DescentBB

This war isn't mainly going to be fought only on the physical level. It's a war for minds and hearts.

What better way to win them than to remove a horrible, oppressive government and replace it with one that doesn't suck? You know, like what we did in Iraq...

Didn't know there was a functioning govt in Iraq...where they at on that anyways?

Dang these things are getting LONG.

Bold Deciever wrote:Do you believe there are any circumstances under which the United States would be justified in attacking another country, other than a response to being attacked?

War can also be used as a response to someone else being attacked.
BUT, no, I don't believe in pre-emptive strikes. Neither does the U.S. when it comes to anyone besides us. Case in point, India and Pakistan. India has VERY good reason to be frightened of Pakistan as a nuclear power. Far more reason than we did to be worried about Saddam, or even Iran (since India and Pakistan share a border). But we urged India to NOT take any pre-emptive action against Pakistan.

The argument that we should attack Iraq because of it's human rights abuses has some strength, but is weak for several reasons. First, Saddam is by no means the worst offender in this area, and second, where does it stop? Are we going to be the policemen of the world? There are LOTS of nations that need attacking based on that standard, do we take them all on? I don't see any way to do that without becoming a worse tyrant than any that we will replace.

The argument that we should attack Iraq because they were in violation of the UN sanctions is better, but still weak. Especially when you consider that the situation was 10 years old. We SHOULD have finished off Saddam after desert storm. It's shameful that we didn't. Especially after Bush senior encouraged the Kurds to attack by offering air suppression and then didn't come through on his side of the bargain. You start a job, you should finish it. BUT, Bill Clinton let Saddam slide. He didn't enforce the UN sanctions. Coming back 10 years later and saying, "heh, shouldn't we be doing this now?" isn't an entirely invalid argument, but it's not a very strong one.

The argument that we should attack Iraq because they are developing big bad weapons and might use them on us in the future is the main argument used by Bush and is absolutely the WRONG way to approach a war. Please note, I'm not arguing that it was wrong because we didn't find any WMDs. I thought it was wrong when I thought Saddam had WMDs. Who decides who MIGHT be a threat to us? There are lots of countries that don't like us, will we attack all of them to stop them from getting big bombs? What about the ones that already HAVE nukes, shall we take them out as soon as possible? And after that, doesn't ANY country with nukes threaten us? Eventually any of them might decide they are mad at us. Pre-emptive strikes are entirely the WRONG way to go about war.

Bold Deceiver wrote:There is simply no reliable, empirical data that the population of the Middle East found the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan "understandable and justifiable".

I Admit that they aren't always rational, It's terrifying to realize that the majority of Muslims world over still don't believe that Muslims carried out the 9/11 attack. But then, after all the conspiracy theories that have bounced around HERE, its obviously not just a Muslim problem.

from the Hamilton College Muslim America Poll: may 30 2002:
Only one third of U.S. Muslims are convinced that Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network was responsible for the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington.
Nonetheless, a majority say U.S. military action in Afghanistan is justified.

Ok, Not middle east, but most of these folks were FROM there.

An article by Amin Saikal
Biased, VERY, but we are looking for opinions here, not facts, so biased sources are exactly what we want. Note the radical difference in his feelings about Afghanistan and Iraq. This is from a guy that appears to support the PLO, so if he's a "moderate", its one slanted pretty far over. And while I question the accuracy of his numbers, I don't question the general result that their is MUCH more support for the U. S. troops by the locals in Afghanistan than in Iraq.

from here:
only 15% of Indonesians held a favorable view of the U.S. in the latter half of 2003 as compared to 61% in 2002.
(not middle east, but Muslim)

BUT, I admit that the majority of Muslims were against the war in Afghanistan. It just wasn't as severe as the opinion against Iraq. And this seems to be based mainly on the bizarre conspiracy theory that 9/11 was really carried out by Israelis, not Arabs. They weren't objecting to the idea of responding to an attack with violence, they just didn't believe that Osama was behind the attack. (I've admitted, not rational)

Also, they had a more difficult time maintaining that negative opinion after the initial stages of the war were done. It was hard to argue that the people of Afghanistan didn't want us there. They came out and fought with us. That didn't happen in Iraq.

But lets just forget Muslim opinion for a moment, as you have stated we should. I'm NOT proposing that we should base our policy strictly on Muslim opinion. I'm saying we should do what is right and just. A pre-emptive strike is simply not right or just, and that was the primary excuse we used for this war. Forget the Muslims opinion, it wasn't right in MY opinion.

If we do what IS right and just, we will have a better chance getting opinion on our side, but regardless, we will have still done the right thing.

The United States Congress wrote:and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; . . ."

Yes, mentioned as a sideline. It should have been the reason we went to war. If it HAD been the reason we went to war, you wouldn't have all the liberals attacking Bush now on the missing WMDs. No, I don't think the Middle East would have "embraced" the war, but I think in the long run we would have had MUCH less opposition.

Bold Deceiver wrote:No, they're the people we will kill or capture and toss into Guantanomo. Anyone who wishes to join the terrorist party will have a powerful deterrent in that respect.

Unfortunately, they LIKE being martyrs.

Bold Deceiver wrote:The difference between us, Kilarin, is vast.

Oh yes indeedy! We DO agree on that!

Bold Deceiver wrote:You believe that PR and world relations begets security.

No. Perhaps I have miscommunicated. I believe that "PR and world relations" are a PART of security. Ignoring them is simply stupid. And I believe that if we DO THE RIGHT THING, then we will have a better time in the PR department. And even if we don't, at least we were RIGHT.

I did NOT mean to imply that we shouldn't invade Iraq solely because it was bad PR. I was trying to say that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq the way we did because it was WRONG, and it was ALSO bad PR as a side effect of being wrong.

PR is not the first element in this war, but it is an important one. For example:
pew global: Positive opinions of the U.S. in Indonesia, which had plummeted to as low as 15% in 2003, also have rebounded to 38%. The U.S. tsunami aid effort has been widely hailed there; 79% of Indonesians say they have a more favorable view of the U.S. as a result of the relief efforts.
It IS possible to change their opinions of us. That is an important factor in this war, because it's that or genocide.

Bold Deceiver wrote:Would you make it[torture] illegal?

Yes. Would you make Vigilante justice legal? I'm not talking about self defense, I'm talking about citizens hunting down and killing people because they don't believe the law is handling it correctly. Lynchings etc.

