President Bush has apologized to Iraq's prime minister for an American sniper's shooting of a Quran and the U.S. military said Sunday that it had disciplined the sniper and removed him from Iraq after he was found to have used Islam's holy book for target practice.
Iraqi police found the bullet-riddled Quran with graffiti inside the cover on a firing range near a police station in Radwaniyah, a former insurgent stronghold west of Baghdad. Members of the local U.S.-allied group said the Quran was found with 14 bullet holes in a field after U.S. troops withdrew from a base in the area.
Al-Maliki's office said the Iraqi Cabinet called on Tuesday for the "severest" punishment against the sniper and warned of "grave consequences" if similarly offensive actions were committed in the future.
On Tuesday, Khalaf al-Elyan, a senior Sunni Arab lawmaker, said the sniper must stand trial, preferably in Baghdad.
I wonder what they mean by "severest punishment"? Is this Death? 5, 10, 15, 20 years in jail? This soldiers actions were culturally insensitive, stupid, and wrong... but would we be having this conversation if he were shooting a Bible? A Torah? 40 churches have been bombed by militants in Iraq since June 26th, 2004... where was the global outrage then?
There is no doubt that the soldier in question should be punished, but the question is for what? Use of an unauthorized target on a military range? Violation of general orders regarding culturally insensitive behavior? Certainly not for shooting a book. It's a book, you know, paper, cardboard, maybe some leather or some leatherette, little bit of glue, some ink. It's the message inside that's important...and somehow, I think, the bullets did very little damage to that.
The Al-Arabiya article had a quote from 'Muslim scholars' that is probably the best route. "Everyone is reminded that God protects his book and his revenge is strong," the scholars said.
Sounds like a good idea to me... It's his book, let him handle it.
~Finntann~
Showing posts with label iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iraq. Show all posts
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
In Support of Iraq
First let me point out that "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" Passed the House by a vote of 296-133 and the Senate by a vote of 77-23.
The Spratt Amendment requiring UN Security council approval and the return to Congress for final authorization was defeated 155-270
The Lee Amendment requiring work through the UN for a peaceful resolution was defeated 72-355
The Byrd Amendment affirming that no additional constitutional authority was being ceded to the President outside of that necessary to deal with the threat posed by Iraq was defeated 14-86
The Levin Amendment requiring a UN Security council resolution for 'immediate access' was defeated 24-75
The Durbin Amendment restricting the use of force only to an 'immediate threat' was defeated 30-70
The representatives of the American people supported the use of military force against Iraq. In addition to the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which seems to be the anti-war movements catchphrase, the resolution also identified the following factors:
Non-compliance with the terms of the 1991 cease-fire
Iraq's brutal repression of its civilian population
Iraq's capability and willingness to use WMDs against its own people and other countries (Kurds, Iran)
Iraq's hostility towards the United States
The Iraq Liberation Act, calling for regime change... signed into law by President Clinton.
and so on, and so forth.
That having been said, and taking no position for or against the invasion of Iraq other than to reiterate what America's representatives voted for, let me posit the position that a unilateral withdrawal of US forces from Iraq would be a war crime.
Having, through military action, toppled the existing government of Iraq it becomes incumbent upon the invading power to ensure civil stability in the nation conquered.
I am not opposed to a withdrawal from Iraq based upon rational, measurable criteria, but a knee-jerk unilateral abandonment of the new democratically elected government of Iraq without ensuring that they have the means to ensure stability could well evolve into a crime of immeasurable proportions. Imagine, if you would, Darfur... with the US as the root cause of the problem.
Many will argue that this is not 'our' problem, that if they want to kill themselves off in a sectarian orgy of bloodshed who are we to interfere. There is also the argument that they are not worth one American life, why should 'our' boys and girls die in defense of a foreign land.
The 'why' comes back to House Joint Resolution 114, which became Public Law 107-243. Our representatives, whether you like it or not, authorized it, our military executed the operation, and our government is responsible for the results, for at least the forseeable future. I urge all of you who advocate a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq to seriously reconsider the repercussions of such an act, and ask yourselves if you are willing to accept responsiblity for them.
While I would be overjoyed to find the Iraqis standing on their own two feet and seeing the planned draw down of American forces take place leaving a peaceful and democratic Iraq in their stead, I would find a chaotic, explosive, and genocidal aftermath unconscionable.
The recent 'American' penchant for disavowing all personal responsibility is disheartening. "It wasn't my fault I knocked over that liquor store... my parents failed me, I came from a broken home, I was picked on at school, and I couldn't find a job" Seems to be what the great spirt of American individualism has devolved to. Don't let the common banality of shirking personal responsibility become the policy of the United States in world affairs.
The American occupation of Germany in WWII lasted for 10 years and the occupation of Japan lasted 7, officially Berlin was occupied until October of 1990. While formal hostilities ended in 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority did not turn over power to an 'Iraqi' government until 2005. We stand now, three and a half years from the establishment of an Iraqi government asking how long should 'occupation' forces remain? My how American patience has waned over the years.
Let us leave in the middle east a groundwork similar to post WWII Europe and not post WWI !
