy the enemy...", destroy as in kill, or render unable to fight (I am just as capable, and even more willing to take prisoners then to kill the enemy).

We spend a fair bit of time, and it is increasing as we speak, dealing with subjects like the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC, these include the Geneva Conventions), ethics, cultural awareness and language training. We offer as part time studies history on many different countries, including Afghanistan. The soldiers deploying to Afghanistan, are doing so with eyes wide open, and based on the pressence here, they are looking to expand on what is offered at work, by studying these subjects in their free time (example, TK has maybe 4 hrs a day to himself, of which he is dedicating a fair bit to you folks, and trying to gain a deeper understanding, this is further limited by time limits on welfare resources such as internet access which he could be using to converse with family or friends, his conduct here, in the face of absolute hostility has been very commendable).

There are those that will respond to this post out of knee jerk reaction, with absolute hostility, I expect that. Not all minds are open, nor willing to discuss. Fill your boots. I will simply ignore you. There are those that will want to engage in meaningful dicussion, or even heated debate, I will address that discussion openly and honestly...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:
From MacBain

This goes back to the earlier Berg comment as well...

Look into AQ in Iraq a bit further plz. The recently deceased leader Zarqawi had a much different name for his group originally "The Monotheism and Holy War Group" ... The AQ in Iraq term came much after the invasion, infact I've yet to see any evidence that links AQ to Iraq prior to the invasion. AQ is simply a public relations godsend for the Bush admin as it links the AQ attacks of 9/11 (conspiracy re 9/11 aside) to the terrorists in Iraq. Of course, once Zarquawi was eliminated, it was exceedingly important to crown a new king of AQ in Iraq to ensure that we all knew the horrific enemy that we need to fight. Remember in the 21st century the key to war has absolutely nothing to do with war itself, the key is the media and what the worlds populace believes... Win the media and the worlds opinion and you win the war.

I'm not sure about you, but if I one day came home to find my house destroyed/family killed because an american airstrike killed 2 suspected terrorists in my neighboors home along with 20 civilians (my family included), I would very willingly behead some american soldier with a dull knife in vengence. And I'd be even more pissed off that the world knows about my atrocity in beheading a soldier and that soldiers name... Yet they couldn't care less about the names of my family members or the atrocity of an airstrike that killed them. Where is your empathy for these people and what they go through to drive them to these extents? Or do you only care for who the media tells you that you should?

---

I am not a mind reader... So, I have to guess that you are not one too. I did not witness joy at the potential, and now confirmed deaths of Iraqi civilians in this thread, so I did not address it. I witness joy at the pending deaths of two soldiers who, based on the evidence and know information from the region died horrible deaths, so I addressed it. To assume that I do not care about the 100's of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians is a most egergious error.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SunTzu:

The only ethical thing left to do in Afghanistan is stay, and influence the ANA and ANP as long as possible, or until they can convince us that they are ethical, and will uphold human rights. The ANA and ANP are not there yet. We leave now, there will be a blood bath in QAfghanistan which will make Iraq look like a Sunday school picnic with a mild food fight.

---

1. What human rights standards are they to meet? Pakistan's, Singapore's or Canada's?

2. Who determines when this "government" is ethical and meeting human rights standards?

3. How long is it going to take? One year, one decade or one century?

Yes there will be bloddshed if we leave but that is also true if we stay. The inevitable civilian deathes will only make more and more Afghans resent the Western occupiers.

Vichey was a French government and the resistance fighters were only a small percentage of the population. Occupiers and their Qusilings never get to understand what the people want because the people you speak too are either collaberators or syncophants making a buck.

You don't really expect the Afghan's to tell armed troops who arrive with Afghan police noted for torture and murder that they are sympathetic of the insurgents, do you?

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]

quote:

---

To assume that I do not care about the 100's of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians is a most egergious error.

---

Apologies SunTzu, but that wasn't the intent of my post at all (nor was the post directed at yourself). My critiques are assuming the media doesn't give 2 shits about it (not yourself) and because of it we see this great cry for empathy for 2 soldiers when thousands of others are ignored (selective media much?) along with the knowledge of how evil the terrorists are for doing this while completely overlooking and covering up any signs of Usian 'evil'.