There are many times when I would be inclined to believe vigilantes would be doing the "right" thing. But you simply can NOT make it legal without knowing that it WILL be abused. Torture is in the same boat. After the fact, we might wish we had pulled that bad guys finger nails out and gotten the answer. But if we allow ourselves to drop to that level, it's inevitable that we will end up torturing the wrong person. We can't defeat our enemy by becoming like them.

Lothar wrote:What better way to win them than to remove a horrible, oppressive government and replace it with one that doesn't suck? You know, like what we did in Iraq...

If it works out that way, I'll be thrilled. I'll also be VERY surprised. The Iraqi people did NOT come out to help us, they have no clue how democracy works, and I don't think we have the strength of will to hold them together until they can figure it out.

Kilarin wrote:Positive opinions of the U.S. in Indonesia, which had plummeted to as low as 15% in 2003, also have rebounded to 38%. The U.S. tsunami aid effort has been widely hailed there; 79% of Indonesians say they have a more favorable view of the U.S. as a result of the relief efforts....

So how much weight should I give to the opinion that can be purchased? If a few islamikazi imams come through there and spread some dollars around along with some anti-infidel rhetoric and americas ratings in the polls once again swings back down to the teens as a result what then?
Should we have to come back each year with more aid money to keep them from disliking us? Is that PR or buying a whore?
World opinion matters in many ways but please understand that their are millions of different degrees of value we should place on it. If the only way they will live in peace with us is if we keep paying them then I want to shop for better bred pets than the islamikazi breed!

Will Robinson wrote:If the only way they will live in peace with us is if we keep paying them then I want to shop for better bred pets than the islamikazi breed!

I didn't read this as a "buy out" at all. It sounded like they were genuinely surprised that Americans would want to help them, and that changed many of their minds about what we were like and what our ultimate goals were.

But just to clarify, I'm opposed to government aid on a general basis. I am CERTAINLY not recommending more. And not everything that went to the Tsunami relief came from the government.

The only reason I used the quote was to point out that opinion COULD be changed.

Kilarin wrote:The argument that we should attack Iraq because of it's human rights abuses....
The argument that we should attack Iraq because they were in violation of the UN sanctions....
The argument that we should attack Iraq because they are developing big bad weapons and might use them on us in the future....

Individually each argument is less than convincing. But the arguments weren't given individually, they were given as a set. (The fact that so many have forgotten this and assumed WMD was the "main" reason is a demonstration of the strength of propaganda.) Saddam was in violation of multiple UN resolutions, he supported a number of terrorist groups (not just AQ), he was seeking and thought to be hoarding weapons he'd agreed to give up, he continued to fire upon American planes patrolling the no-fly zones, and I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that he have been willing to enable terrorist groups to strike the US with whatever weapons he was able to acquire. All that is to say, Saddam was a credible threat to the US (in the same way that a freshly spawned, average Descent player is a credible threat -- yeah, he doesn't have the big guns YET and he's not as dangerous as he could be, but passing him by just means more chance he'll be shooting you in the back with a mega.) Saddam was also a threat to his own people, and to various other nations and people in the Middle East.

Taken as a whole, I think that's a pretty solid argument. If it was JUST the WMD without the other craziness, or JUST the human rights abuse without the other stuff, I wouldn't have put Saddam high on the priority list. But dude was obviously one of the top 3 priorities (with Iran and NK), and the one where direct military confrontation was the proper response (not the case with Iran and NK.)

A pre-emptive strike is simply not right or just, and that was the primary excuse we used for this war.

I think this is the core of disagreement: for a secular nation, pre-emptive strikes ARE right and just. I don't mean it's right and just to jack another nation "just because", but I do mean that if they establish their willingness and desire to punk you, it's appropriate to jack them before they're able, rather than waiting. Similarly, if an individual establishes willingness and desire to punk another individual -- say, by threatening them -- I think the police should treat them only marginally less harshly than they'd treat someone who'd actually attacked.

So, I think I'd add to your reasons one nation would be justified in attacking another: they were attacked, their ally was attacked, or they or their ally were directly and intentionally threatened.

You're right to say the US is inconsistant in applying this argument to other nations (India/Pakistan, etc.) but that doesn't change the validity of the argument.

]It was hard to argue that the people of Afghanistan didn't want us there. They came out and fought with us. That didn't happen in Iraq.
... The Iraqi people did NOT come out to help us, they have no clue how democracy works, and I don't think we have the strength of will to hold them together until they can figure it out.

The Iraqis had good reason not to come out and help us -- they remembered the end of GWI.

But, I think you're amazingly wrong in your assessment of the Iraqi people, and even more wrong in your assessment of the US's strength of will. We're in this for the long haul, now, and the Iraqis are right there with us. They're new to the form of government, but they're picking it up fast and they're becoming great allies.

I believe that "PR and world relations" are a PART of security.

I agree. Unfortunately, the enemy PR/world relations team has been doing better at getting their message out, enabled in large part by the Democratic party and the mainstream media and their continual distortions. Their focusing on WMD instead of looking at the whole case Bush made, their hyping up Abu Ghraib and Haditha and Gitmo (sometimes based on entirely *fictional* evidence), and their continually trying to get the US to back out of Iraq does nothing but weaken security for us, the Iraqi people, the Aussies, etc.

Getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do. Trying him in a court of law is the right thing to do. Giving the Iraqis a government that doesn't suck -- and yes, they DO have one -- was the right thing to do. And we should get that message out. Yeah, it's OK to point out when mistakes are made, but we don't need to have each and every mistake dominate the news for three straight weeks.

First -- thank you for the well-worked and well-considered response. You're wrong of course, in certain (most) respects, but your hard work and intellectual honesty is to be respected.

Kilarin wrote:War can also be used as a response to someone else being attacked. BUT, no, I don't believe in pre-emptive strikes.

We will never agree then. We have a fundamental difference between as to what constitutes a threat to us.

Kilarin wrote:Neither does the U.S. when it comes to anyone besides us. Case in point, India and Pakistan.

Pakistan? A threat, Kilarin, but not at the level of Iraq. Politics is not a game of black and white; shades of grey make up the context. Pakistan was not attempting to or even threatening to, for instance, assassinate our country's leadership. There is a significant difference that I am confident you grasp.