I for one, when we are done there, wish to be done... not back in another twenty years.
~Finntann~
The Spratt Amendment requiring UN Security council approval and the return to Congress for final authorization was defeated 155-270
The Lee Amendment requiring work through the UN for a peaceful resolution was defeated 72-355
The Byrd Amendment affirming that no additional constitutional authority was being ceded to the President outside of that necessary to deal with the threat posed by Iraq was defeated 14-86
The Levin Amendment requiring a UN Security council resolution for 'immediate access' was defeated 24-75
The Durbin Amendment restricting the use of force only to an 'immediate threat' was defeated 30-70
The representatives of the American people supported the use of military force against Iraq. In addition to the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which seems to be the anti-war movements catchphrase, the resolution also identified the following factors:
Non-compliance with the terms of the 1991 cease-fire
Iraq's brutal repression of its civilian population
Iraq's capability and willingness to use WMDs against its own people and other countries (Kurds, Iran)
Iraq's hostility towards the United States
The Iraq Liberation Act, calling for regime change... signed into law by President Clinton.
and so on, and so forth.
That having been said, and taking no position for or against the invasion of Iraq other than to reiterate what America's representatives voted for, let me posit the position that a unilateral withdrawal of US forces from Iraq would be a war crime.
Having, through military action, toppled the existing government of Iraq it becomes incumbent upon the invading power to ensure civil stability in the nation conquered.
I am not opposed to a withdrawal from Iraq based upon rational, measurable criteria, but a knee-jerk unilateral abandonment of the new democratically elected government of Iraq without ensuring that they have the means to ensure stability could well evolve into a crime of immeasurable proportions. Imagine, if you would, Darfur... with the US as the root cause of the problem.
Many will argue that this is not 'our' problem, that if they want to kill themselves off in a sectarian orgy of bloodshed who are we to interfere. There is also the argument that they are not worth one American life, why should 'our' boys and girls die in defense of a foreign land.
The 'why' comes back to House Joint Resolution 114, which became Public Law 107-243. Our representatives, whether you like it or not, authorized it, our military executed the operation, and our government is responsible for the results, for at least the forseeable future. I urge all of you who advocate a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq to seriously reconsider the repercussions of such an act, and ask yourselves if you are willing to accept responsiblity for them.
While I would be overjoyed to find the Iraqis standing on their own two feet and seeing the planned draw down of American forces take place leaving a peaceful and democratic Iraq in their stead, I would find a chaotic, explosive, and genocidal aftermath unconscionable.
The recent 'American' penchant for disavowing all personal responsibility is disheartening. "It wasn't my fault I knocked over that liquor store... my parents failed me, I came from a broken home, I was picked on at school, and I couldn't find a job" Seems to be what the great spirt of American individualism has devolved to. Don't let the common banality of shirking personal responsibility become the policy of the United States in world affairs.
The American occupation of Germany in WWII lasted for 10 years and the occupation of Japan lasted 7, officially Berlin was occupied until October of 1990. While formal hostilities ended in 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority did not turn over power to an 'Iraqi' government until 2005. We stand now, three and a half years from the establishment of an Iraqi government asking how long should 'occupation' forces remain? My how American patience has waned over the years.
Let us leave in the middle east a groundwork similar to post WWII Europe and not post WWI !
I for one, when we are done there, wish to be done... not back in another twenty years.
~Finntann~
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Contrast
Two headlines in the news today make a striking contrast:
Compare "DEMS: America can not afford endless war" to "Marine who lost leg returns to combat in Iraq"
I'd like to start by offering a salute to Gunnery Sergeant William Gibson
Two years ago he lost his leg to a sniper's bullet in Iraq. Today he is back in the combat zone by his own choice.
Read the whole story here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24029144/
Meanwhile, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi whine about the cost to taxpayers and keep asking are we safer.
To address the cost issue, we are spending 2% less of our GDP on defense now then we were under Ronald Reagan during the cold war.
Are we safer? That is an interesting question. To the best of my recollection we haven't had any major or minor terrorist attacks lately. I could leave it at that... seems a simple answer to a simple question, but what are they really asking and what do they mean by safer? Obviously they are aware of the facts regarding enemy action on US soil, so it would seem what they are asking is "do you feel safer". This is kind of a loaded question, not concerned with the facts but with your feelings. I'd go so far as to suggest that everyone felt pretty safe on September 10th, 2001... and as events proved, this feeling was pretty far off the mark. So, do you feel safer today? Your perception of threat might be higher in this post 9/11 world, but are you in any more danger? An avowed enemy has sworn to strike at this 'heart of Satan' we live in and has not successfully been able to do so. The suggestion, which is probably true, is that the evil is out there, plotting and planning, waiting to strike at the most opportune time. They are playing on your fears of attack, not the actual threat of attack itself.