As Macbain has posted, there seems to be little empathy for the fallen soldiers... I'm pointing out that the only reason this empathy for 2 fallen soldiers exists is because the media told him he should (score one swish for the USian media war machine). When the mainstream media puts up pics of Iraqi civilians dead, maybe then we'd care about them too? But no worries there, the CIA will classify it or the military will cover it up long before that happens.
ETA: thats not entirely true... You can garentee the MSM will pick-up on any well known terrorist pretty quickly atleast

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

“The BBC would never report stuff invented by the state department or the British Home Office, would they? The BBC does independent reprorting with unemebedded reporters, eh?”

Then, to provide evidence of American abuse of Iraqi prisoner, STAR GAZER linked to a May 12, 2004, report in the Guardian which said “several women held in Abu Ghraib jail were sexually abused, including one who was raped by an American military policeman and became pregnant. She has now disappeared.”

However, that same Guardian newspaper reported today that:

“The two US soldiers found dead near Baghdad yesterday were killed by the man who took over al-Qaida in Iraq after the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a group linked to al-Qaida has claimed on the internet….

“Shortly after the bodies were found, an umbrella group for Iraqi insurgents, the Mujahedeen Shura Council, said the new leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, had personally killed the soldiers.

“Al-Muhajir - identified by the US as an Egyptian Islamist with close ties to Osama bin Laden - was named last week as the successor to al-Zarqawi, who was killed in a US airstrike on June 7. The group said al-Muhajir would exact revenge for his predecessor's death.”

So, when the Guardian writes about American soldiers abusing Iraqi women in Abu Ghraib, it is a clarion of truth.

However, when that same newspaper says al-Quaida is operating in Iraq, it is considered to be part of a world-wide media conspiracy to spread lies emanating from the State Department and the Home Office.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:

Apologies SunTzu, but that wasn't the intent of my post at all (nor was the post directed at yourself). My critiques are assuming the media doesn't give 2 shits about it (not yourself) and because of it we see this great cry for empathy for 2 soldiers when thousands of others are ignored (selective media much?) along with the knowledge of how evil the terrorists are for doing this while completely overlooking and covering up any signs of Usian 'evil'.

As Macbain has posted, there seems to be little empathy for the fallen soldiers... I'm pointing out that the only reason this empathy for 2 fallen soldiers exists is because the media told him he should (score one swish for the USian media war machine). When the mainstream media puts up pics of Iraqi civilians dead, maybe then we'd care about them too? But no worries there, the CIA will classify it or the military will cover it up long before that happens.
ETA: thats not entirely true... You can garentee the MSM will pick-up on any well known terrorist pretty quickly atleast

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

---

My humble thanks for the expansion. I do agree with you. The problem is, the population at large has now by and large been desensitized to the violence. We can thank Hollywood (as much as I love my movies, I do recognize the passive evil in them). The desensitized public no longer cares about the dead thousands of kms away, unless they can connect with them in some way. This has led to many atrocities in out time (Sudan, Rawanda, Somalia to name few few right off the top of my head).

quote:

---

“The two US soldiers found dead near Baghdad yesterday were killed by the man who took over al-Qaida in Iraq after the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a group linked to al-Qaida has claimed on the internet….

---

AHA! there it is! I was wondering about that... What would make these 2 marines more special than others that proceeded them? Why would the media put as much stress on this as they have? I couldn't put that link together until I saw that, heh.. thnx McBain

So with Zarqawi eliminated, the leader of the 'AQ in Iraq' or as I prefer to call it 'The USian media godsend', the gov't was short one scapegoat. I mean, whats the point of having an enemy if you can't put the single 'bond' style archenemy at the head of it. Can you think of a better way to Crown your new lead badguy then a empathetic story about 2 poor American soldier souls kidnapped in Iraq only to be killed by this new leader? Had this occoured 2 months ago and this man had killed 2 american soldiers, we would have seen it reported as evil Zarqawi's group that did it.

edit:

quote:

---

The general public NEEDS to be reminded of the horrors of war frequently. Force it on them.

---

Why this one in particular? How come when a slew of marines parished to sniper fire, that never got anywhere near this attention? If it weren't for the new crowning of the new AQ head, this story would have washed under with the rest

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Questions jump to mind.