Kilarin wrote:The argument that we should attack Iraq because of it's human rights abuses has some strength, but is weak .... Are we going to be the policemen of the world?

Yes, when world criminals threaten to harm our citizenry. That is the very essence of national security. And Kilarin -- I cited only one of literally dozens of passages from the congressional resolution. See our own declaration of independence for parallel reference -- it need not be a single reason ("King George is despot"); and in fact, the reasons for resuming war with Iraq were legion.

Kilarin wrote:We SHOULD have finished off Saddam after desert storm. It's shameful that we didn't.

Agreed. But we were trying to assemble and comply with the visions of the "coalition". But when and if the coalition abandons you, Kil, you fight alone. One cannot sigh and roll one's eyes and hope for the best, when the lives of one's countrymen hang in the balance.

Kilarin wrote: Especially after Bush senior encouraged the Kurds to attack by offering air suppression and then didn't come through on his side of the bargain.

Agreed. And if you have ever seen George Bush 42 interviewed as of late, I think you find this is one of his greatest regrets.

Kilarin wrote:The argument that we should attack Iraq because they are developing big bad weapons and might use them on us in the future is the main argument used by Bush and is absolutely the WRONG way to approach a war.... Who decides who MIGHT be a threat to us? ...Pre-emptive strikes are entirely the WRONG way to go about war.

We part ways here in a big way. There is a season here, Kilarin, for defending oneself against a growing and horrific danger. Your philosophy permits death to mass on the border. It is a philosophy that dies with those who subscribe to it.

Kilarin wrote:Forget the Muslims opinion, it wasn't right in MY opinion.

I accept you hold the opinion. You are wrong.

Kilarin wrote:I believe that "PR and world relations" are a PART of security. Ignoring them is simply stupid.

I accept you hold that opinion. You are correct to so hold.

Kilarin wrote:Would you make Vigilante justice legal? I'm not talking about self defense, I'm talking about citizens hunting down and killing people because they don't believe the law is handling it correctly. Lynchings etc.

No. The difference, Kilarin. A vigilante is someone who takes enforcement of law or moral code into his or her own hands. War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups. (Definitions ripped from Wiki, God help me.) There are wars fought for moral purposes, and wars fought for immoral purposes.

Do you believe the United States is fighting this war for an immoral purpose?

Kilarin wrote:We can't defeat our enemy by becoming like them.

I disagree. I think I would personally torture a terrorist if I knew to a reasonable certainty it would save the life of your innocent child. I also think I would be morally justified in so doing. Would you do the same for mine?

Woul you do the same for my child, in a similar context?

Context defines the morality of the act, Kilarin. Acts unto themselves have no inherently evil quality. Otherwise we would prosecute Pontiacs for car accidents.

BD

Kilarin wrote:..The only reason I used the quote was to point out that opinion COULD be changed.

and the only reason I simplified it down to the bribe analogy was to show that their mind can be changed too easily to be too concerned over their opinion as it may appear in any single snapshot of time that a poll provides...

Great Britian and Japan, just to name a few, don't particularly enjoy supporting our approach all the time but the underlying principle of our goals are shared with them and too strong to abandon us over a few details.

Give me the polling report on how the U.S. is seen when the long term results have come in from the middle east and then I'll be much more concerned about how any one region responds in a poll.

I bet during WWII I could have taken some polls at different stages of the endeavor and come up with some seriously anti-U.S. results from countries that now regard our contribution to that war as exemplary!

Bold Deceiver wrote:First -- thank you for the well-worked and well-considered response. You're wrong of course, in certain (most) respects, but your hard work and intellectual honesty is to be respected.

And thank you guys for being willing to discuss this with me! I like (and learn from) good debates when we can all keep from calling each other names.

Lothar wrote:Lothar: I think this is the core of disagreement: for a secular nation, pre-emptive strikes ARE right and just.
Bold Deceiver: We will never agree then. We have a fundamental difference between as to what constitutes a threat to us.

Yep. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Lothar wrote:But, I think you're amazingly wrong in your assessment of the Iraqi people, and even more wrong in your assessment of the US's strength of will. We're in this for the long haul, now, and the Iraqis are right there with us. They're new to the form of government, but they're picking it up fast and they're becoming great allies.

I hope you are right, on both accounts. Because much as I disagree with the way we entered this war, if we pull out now, things get MUCH worse.

Bold Deceiver wrote:Pakistan? A threat, Kilarin, but not at the level of Iraq.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I wasn't speaking of Pakistan threatening the U.S. I was speaking of Pakistan threatening India. And that threat is MUCH higher than Saddam EVER threatened us.

Bold Deceiver wrote:A vigilante is someone who takes enforcement of law or moral code into his or her own hands. War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups. ... Do you believe the United States is fighting this war for an immoral purpose?

I believe a pre-emptive strike is immoral. And stupid. But I'm not one of the conspiracy theorists who think G. W. Bush is just trying to hike up oil prices. And I'm certainly not shedding any tears for Saddam.

But I wasn't comparing the Iraq war to Vigilante justice. I was comparing torture, and there I think the analogy is spot on.

Bold Deceiver wrote:I think I would personally torture a terrorist if I knew to a reasonable certainty it would save the life of your innocent child.

There are many times when I could be very tempted to approve of or participate in a lynching. I'm from Texas, where "He needed killin" is still considered a valid defense for murder.

But we simply can NOT make lynching legal, nor can we ever excuse it. To do so would INEVITABLY lead to horrors. We've SEEN that in the southern U. S.

Might I torture a terrorist to save the life of a child? I'll have to admit that I might, depending on how convinced I was. Please note, NOT that I think I would be right to do so, just that I might do it. But I would ALSO expect the full force of the law to come down on me afterwards.

Using this kind of excuse (ends justifies the means) to justify evil behavior is NOT a good direction to be going. It will always go bad. What if, after you pulled out the guys finger nails, you found out you had been wrong? He wasn't a terrorist. He didn't know. Oh well, oops.

What if it was a Muslim woman. Would you rape her if that would make her talk? I assume not, but its essentially the same issue. Rape is ALWAYS wrong, and rape is just a particularly horrible form of torture. Torture is wrong. Period.

