Originally posted by: Pepsei
After Rumsfeld said that we must treat him like a POW and thus having the protection of the international convention, we've already violated that by releasing films displaying him like a trophy.
Drugged? Probably, and If I was him, I'd ask for a heavy dose of Oxycontin daily.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Fortunately, the Geneva Convention did not parse words . . . "public curiosity" . . . was not followed by the caveat "unless the detaining power desires public propaganda to support their agenda". We have not won the "hearts and minds" 7 months after liberating Iraq b/c we haven't done anything to deserve it. Saddam is certainly POS despot but that earned him assistance from our government in the 80s and then condemnation in the 90s. The Shi'ites remember who left them hanging. The Kurds have faired better from US foreign policy and accordingly they've tolerated our presence. But even the Kurds realize the US does not support Kurdish rights to self-determination. Despite the liberation from Sunni hegemony, the Shi'ites know the US does not support democratic rule b/c it might lead to a cleric taking over. And of course, nothing will win over the Sunnis short of returning Saddam.
The Geneva Convention protects the rights of the detained not the whims (or even potentially laudable perspectives) of the controling power. But the US is misguided in believing Saddam's capture makes a substantitive difference in the long term. "Hearts and minds" want 1) security, 2) reliable power, 3) reliable water, 4) and employment. To the extent that Saddam-controled forces led to less of 1 or 2 . . . then his capture was helpful. Otherwise, the CPA needs to focus on the heavy lifting instead of pats on the back.
Originally posted by: dudleydocker
I heard on the radio this morning how some "doctorate" type in Sacramento who is advising the Iraqi council says that the U.S. really "blew it" in the handling of Saddam's capture. Everything from Bremmer saying "we got him" to having a member of the Iraqi council standing by rather than having them do the announcing, to how the U.S. military have shown him on TV. BTW, the man had an arab-sounding name but spoke english.
Excuse me, but I do not recall asking the P.C. police to offer critical commentary to the military on how they announce and show to the world the capture of an evil man that most iraqis would kill if given the chance.
This goes back to how selective the press is in what they cover. Why give this bozo the airtime to spout his drivel? Who cares? I sure don't..
What a low opinion you have of Bremmer's intended audience. I resent being spoken to like I were a savage. We got him is the kind of thing people who feel small says to boost their ego. What delight should their be in capturing that pathetic human being. The only thing of consequence was that he be stopped and prevented from doing more damage. He is undiserving of bringing any emotional joy any more than dancing when you flush the toilet.Originally posted by: NesuD
I got the impression that Bremers "we got him" announcement was more for the benefit of those in the room and in country. The fact that the press are playing it off as an announcement to the world is out of context. The official announcements By Bush and Blair were appropriate to their intended audiences. Bremers announcesment to his intended audience was more informal which in my opinion was appropriate to those incountry and present in the room. I have no problem at all with "we got him".
Originally posted by: NesuD
I got the impression that Bremers "we got him" announcement was more for the benefit of those in the room and in country. The fact that the press are playing it off as an announcement to the world is out of context. The official announcements By Bush and Blair were appropriate to their intended audiences. Bremers announcesment to his intended audience was more informal which in my opinion was appropriate to those incountry and present in the room. I have no problem at all with "we got him".
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Fortunately, the Geneva Convention did not parse words . . . "public curiosity" . . . was not followed by the caveat "unless the detaining power desires public propaganda to support their agenda". We have not won the "hearts and minds" 7 months after liberating Iraq b/c we haven't done anything to deserve it. Saddam is certainly POS despot but that earned him assistance from our government in the 80s and then condemnation in the 90s. The Shi'ites remember who left them hanging. The Kurds have faired better from US foreign policy and accordingly they've tolerated our presence. But even the Kurds realize the US does not support Kurdish rights to self-determination. Despite the liberation from Sunni hegemony, the Shi'ites know the US does not support democratic rule b/c it might lead to a cleric taking over. And of course, nothing will win over the Sunnis short of returning Saddam.
The Geneva Convention protects the rights of the detained not the whims (or even potentially laudable perspectives) of the controling power. But the US is misguided in believing Saddam's capture makes a substantitive difference in the long term. "Hearts and minds" want 1) security, 2) reliable power, 3) reliable water, 4) and employment. To the extent that Saddam-controled forces led to less of 1 or 2 . . . then his capture was helpful. Otherwise, the CPA needs to focus on the heavy lifting instead of pats on the back.
No, some are certainly former police or military wanting to rebuild/restore their country . . . others are looking for a paying gig in a territory (what's the point of calling it a country) with 50% unemployment.Have we won the hearts and minds of the 100,000 Iraqi's who have volunteered to join the new iraqi military and police forces and help fight against the insurgents and terrorists?
I'm sure you intended minor hyperbole but the typical estimate of the population is 25million. It matters not b/c your point is a non sequitur. The vast majority of people in the world likely despise Saddam's regime (and regimes like it) but they would not actively participate in his overthrow. Depending on the chosen means . . . they might even oppose his overthrow.Have we won the hearts and minds of the 34,999,000 Iraqi's who have NOT participated in any attacks against our troops.
The pro-Saddam rallies in Iraq required hundreds of soldiers to quell. More importantly, no authority in the region would endorse your estimate of the menagerie of opposition forces.Or do you just mean the 1000 or fewer Iraqi's who have attacked our troops.