1. What human rights standards are they to meet? Pakistan's, Singapore's or Canada's?

---

There is a universal declaration of human rights. That is the standard as a min that all nations should acheive (and most fail). Having said this, to get there from here will require influencing the general population of Afghanistan over a period of time. Forcing it will not work, and so, on that front, even if soldiers leave today, our job there will continue for many more years yet (though I project that leaving today would result in the battle for human rights being extended over many decades if not centuries now).

quote:

---

2. Who determines when this "government" is ethical and meeting human rights standards?

---

Well, I would hope that Amnesty International would monitor this, though the "aurhority" is the UN.

quote:

---

3. How long is it going to take? One year, one decade or one century?

---

I can not answer that as I do not know. It is a question of influencing behaviour over time. Some people will readily grasp the tenants of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, others will not.

quote:

---

Yes there will be bloddshed if we leave but that is also true if we stay. The inevitable civilian deathes will only make more and more Afghans resent the Western occupiers.

---

You are right. But while we are there, we have a chance to influence the ANA and ANP to not target civilians, even if they are providing shelter to Taliban and other insurgents. Short term will will be taking a loss on people resenting us. Long term, as we develop the ANA and ANP to a credible force that will abide by international and national law, we will start to see gains. We have the opportunity to influence one of the factions to abide by the LOAC, it is an opportunity we should take to save lives of innocent non-combatants (and even not so innocent ones)... For me, it is the only ethical choice to make.

quote:

---

Vichey was a French government and the resistance fighters were only a small percentage of the population. Occupiers and their Qusilings never get to understand what the people want because the people you speak too are either collaberators or syncophants making a buck.

You don't really expect the Afghan's to tell armed troops who arrive with Afghan police noted for torture and murder that they are sympathetic of the insurgents, do you?

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]

---

Actually, some do. A good fair many do infact. It is a cultural thing, and within Pashtu culture, honesty is a huge thing. Sometimes you have to travel in circles for a bit to get to it, but, for the patient soldier, one could find out alot just by using active listening, direct well thought out questions, and a very good language & cultural assistant (interpretor just does not work when it comes to those helping us there).

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: SunTzu ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:

Why this one in particular? How come when a slew of marines parished to sniper fire, that never got anywhere near this attention? If it weren't for the new crowning of the new AQ head, this story would have washed under with the rest

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Iraq invasion by the numbers

---

This is what grabbed my attention:

Military spending, worldwide: $900 billion.

Percentage of worldwide military spending by U.S.: 50.

Percentage of U.S. military spending that would ensure basic necessities to everyone in the world: 10

quote:

---

Focusing on one aspect (re, the dead American soldiers) just drives anger and desire for revenge, and the circle of violence will continue.

---

Exactly, but go one step further. Who benefits from additional hate back on the home front? Before elections no less How many other American soldiers have died this past month? It's only a headline story if the new "AQ in Iraq" leader is responsible.

ETA
How many of those that stand to benefit from the anger and violence, can claim some of the $900 billion?

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:

Exactly, but go one step further. Who benefits from additional hate back on the home front? Before elections no less How many other American soldiers have died this past month? It's only a headline story if the new "AQ in Iraq" leader is responsible.

ETA
How many of those that stand to benefit from the anger and violence, can claim some of the $900 billion?

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Looking at your principle generally, I suppose genocide, though it doesn't "threaten us and world people", isn't "our affair"?

---

Correct. It's not "our affair", nor the "U.S.'s affair". It's an affair of the world community, as history has established:

1. The U.S.-British-Soviet-others alliance against the genocidal forces in WWII.

2. Nuremburg.

3. The United Nations.

4. The world alliance against apartheid South Africa and its genocidal policies.

5. The International Court at the Hague.

6. The International Criminal Court.

and so on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
All deaths are tragedies, period.

That being said, perhaps the US military should circulate copies of their interrogation manual to their opponents, so that everyone knows the rules about what is and is not acceptable treatment of prisoners.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

How do you know the two U.S. soldiers didn't commit suicide? Have you seen the coroners' report?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:
I would very willingly behead some american soldier with a dull knife in vengence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Correct. It's not "our affair", nor the "U.S.'s affair". It's an affair of the world community, as history has established:

1. The U.S.-British-Soviet-others alliance against the genocidal forces in WWII.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Imperfect -- but better than self-righteous warmongers and murderers acting alone. They always get it wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Right. Three "self-righteous" countries. Not a U.N.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
The U.N. was born in the most unlikely coalition of the world's people against barbarism, and despite its modern-day barbaric detractors and would-be saboteurs, it maintains its integrity and credibility to this day.