What if you thought you could stop the terrorist by turning the tables on them. Capturing random Muslim citizens off the streets and beheading them on video. Would you justify the action because it would save the lives of American Children? Again, I assume not. BUT, that is the argument the Terrorist use. That their horrible actions are excusable because they do them for a great cause.

We are the GOOD GUYS. We don't torture. Or at least, we shouldn't.

Kilarin wrote:I believe a pre-emptive strike is immoral.

I see position held by other libertarians, too. Is this a matter of credo and if so, can you explain its origin? I don't understand it, because it is a form of absolutism that to me, and suicidal as policy. The U.S. made this policy, our enemies would feel no compunction about massing an invasion force within close proximity, so to unpack medium and short range nuclear missiles (ala Cuba). No pre-emptive strike? Or wait for the first volley of, say, 1500 nuclear warheads at major American cities? You can say, well Bold, that's presently implausible -- and for the moment you'd be right (but see, Kim "I'm so Ronrey" Jong IL's recent test firing of the Taepadong (sp?) II.) It wasn't so implausible in 1962, however, and it could happen again. Does this scenario move you?

He Needed Kill-Arin wrote:There are many times when I could be very tempted to approve of or participate in a lynching. I'm from Texas, where "He needed killin" is still considered a valid defense for murder.

LOL. I know you're kidding, but that old saying sure has legs. I'm from Texas too. (UT, class of '83 - did you catch the the Rose Bowl this year? God that was fun. I live in northern LA County now and the firm where I work is infested with USC people from the top down.)

I took the Texas State bar examination in 1994, and I don't remember that one as a criminal defense. The bar prep course instructor for the crim section did make a point though, that in Texas -- at least back then, one could use reasonable force in defense of property, up through and including deadly force. He needed to point it up to the candidates who went to law schoool out-of-state (like me), because that's not the majority rule. According to him, Texas was the only state in the nation that permitted it. (Note: this is not legal advice - if any of the knuckleheads on this board find themselves in Texas and decide to test the waters by killing someone in defense of your latest vid-card or joystick or whatever, in Texas they will hang your ass.)

Kilarin wrote:We are the GOOD GUYS. We don't torture. Or at least, we shouldn't.

Agreed. But I think it's telling that under the correct circumstances you'd be willing to break the no-torture law.

Cheers,

BD

Bold Deciever wrote:did you catch the the Rose Bowl this year?

Missed it this year. I'm one of the three Texan males who aren't interested in football. (It may be two now, one of us was getting kind of old). But my wife works with horse tack and usually likes to watch the Rose Bowl parade just to see the Parade Saddles. BUT, somehow we were busy this year and didn't get to sit down and watch it.

Kilarin wrote:I believe a pre-emptive strike is immoral.

Bold Deceiver wrote:I see position held by other libertarians, too. Is this a matter of credo and if so, can you explain its origin?

I don't know if its Libertarian credo or not. I'm a LOUSY Libertarian. I vote for them because I oppose both of the main parties, and I think the Libertarians have the right GENERAL idea, (less government, more personal responsibility). But on the specifics, they are NUTS. They want to abolish the entire highway system and replace them with privately owned toll roads. Can you IMAGINE the difficulty in maintaining free trade when an individual company can simply buy up the main roadways leading into a region? Sheesh. They are crazy, just not as insane as the Republicans or Democrats.

Once you've justified pre-emptive strikes. Where do you draw the line?

And lets turn it around. The U.S. has CLEARLY threatened Iran. Ignore the fact that they threatened us first, we can run that back and forth forever and it isn't important to this point. We have threatened them, we have even dropped hints that we MIGHT nuke them. (highly unlikely, but the threat was there). Do you feel that Iran would be justified in striking the U. S. first in a pre-emptive strike because we are a VERY credible threat to them.

Not would it be WISE, the answer to that is obvious. I want to know if you think it would be JUST. And if not, then why is it ok for us to do it?

Well I read most of the posts and skimmed some of them so if this train of thought is redundant...just ignore it.

On the face of it (by face I mean the spin put out by the press and thus how the rest of the world perceives the ruling) the USSC ruling now allow prisoners captured on a battlefield to be tried in a american court of law. Me waits for all the cheers from the ACLU mindset types to die down. Here's the problem. Prisoners captured in war are either soldiers in uniform and thus accorded certain right or they are not in uniform and thus can be summarily executed. So lets assume the Gitmo Gang are soldiers, just that they have been wearing a \"different\" kind of uniform. The court ruling that they can be tried in a court now opens a pandoras box where-in american soldiers can be captured and a \"trial\" be held by the captors, found guilty of high crimes and executed. Up until now it has been held sacrosanct that POW's cannot be tried for any crimes. I hope the rest of the world does not construe the Supremes ruling as a go ahead to do just that.
In response to the courts ruling Bush has now seen fit to thwart the courts ruling by now declaring the Gitmo detainee's as coming under the auspices of the Geneva convention. If that is the case, are not the prisoners now open for summary execution if the military so chooses?

The supremes didn't give the prisoners access to our criminal courts, they just said the prisoners should be allowed the same considerations that the uniform military code of justice provides for any prisoner it holds *or* if Bush wants to continue with his military tribunals specially held to deal with these prisoners he would need congress to approve.

They are saying he can't make up new rules after catching them so he must either use previously established courts or get the congress to agree with using a new kind of court/tribunal...he can't establish a new kind of court on his own.

Since congress hasn't jumped in with both feet to help him without some members wanting to campaign for higher office on the issue *cough*Lindsey Graham*cough* he apparantly is going to apply the rules from the Geneva conventions to his methods which will satisfy the Supremes concerns.
It will probably cause some of them to go free sooner than we had planned but, yea, under those terms we could still line many of them up and shoot them but I seriously doubt Bush has the political will to do that even if he thought they deserved it.

Will Robinson wrote:The supremes didn't give the prisoners access to our criminal courts, they just said the prisoners should be allowed the same considerations that the uniform military code of justice provides for any prisoner it holds...

Yep. This wasn't a "Shut Down Gitmo" decree, as many have tried to make it out. It was a "Clean up your act" order.

Will Robinson wrote:It will probably cause some of them to go free sooner than we had planned but, yea, under those terms we could still line many of them up and shoot them but I seriously doubt Bush has the political will to do that even if he thought they deserved it.

The main change, as I have understood it, is that they will no longer be allowed to use "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment" on the prisoners.