See above. The people capable of directing mass assistance (or mass opposition) are basically the Shi'ite clerics. To date, the big dogs are sitting on the sidelines. Despite the bravado of some CPA officials . . . they are well aware of who not to piss off.OK, say it's a million who are actively fighting against us. Seems unlikely since we only have a few attacks a day, but even if it is 1 million, that still means there are 34 million Iraqi's who are NOT fighting against us.
Sounds to me like you don't understand. I seriously doubt Iraqis are quite as fickle as the typically-polled American. Bush's leadership didn't blossom b/c Saddam was found in a hole. The typical Iraqi (that isn't attacking US troops) did not get more reliable power, security, or a job in the past 48hrs. Maybe Saddam's capture will accelerate all of the above . . . but I doubt it. Accordingly, our limited support in Iraq will remain soft until major issues are adequately addressed.Sounds to me like we have a lot more support than you like to portray.
Ask the LAPD or NYPD or any of several other major metro PDs how well the hearts and minds campaign works in communities that have historically had difficulties with law enforcement. The warped perceptions and level of trust has improved dramatically in many communities where law enforcement and the community have commited themselves to solving their problems . . . together. But those are skilled officers and dedicated community leaders . . . the US military (in general) lacks the training for such peacekeeper ops, the numbers necessary to execute an effective campaign, and a general ignorance of the culture and language. Knowing three phrases in a foreign tongue will not build bridges when they include:Hell, there are far more attacks against police every day in this country. Does that mean we've failed to win the hearts and minds and we should just dissolve the police forces and pull out of the U.S.?
Originally posted by: daniel1113
What does it matter if he was drugged or not? It's SADDAM HEUSSEIN, incase you have forgotten. Quite frankly, I don't care if he was beaten, shot, drugged, etc. The bottom line is that he has been captured, and doesn't deserve the good treatment he is receiving. Put him to death already...
The point was that these people are either supportive of our efforts or at least neutral. Would you volunteer to work with the occupiers of your country if you hated them and wanted them out immediately? There are plenty of "paying gigs" fighting for the insurgents as well.Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
No, some are certainly former police or military wanting to rebuild/restore their country . . . others are looking for a paying gig in a territory (what's the point of calling it a country) with 50% unemployment.Have we won the hearts and minds of the 100,000 Iraqi's who have volunteered to join the new iraqi military and police forces and help fight against the insurgents and terrorists?
The point was that the vast majority of Iraqi's are choosing not to fight against us and many are actively fighting against the insurgents. So they either support us or are resigned to accepting the fact that we will be there for awhile.I'm sure you intended minor hyperbole but the typical estimate of the population is 25million. It matters not b/c your point is a non sequitur. The vast majority of people in the world likely despise Saddam's regime (and regimes like it) but they would not actively participate in his overthrow. Depending on the chosen means . . . they might even oppose his overthrow.Have we won the hearts and minds of the 34,999,000 Iraqi's who have NOT participated in any attacks against our troops.
See below.The pro-Saddam rallies in Iraq required hundreds of soldiers to quell. More importantly, no authority in the region would endorse your estimate of the menagerie of opposition forces.Or do you just mean the 1000 or fewer Iraqi's who have attacked our troops.
With the vast majority of Iraqi's choosing not to fight against us, the incredible ease with which we took control, the massive desertions and walk-aways of their military in the initial invasion, and the large amount of cooperation and support we are getting from Iraqi citizens, I think it is fairly clear that we have a large amount of support from the majority of Iraqis.See above. The people capable of directing mass assistance (or mass opposition) are basically the Shi'ite clerics. To date, the big dogs are sitting on the sidelines. Despite the bravado of some CPA officials . . . they are well aware of who not to piss off.OK, say it's a million who are actively fighting against us. Seems unlikely since we only have a few attacks a day, but even if it is 1 million, that still means there are 34 million Iraqi's who are NOT fighting against us.
Sounds to me like you don't understand. I seriously doubt Iraqis are quite as fickle as the typically-polled American. Bush's leadership didn't blossom b/c Saddam was found in a hole. The typical Iraqi (that isn't attacking US troops) did not get more reliable power, security, or a job in the past 48hrs. Maybe Saddam's capture will accelerate all of the above . . . but I doubt it. Accordingly, our limited support in Iraq will remain soft until major issues are adequately addressed.Sounds to me like we have a lot more support than you like to portray.
The point was that there will always be people who oppose our authority, even within our own government. This opposition represents a small minority and does not mean we should give up and pull out.Ask the LAPD or NYPD or any of several other major metro PDs how well the hearts and minds campaign works in communities that have historically had difficulties with law enforcement. The warped perceptions and level of trust has improved dramatically in many communities where law enforcement and the community have commited themselves to solving their problems . . . together. But those are skilled officers and dedicated community leaders . . . the US military (in general) lacks the training for such peacekeeper ops, the numbers necessary to execute an effective campaign, and a general ignorance of the culture and language. Knowing three phrases in a foreign tongue will not build bridges when they include:Hell, there are far more attacks against police every day in this country. Does that mean we've failed to win the hearts and minds and we should just dissolve the police forces and pull out of the U.S.?
1) Stop or I will shoot . . .
and
2) Put your hands on your head