---

The U.N. can't do shit about anything that's serious. It's an organization that is incapable of meaningful action. I think it would have been great had the U.N. done something about Rwanda or would do something about Darfur. But it didn't. And, it never will.

ETA: Oh, the U.N. is good at one thing: Hand-wringing tsk-tsk resolutions. But, it's all talk and no walk.

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

So, you support capital punishment on grounds of vengence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
The U.N. can't do shit about anything that's serious. It's an organization that is incapable of meaningful action. I think it would have been great had the U.N. done something about Rwanda or would do something about Darfur. But it didn't. And, it never will.

---

It's important to remember that when the UN fails, it is really we, the world community who have failed. We have failed to put reasonable pressure on our politicians, failed to take notice, failed to care.

The countries of the world are the UN; there is no Nation of Unania. When the UN is blamed for the Oil for Food scandal, we note that it is the members of certain countries who have been scamming the UN of money. (Redundant really as the UN can waste lots of every one's money on lots of useless things.)

Also -- the role of the permanent members of the security council; UK, France, China, Russia, USA. They hold vetoes that overrule all other countries. So when Rwanda was an issue and many members of the UN sought action -- it was the American government of Bill Clinton's tenure who simply vetoed action, regardless of what commanders on the ground were saying.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Don't you? Isn't that the reason for the war in Afghanistan? Vengeance against all of them for something Saudis are alleged to have done?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fritankare:
But Sven, in Canada, UN admiration is part of our national identity. That's at least what the teach our kids in school.

---

fitankare, welcome to babble. Although the snarky tone of one of your first posts does not bode well.

IF "our" kids are taught to admire the UN, no doubt a lot of that comes from Canadian pride in helping to form the UN and to develop the role of peacekeeping, particularly in the form of Lester Pearson:

quote:

---

Pearson moved forward rapidly. From 1935 to 1941 he served in the office of the High Commissioner for Canada in London; in May, 1941, he was appointed assistant undersecretary of state for External Affairs at Ottawa; in June, 1942, named minister-counselor at the Canadian Legation in Washington; in July, 1944, promoted to the rank of minister plenipotentiary and in January, 1945, to the rank of ambassador. During his Washington stay, Pearson participated in the establishment of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) in 1943 and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 1943-1945; in the Dumbarton Oaks Conference on preliminary discussion for an organization of united nations (1944); and in the San Francisco Conference on the establishment of the UN (1945).

.................................

Pearson drafted the speech in which Prime Minister St. Laurent proposed the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), signed the enabling treaty in 1949, headed the Canadian delegation to NATO until 1957, and functioned as chairman of the NATO Council in 1951-1952. Pearson also headed the Canadian delegation to the UN from 1946 to 1956, being elected to the presidency of the Seventh Session of the General Assembly in 1952-1953. As chairman of the General Assembly's Special Committee on Palestine, he laid the groundwork for the creation of the state of Israel in 1947. In the Suez crisis of 1956, when the United Kingdom, France, and Israel invaded Egyptian territory, Pearson proposed and sponsored the resolution which created a United Nations Emergency Force to police that area, thus permitting the invading nations to withdraw with a minimum loss of face.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

The U.N. can't do shit about anything that's serious. It's an organization that is incapable of meaningful action. I think it would have been great had the U.N. done something about Rwanda or would do something about Darfur. But it didn't. And, it never will.

ETA: Oh, the U.N. is good at one thing: Hand-wringing tsk-tsk resolutions. But, it's all talk and no walk.

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]

---

Allllllrighty then. Let's get Washington and China on-side and signed up for International Criminal Court recognition. Then the world can start demanding trials for war criminals and megalomaniacs alike.

ETA: I wouldn't necessarily want to see "the doctor" dealt with by firing squad at dawn, but at the very least that he admit his crimes against humanity to the world.

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]