The administration’s policy shift does repudiate a six-week burst of early Guantanamo practices, which FBI agents described in internal e-mails as involving chaining captives for so long that they urinated and defecated on themselves. Military guards or interrogators also allegedly tethered captives to dog leashes, wrapped them in Israeli flags, and exposed them to extremes of hot, cold and blasting music to break their resistance and spill secrets.

Not exactly Nazi concentration camp stuff, but still a lower quality of behavior than I had hoped for out of the U.S. HOWEVER, the white house claims that all of this stopped and that the Gitmo prisoners have been treated firmly but humanely ever since.

SO, according to the current white house, there won't really be any changes in prisoner treatment, which makes you wonder why we didn't go ahead and take the moral high ground by giving them Geneva Convention status a long time ago.

Oh, and, of course, the Geneva Conventions only apply to the military. No limit on the CIA's behavior.

Kilarin wrote:...SO, according to the current white house, there won't really be any changes in prisoner treatment, which makes you wonder why we didn't go ahead and take the moral high ground by giving them Geneva Convention status a long time ago.

Oh, and, of course, the Geneva Conventions only apply to the military. No limit on the CIA's behavior.

Because unlike the Nazi's who were burning their captives in ovens, making lampshades from their skin etc because...well....just because they were jews! The U.S. was "torturing" these al Queda types because they were actually guilty of something much more nefarious than just belonging to the scapegoat tribe that believes Jesus wasn't the messiah!

Note that the Bush administration has never suggested we should start using these torturous techniques on democrats, or all muslims, or people who eat with their left hands, or even citizen criminals caught on the streets of america!
He only wanted to use it on terrorist types hiding in civilian clothing who seek to ambush and decapitate americans on the battlefield or carry out mass murder here at home all in the name of their imaginary friend allah!

So while many will breath a sigh of relief that we may not be using such dastardly measures on the captured islami-kazi's anymore they need to gain a little perspective on just what it was we were trying to do and exactly who we were doing it to!
Because counter to the old axiom, sometimes, and quite often in wartime, the ends absolutely do justify the means!
The moral highground is a wonderful place to walk and we should always try to use it but sometimes the only road to victory and the path to survival often lead down into a filthy swamp called reality.

Will, you think every German soldier knew about the concentration camps? The upper echelon of Al Qaeda wants to do want you said yes, but I would say the fighting force in Iraq just wants to fight the US and do what they can. Bush's clear disregard for moral treatment has fueled far more fires in the middle east and made enemies out of friends before.

These are not college antics as woodchip as said before. Look up the figures, how many captives have died while IN US custody? Do you think they died of natural causes? Please, this situation with the girl being raped and killed is the tip of iceberg...is that stuff ok with you guys too?

There is no room for torture ever, it does not solve anything. Hell, the guy will tell you whatever you want to hear just so you make the pain stop. Isn't that where Bush got most of his bogus info? From one detainee that lied just so they would stop doing whatever it was they were doing.

The Republicans (and those that vote for them) Would Torture Jesus.

Z.

Zuruck, the soldiers raping and killing the girl and her family is in no way a part of the interrogation and detainment practices of the Gitmo type prisons we were talking about.
Second, out of what, over 100,000 we have captured only a small percentage were in custody for more than a few months so that pretty much parallels, and thus shoots down, your \"every german soldier\" analogy.
And remember some of the ones we released quickly were caught shooting at our guys a second time...these are dedicated killers.

No, you're right, they are not frathouse pranks, at least not all of it, but it's right in line with what every country, including america when the war was run by democrats has done. Google WWII + interment for just one example...

The only difference is that we now put politics in front of nationality during wartime so the same old tactics we all used before are suddenly trotted out and introduced as something new and it's fooling the ignorant and/or sweetening the dogmatic partisans kool-aid in a way that previously wouldn't have been an acceptable tactic.
It's not a new low in wartime behavior it's a new low in partisan politics unchallenged by a not so objective press corp.

Will Robinson wrote:The only difference is that we now put politics in front of nationality during wartime

We should put ethics above both.

Will Robinson wrote:He only wanted to use it on terrorist types hiding in civilian clothing who seek to ambush and decapitate americans on the battlefield or carry out mass murder here at home all in the name of their imaginary friend allah!

Your argument seems to be that if the bad guys are REALLY bad, then anything we do to them, including torture, is excused. The same argument the bad guys make to excuse their own behavior.

But an argument from Ethics doesn't seem to be working here. So lets drop it down to a very practical level. As Zuruck pointed out, Torture doesn't work. ESPECIALLY the rather mild stuff we are dishing out. Information gained in this manner is highly unreliable.

The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

George Bush's policy in this regard was not only bad ethics, it was an ineffective and counter productive interrogation technique.

\"those who engage in Torture are no better than the enemy.\"

No one said we needed to keep them this long because we weren't done trying to extract intel from them. The main reason we kept the ones we still have is because we didn't want them to return to their jihad and I'm guessing we didn't have the desire to line them up and shoot them....or bury them in mass graves...or behead them and drag their corpses through the street singing the praises of Jesus...

No one knew exactly what to do with them, only that we had some hard core dudes that we wanted to keep out of the battle. Remember we returned many thousands of them to their homeland after a short stay in custody and some of them were caught again after they had returned to the fight. The difference between what we did and what the supreme court says we should do is a minor change. i think Bush should lay it out to the public and make the congressmen stand up publically and vote to either give these bastards privileges they don't deserve or let Bush continue with the miltary tribunals he wanted.

The argument that we are just like them doesn't bother me. In many ways we are just like them, we are fighting to destroy them and sometimes, not always, but sometimes that means we use nasty tactics or have to compromise our standards to preserve our own troops lives. You don't always get to pick between right and wrong, sometimes it really is a choice between evil and lesser evil.
It's naive to think otherwise.

Zuruck:
\"but I would say the fighting force in Iraq just wants to fight the US and do what they can. \"

The fighting by the terrorists in Iraq is for one thing...power. You don't seriously believe that if we left tommorrow all fighting would cease and Iraq would become instantly filled will brotherly love? If the terrorist win there how long before their tactics would raise their ugly head here in America?

As Will points out, captured soldiers are not released until the war is over for obvious reasons. Those held in Gitmo are there for the very same reason.