Nancy Pelosi described this as a 'failed war', what I wonder is her criteria for assessing victory? One might have argued towards the end of 1942 that the war was a 'failed war' having lost most of south east Asia, Burma, The Philippines, Malaya, The Dutch East Indies, and Singapore. We were suffering significant naval losses in the South China Sea, The Java Sea, The Indian Ocean, and were losing ships along the Atlantic Seaboard to the Germans. In the desert the British had been pushed back by the Germans, and the Soviet Union looked ready to fall. Perhaps, then, from the perspective of a 'failed war' we should have sued for peace. We most likely would have gotten off rather easily, abandoning our European allies, and perhaps suffering at most the demilitarization of Hawaii. 'Failed War'! Where would we be now?
All indications are that the situation in Iraq is improving, might as well cut our losses now and withdraw. Might I point our esteemed leadership in the general direction of a good dictionary, in particular the entry on defeatist, "showing a tendency to expect failure or accept it too readily".
The debate about whether we should invade Iraq is over, Factum est... it is done.
Before we start the debate about when to withdrawal troops we really ought to consider and debate the repercussions of such an action. I keep hearing "out, out, out", but nothing about the consequences of withdrawing. Will our withdrawal result in genocide of a proportion to put Darfur to shame? Will our withdrawal result in an Iranian hegemony over the entire region? Having committed ourselves to action in Iraq we are now directly responsible for what happens there, no longer can we sit on the sidelines content or at least tolerant of our sins of omission. Like it or not each and every one of us has a responsibility and obligation to the people of Iraq. Whether you consider them our friends, enemies, or are simply indifferent to their fate whatever happens, happens as a result of our actions, past, current, and future.
Might we pause and consider the actions and motivation of Gunnery Sgt Gibson?
“This is where we were 232 years ago as a new nation,” he once said. “Now they're starting a new nation, and that's one of my big reasons for coming back here.”
Most people would consider the sacrifice that Sgt Gibson has made sufficient, all obligations have been met, no debt is owed, anything else is pure nobility.
Compare "DEMS: America can not afford endless war" to "Marine who lost leg returns to combat in Iraq"
I'd like to start by offering a salute to Gunnery Sergeant William Gibson
Two years ago he lost his leg to a sniper's bullet in Iraq. Today he is back in the combat zone by his own choice.
Read the whole story here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24029144/
Meanwhile, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi whine about the cost to taxpayers and keep asking are we safer.
To address the cost issue, we are spending 2% less of our GDP on defense now then we were under Ronald Reagan during the cold war.
Are we safer? That is an interesting question. To the best of my recollection we haven't had any major or minor terrorist attacks lately. I could leave it at that... seems a simple answer to a simple question, but what are they really asking and what do they mean by safer? Obviously they are aware of the facts regarding enemy action on US soil, so it would seem what they are asking is "do you feel safer". This is kind of a loaded question, not concerned with the facts but with your feelings. I'd go so far as to suggest that everyone felt pretty safe on September 10th, 2001... and as events proved, this feeling was pretty far off the mark. So, do you feel safer today? Your perception of threat might be higher in this post 9/11 world, but are you in any more danger? An avowed enemy has sworn to strike at this 'heart of Satan' we live in and has not successfully been able to do so. The suggestion, which is probably true, is that the evil is out there, plotting and planning, waiting to strike at the most opportune time. They are playing on your fears of attack, not the actual threat of attack itself.
Nancy Pelosi described this as a 'failed war', what I wonder is her criteria for assessing victory? One might have argued towards the end of 1942 that the war was a 'failed war' having lost most of south east Asia, Burma, The Philippines, Malaya, The Dutch East Indies, and Singapore. We were suffering significant naval losses in the South China Sea, The Java Sea, The Indian Ocean, and were losing ships along the Atlantic Seaboard to the Germans. In the desert the British had been pushed back by the Germans, and the Soviet Union looked ready to fall. Perhaps, then, from the perspective of a 'failed war' we should have sued for peace. We most likely would have gotten off rather easily, abandoning our European allies, and perhaps suffering at most the demilitarization of Hawaii. 'Failed War'! Where would we be now?
All indications are that the situation in Iraq is improving, might as well cut our losses now and withdraw. Might I point our esteemed leadership in the general direction of a good dictionary, in particular the entry on defeatist, "showing a tendency to expect failure or accept it too readily".
The debate about whether we should invade Iraq is over, Factum est... it is done.
Before we start the debate about when to withdrawal troops we really ought to consider and debate the repercussions of such an action. I keep hearing "out, out, out", but nothing about the consequences of withdrawing. Will our withdrawal result in genocide of a proportion to put Darfur to shame? Will our withdrawal result in an Iranian hegemony over the entire region? Having committed ourselves to action in Iraq we are now directly responsible for what happens there, no longer can we sit on the sidelines content or at least tolerant of our sins of omission. Like it or not each and every one of us has a responsibility and obligation to the people of Iraq. Whether you consider them our friends, enemies, or are simply indifferent to their fate whatever happens, happens as a result of our actions, past, current, and future.
Might we pause and consider the actions and motivation of Gunnery Sgt Gibson?
“This is where we were 232 years ago as a new nation,” he once said. “Now they're starting a new nation, and that's one of my big reasons for coming back here.”
Most people would consider the sacrifice that Sgt Gibson has made sufficient, all obligations have been met, no debt is owed, anything else is pure nobility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