Will Robinson wrote:You don't always get to pick between right and wrong, sometimes it really is a choice between evil and lesser evil.
It's naive to think otherwise.

What makes you so sure that the USA is the lesser evil?

Will Robinson wrote:No one said we needed to keep them this long because we weren't done trying to extract intel from them.

Wood chip wrote:captured soldiers are not released until the war is over for obvious reasons.

And I haven't seen anyone here suggest that these guys be set free without having been through some sort of legal process to determine if they really are terrorists and enemy combatants or not.

All we are saying is that while they are held, they should be treated decently. Not KINDLY, not luxuriously, just decently. And not because they deserve it, but because we are decent people.

A list of WHO is being held should be available to the public. Governments that simply grab people off the street and make them "disappear" are very, very bad. Now, in an ordinary war, it's pretty clear who is an enemy soldier and who isn't, so this isn't normally a big problem. But this is NOT an ordinary war. And it's not always easy to tell who is fighting us, and who just got grabbed by mistake. (and yes, we DO know they grab the wrong people sometimes) So we must be very above board about who we've taken and locked up, and what we are accusing them of. ESPECIALLY when they are U. S. Citizens, but even the poor wife in Iraq who has no idea why her husband didn't come home last night deserves to know where he is and why he's been locked up.

And, since this is NOT an ordinary war with uniformed combatants, the Presidents say so should NOT be enough to condemn someone. The Supreme court did NOT make the stupid mistake of sending POW's into the civil courts, but they DID say that we must try them under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

None of these demands are unreasonable, none of these in any way endanger the safety of this country. Quite the contrary. The U.S. government is a MUCH bigger threat to my well being then Al Queda. I have given the government direct power over me, and if my own government becomes oppressive, it is MUCH harder to eliminate than Al Queda. Al Queda is a temporary threat to my personal safety, but letting our own government slip out of line (as I think we have already done on MANY fronts, both left and right), is a VERY big, long term threat to my freedom.

I'll take freedom over safety any day.

TIGERassault wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:You don't always get to pick between right and wrong, sometimes it really is a choice between evil and lesser evil.
It's naive to think otherwise.

What makes you so sure that the USA is the lesser evil?

Well let's see...
al Queda wants us to give up our constitution, womans rights, banking, free speech, kill all the jews, surrender to islam and obey the bin Ladden interpretation of the Koran, incorporate sharia law into our government, stop eating with our left hands, stop educating women and don't allow them to show any uncovered skin except that around their eyes as they peek submissively at us from behind their veils.
Oh yea, they also want to commit mass murder on our civilian populations in order to achieve these goals and have attacked us successfully more than a few times in the recent past...

If we don't fight them back to their previous scattered, marginal fringe element status they will be poised to control a major percentage of the worlds oil supply shortly after we retreat from this fight which would give them an almost overnight capability to crash western economies on a global scale. Once that happens of course we'd be right back over there fighting WWIII after letting them build their forces and arm their warheads!

But other than that I suppose you might have a point, they really aren't much of an evil entity.

But the lesser evil to me is not letting those people thrive anymore, fight them anyway we can including letting the U.S. military decide when it's safe to release the small percentage of prisoners that they haven't released already, and yes, beat some intel out of them if and when they think it might be beneficial.

Call me silly but it seems like an easy choice.
Of course it's easy for me because I'm not the least bit ashamed that I have actually taken a side in this fight and eagerly admit that I want my tribe to win.

I'm not in denial of the real nature of this kind of struggle and the fact that people will most likely have to die in order for me to win because the islamikazi's and their handlers are just as focused on our destruction as I am on our victory.

Will Robinson wrote:I'm not the least bit ashamed that I have actually taken a side in this fight and eagerly admit that I want my tribe to win.

I want us to win too. But are you saying there are NO lines you would not cross in order to win? Are there any kinds of behavior you do not believe would be justified, even if they ensured victory? What are they? Where do you draw the line of fighting a war ethically, or do you believe that is impossible?

Kilarin wrote:...I have given the government direct power over me, and if my own government becomes oppressive, it is MUCH harder to eliminate than Al Queda. Al Queda is a temporary threat to my personal safety, but letting our own government slip out of line (as I think we have already done on MANY fronts, both left and right), is a VERY big, long term threat to my freedom.

There is no reason to believe that our government can't prosecute a war on terrorists with different standards of justice than it protects for its own citizens without one day getting confused and suddenly start sending drug dealers or people with outstanding traffic warrants to Gitmo. It seems to me our government has always managed multiple standards of justice throughout its history and yet we have plenty of protection still.

I'll take freedom over safety any day.

If they were mutually exclusive I'd be making the same choice, but since they are not, and the world is much more complex, join me in allowing our battlfield commanders some freedom in prosecuting the war in a way that puts our troops safety above the much over rated public opinion poll OK? If they didn't give the prisoners enough consideration OK, let them be inventoried by the Red Cross but seriously, they have been filtered through and the majority of those captured have been identified as releasable and they were released!
I'm ok with the current designation that the remaining prisoners are armed beligerents captured on the battlefield too dangerous to release.
The press makes it sound like we took everyone we captured and locked them away without trying to determine who they were and I don't believe that's the case.

Kilarin wrote:I want us to win too. But are you saying there are NO lines you would not cross in order to win? Are there any kinds of behavior you do not believe would be justified, even if they ensured victory? What are they? Where do you draw the line of fighting a war ethically, or do you believe that is impossible?

I believe the lines that we have crossed are not nearly as serious as some people want the electorate to believe. I believe they are familiar lines that have old footprints from previous administrations and generals all over them on both sides.
I believe that the line we shouldn't cross is ever moving and can only be pinpointed by a commander in the field but it is always somewhere between letting our guys rape and murder, which we haven't tolerated, and holding indefinitely the really bad ones we caught and trying to extract intel by way of waterboarding, ★■◆● slapping and denial of comfort etc.

And whether we fight ethically or not is not an option if the result of maintaining some arbitrary designed-to-make-us--feel-good-about-how-we-kill-people ethical standard is death and defeat of our troops. So I believe we should default to the commanders in the field to tell us what ethics we can afford instead of the New York Times.

Will Robinson wrote: Well let's see...
al Queda wants us to give up our constitution, womans rights, banking, free speech, kill all the jews, surrender to islam and obey the bin Ladden interpretation of the Koran, incorporate sharia law into our government, stop eating with our left hands, stop educating women and don't allow them to show any uncovered skin except that around their eyes as they peek submissively at us from behind their veils.
Oh yea, they also want to commit mass murder on our civilian populations in order to achieve these goals and have attacked us successfully more than a few times in the recent past...

If we don't fight them back to their previous scattered, marginal fringe element status they will be poised to control a major percentage of the worlds oil supply shortly after we retreat from this fight which would give them an almost overnight capability to crash western economies on a global scale. Once that happens of course we'd be right back over there fighting WWIII after letting them build their forces and arm their warheads!

But other than that I suppose you might have a point, they really aren't much of an evil entity.

But the lesser evil to me is not letting those people thrive anymore, fight them anyway we can including letting the U.S. military decide when it's safe to release the small percentage of prisoners that they haven't released already, and yes, beat some intel out of them if and when they think it might be beneficial.

Call me silly but it seems like an easy choice.
Of course it's easy for me because I'm not the least bit ashamed that I have actually taken a side in this fight and eagerly admit that I want my tribe to win.

I'm not in denial of the real nature of this kind of struggle and the fact that people will most likely have to die in order for me to win because the islamikazi's and their handlers are just as focused on our destruction as I am on our victory.

Umm... Will?
You do realise that America is fighting for the same reasons as its opposition?


Both are fighting to enforce what they believe is right, and want to commit mass murder on each other's civilian populations in order to achieve these goals and have attacked each other successfully more than a few times in the recent past...

Both want to control a major percentage of the world's oil supply, and want to build their forces and arm their warheads!

Both dont want the other's people to thrive anymore, and want to fight them anyway we can including beating some intel out of the prisoners if and when they think it might be beneficial.

And both want to be victorious to prevent them from being destroyed by the opposition.


Really, the only difference that I can see is that it's always America that sends in a large army to invade the opposing country, but not the other way around.

TIGERassault wrote:the only difference that I can see is that it's always America that sends in a large army to invade the opposing country, but not the other way around.

Let's be reasonable here. The United States has done some terrible things, admitted, but we aren't even playing in the same ballpark as Al Queda. Not yet anyway.

Will Robinson wrote:It seems to me our government has always managed multiple standards of justice throughout its history and yet we have plenty of protection still.

Like Jim Crow? And if you are satisfied with the current state of our freedoms you are expecting too little.

Will Robinson wrote:The press makes it sound like we took everyone we captured and locked them away without trying to determine who they were and I don't believe that's the case.

Don't forget that they HAVE pulled U. S. Citizens off the street without telling anyone, or accusing them of any crime. This is not a war against uniformed soldiers in some foreign country. The power we give the government to prosecute this "war" directly affects our freedoms here at home.

Or, to define why it terrifies me so, allow me to explain why I didn't vote for John Kerry. John Kerry supported a bill to put back doors into cryptography so the government could better eavesdrop on citizens. Can you IMAGINE what a liberal with that attitude would do with the increased executive power G. W. is building up? Do you WANT a liberal president who can swipe people off the street without admitting he's taken them? Do you feel comfortable with a liberal in charge who has broader authority to wiretap within the borders of the united states? Do you TRUST them to not abuse the power?

I don't.

Will Robinson wrote:I believe the lines that we have crossed are not nearly as serious as some people want the electorate to believe.

Agreed. They also aren't as trivial as some people on the right want us to believe.

Will Robinson wrote:somewhere between letting our guys rape and murder which we haven't tolerated and holding idefinitely the really bad ones we caught and trying to extract intel by way of waterboarding, ***** slapping and denial of comfort etc.

I'll have to draw that line further back than you do. Even mild forms of torture like they were practicing in the early days of Gitmo are not only unethical, but ineffective and counter-productive.

TIGERassault wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: Well let's see...
al Queda wants us to give up our constitution, womans rights, banking, free speech, kill all the jews, surrender to islam and obey the bin Ladden interpretation of the Koran, incorporate sharia law into our government, stop eating with our left hands, stop educating women and don't allow them to show any uncovered skin except that around their eyes as they peek submissively at us from behind their veils.
Oh yea, they also want to commit mass murder on our civilian populations in order to achieve these goals and have attacked us successfully more than a few times in the recent past...

If we don't fight them back to their previous scattered, marginal fringe element status they will be poised to control a major percentage of the worlds oil supply shortly after we retreat from this fight which would give them an almost overnight capability to crash western economies on a global scale. Once that happens of course we'd be right back over there fighting WWIII after letting them build their forces and arm their warheads!

But other than that I suppose you might have a point, they really aren't much of an evil entity.

But the lesser evil to me is not letting those people thrive anymore, fight them anyway we can including letting the U.S. military decide when it's safe to release the small percentage of prisoners that they haven't released already, and yes, beat some intel out of them if and when they think it might be beneficial.

Call me silly but it seems like an easy choice.
Of course it's easy for me because I'm not the least bit ashamed that I have actually taken a side in this fight and eagerly admit that I want my tribe to win.

I'm not in denial of the real nature of this kind of struggle and the fact that people will most likely have to die in order for me to win because the islamikazi's and their handlers are just as focused on our destruction as I am on our victory.

Umm... Will?
You do realise that America is fighting for the same reasons as its opposition?


Both are fighting to enforce what they believe is right, and want to commit mass murder on each other's civilian populations in order to achieve these goals and have attacked each other successfully more than a few times in the recent past...

Both want to control a major percentage of the world's oil supply, and want to build their forces and arm their warheads!

Both dont want the other's people to thrive anymore, and want to fight them anyway we can including beating some intel out of the prisoners if and when they think it might be beneficial.

And both want to be victorious to prevent them from being destroyed by the opposition.


Really, the only difference that I can see is that it's always America that sends in a large army to invade the opposing country, but not the other way around.

You are wrong on your first three points obviously,

1. We go out of our way to minimize civilian casulties but when your enemy hides amoung the civilian population, there will be casulties.

2. WE are trying to safeguard the mideast oil.

3. You cannot equate thier treatment of prisoners with our treatment of thier enemy combatants.

Your fourth point is right obviously.

Your last point is also easily answerable, and obvious...
No country with a large enough standing army to attack us WOULD attack
due to the overwhelming retaliation that would fall on thier heads.
That leaves the only way we can be attacked, through terrorism.
Be it military or economic.
A shadow people without a country, fighting to enforce thier idiology
on the world, getting thier support from sideline countries that hope to gain
without getting thier hands dirty, like Iraq...

Kilarin wrote:...Like Jim Crow? And if you are satisfied with the current state of our freedoms you are expecting too little.

Not sure what to make of the Jim Crow statement.

If it's an example of past inequality sure, but remember Jim Crow was just one of the steps from outright legalized slavery all the way to where we are today and yet all during that time we had a military that no doubt was using all kinds of nasty interogation techniques on foriegn enemy combatants when the field commanders decided it was warranted.

During the wonderful change from slavery to freedom for a subset of our citizens we had a totally different application of ethics and justice when we prosecuted any number of wars! So really it just butresses my point that we are, and in fact always have been, able to selectively apply injustice to our enemies while at the same time it hasn't sent us down the slippery slope of oppressing our own citizens. Instead we have moved our own civil rights foward while being able to wield injustice or unethical treatment as a tactic when we deemed it warranted.
By the way, where was the United States in world opinion polls before Bush came to power?
How could he have squandered our lofty place in the world opinion poll if we were already the evil country that locked up anyone who even looked japanese during WWII for example?
This whole notion that we have somehow damaged our reputation this time is silly. We have merely temporarily given the knee-jerks something to answer about in an opinion poll. A vehicle for them to vent fears and frustrations with but we haven't given the historians anything new at all!
In 20 years, according to the history books, we will have prosecuted this effort in Afghanastan and Iraq just like we prosecuted any other major military campaign and the bad public relations from Gitmo will have no more wieght than the firebombing of Dresden or the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

People everywhere know war is full of atrocity. If we were really there just to steal the oil like Tigerassault thinks we are *then* we would be damaging our reputation but if we instead leave the Iraqi's to hammer out their own destiny with nothing but billions of dollars of rebuilding aid and protection from Iran/Syria while they get on their feet we won't be remembered for Gitmo, we will be rememebered for taking out Saddam and hammering al Queda and helping the new Iraqi government form. The dirty details of how we did it won't mean much at all in the grand scheme of things because everyone knows war is hell.

Will Robinson wrote:This whole notion that we have somehow damaged our reputation this time is silly.

And yet opinion polls show that you have. Reputation is what other people think of your country, not how your country is getting worse.

Will Robinson wrote:The dirty details of how we did it won't mean much at all in the grand scheme of things because everyone knows war is hell.

And you dont think the USA's reputation is going down because it's the USA that started the wars? Especially when it's against the will of the UN?

Will Robinson wrote:If we were really there just to steal the oil like Tigerassault thinks

I dont know what either country would do with the oil, so I dont know.

This months opinion polls will be next months hamster cage liner.

USA started the war? You are forgetting 9/11?
Going against the UN? Bravo.

Nobody buys it anymore Vulcan. That's the problem with you guys...you won't give it up. Every lie that administration has spoon-fed to you, you ask for seconds. These people have lied about every little thing during this war. The big things, the small things, Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, WMD, biological trailers, it's all been disproven and you guys buy like a two dollar tijuana whore.

Want to solve the Islamic problem? Figure out what we're doing that pisses them off so much. Britain's colonial policy of \"Make the world England\" didn't work so well for them, and I don't think it will work well for America.

Tiger:
\" Both are fighting to enforce what they believe is right, and want to commit mass murder on each other's civilian populations in order to achieve these goals and have attacked each other successfully more than a few times in the recent past...\"

Umm...wrong Tiger. We are not committing mass murder on civilians. Too the contrary I see our military going out of its way to avoid civilian deaths. Can you say that about the other side?

Zuruck:
\"
\"Want to solve the Islamic problem? Figure out what we're doing that pisses them off so much.\"

Why thats a easy one. We are not under some despotic one eyed muslum's syphletic diseased brain'd leader's thumb. Until that happens we will continue to be the Great Satan who needs to be destroyed....utterly.

We were hated long before Mullah Omar started doing his thing...how many civilians have died in Iraq woodchip? I'm willing to bet quite a few...

TIGERassault wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:This whole notion that we have somehow damaged our reputation this time is silly.

And yet opinion polls show that you have. Reputation is what other people think of your country, not how your country is getting worse.

You really need to re-read my comments because the point went right over your head.
Look for the distinction between caring about how we rate in an opinion poll compared to how historians judge our war efforts.....
If firebombing Dresden, interning all japanese looking peoples and siezing their property and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't harm our reputation then Gitmo is like throwing a debutaunte ball by comparison!

The thing you need to recognize is we are engaged in leadership on the War on Terror not filling a role determined by world opinion polls!

TIGERassault wrote:And you dont think the USA's reputation is going down because it's the USA that started the wars? Especially when it's against the will of the UN?

That's rich! Are you speaking of the "will of the U.N." to allow Saddam to bribe it's security council members into relieving him of the sanctions and responsibility under the resolutions?

If so I agree, we did go against that oil for food scam where Saddam was bribing the French and the Russians with billions of dollars in oil future contracts etc., to keep him insulated from the very enforcement they voted for in their capacity as U.N. Security Council members! Good point! Thanks for reminding me!! And no, I'm not the least bit concerned what those people now think of us! Just like I'll bet you aren't concerned about what we think of them for voting to enforce the sanctions and then secretly shipping in night vision goggles and banned military parts for Saddams troops only a week before our invasion!

TIGERassault wrote:I dont know what either country would do with the oil, so I dont know.

If you don't know then why did you imply that we went to war to control the worlds oil supply?
Are we having a discussion or are you just spouting off leftwing talking points?

Zuruck wrote:Want to solve the Islamic problem? Figure out what we're doing that pisses them off so much....

There's no figuring it out required! We have been informed what pisses them off by their leader. Do you propose we appease them?
BD is right because logic like that will get you killed!

What's strange to me is that Bin Laden didn't always hate us. In fact, the US worked side by side with him against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Who built Tora Bora?

Wasn't it also bin laden who said that HE would take care of Saddamn and told the US not to go into Saudi Arabia? BTW, it was Iran, or more specifically Khomeni that started the whole Great Satan thing, not the entire Arab world. But, they've quickly joined on considering what we've done to that part of the world.

Osama was going to rescue Kuwait?