XPost: ny.general, alt.culture.ny-upstate, ny.politics 
 XPost: nyc.politics 
 From: ob110ob@att.net 
  
 On Wed, 12 May 2004 22:11:51 GMT, 
 woodswun@tepidmail.com (Woodswun) wrote: 
  
 >In article , Bill Curtiss 
  wrote: 
 >>On Wed, 12 May 2004 01:42:10 +0100, grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk 
 >>wrote: 
 >> 
 >>>inmates died while under interrogation 
 >>>__________________________________ 
 >>> 
 >>GOOD! After that beheading we should shoot some footage of some of 
 >>those bastards getting their nuts choped off and fed to pigs! 
 > 
 >Except that they are two different groups of people, just like most of the 
 >Americans in Iraq are NOT abusing prisoners. 
 > 
 >Woods 
  
   ... And yes!  Most Americans are not abusing 
 prisoners,  but just as the poster you're answering 
 depicts the falsehood that it's quite alright to 
 tarnish everyone in the group with the same brush,  why 
 does he then expect the Iraqi's not to do the same for 
 all Americans? 
  
    Isn't that just a bit self refuting argument? 
  
   But that's exactly why BushCo can't get any traction 
 with their arguments.  On the one hand they say that 
 they're all bad people, terrorists,  fundamentalists, 
 insurgents, etc.,  then on the other hand they are 
 forced to deal with them because they are not just too 
 numerous, but they are the Iraqi people besides.  To 
 not make deals with them would require re-populating 
 the nation with people from somewhere else. 
  
   But then, we have an American scandal and suddenly 
 we're faced with the opposite side of the same coin. 
 Bush is now forced to argue that not all Americans were 
 responsible for what happened in Abu Ghraib. 
  
   Now, that's an easy concept for us here at home to 
 accept,  since we don't do things that way!  If someone 
 get's caught as a part of a group that's accused of a 
 crime,  they do get to argue that they weren't part of 
 that/those events.  The court is expected to take tie 
 issue of each persons separately.  But what of a people 
 who do not have such cultural/social mores?  Most 
 especially after hearing our leader apply blanket 
 repudiations to be accepted as credible justifications 
 of his own activities/actions,  then wouldn't those 
 people figure that this is "Hoyle"? 
  
   So, if it's good for the geese then it should be good 
 for the gander.  And, of course,  these are people who 
 already understand that idea since they've lived by it 
 and under it for many hundreds of years.  Which means 
 that Bush has unwittingly told these people to accept 
 that what one American does as something all Americans 
 should be held responsible for,  only to attempt to 
 suddenly reverse course and attempt to convince them 
 that;  that idea should not be held as true when the 
 Americans are guilty of some scandal. 
  
    That means that Bush has undermined his own 
 credibility and that of the occupation authority.  All 
 this hashing about,  attempts to revise and re-revise 
 what one has clearly stated before,  is nothing alien 
 to anyone,  we're all used to it,  both Americans and 
 Iraqi's alike.  All it does is serve to increase 
 cynicism on both sides and make it less possible to 
 build the levels of trust and friendship that is 
 clearly needed to save human life on both sides. 
  
    Just imagine how many American lives would have been 
 saved if Bush had simply admitted that he'd made a 
 terrible mistake?  A mistake that he was ashamed of and 
 thoroughly regrets,  but one that he'd have to live 
 with and try to make the best of.  That would have 
 allowed him to approach the Iraqi people with 
 contrition, openness and honesty,  things they would 
 probably respect him for. 
  
   Upon that respect for his honesty and sincere regret, 
 they'd probably feel enough sympathy to at least 
 attempt to work with him as he tried to unwind these 
 serious harms.  But No...  He continues to sprout 
 empty, disingenuous rhetoric and silly posturing. 
 "There might still be wmd's found in jars, cans and/or 
 boxes in Iraqi kitchens."   Or, "All Iraqi's are either 
 guilty of or have knowledge of terrorists, insurgents 
 and other infidels in their midst and must be 
 mistreated if they refuse to tell us who they are and 
 what they're up to"...  But no, you mustn't tarnish all 
 Americans if they engage in disgusting conduct in their 
 efforts to protect themselves from you people!" 
  
    You can clearly see what's wrong with the messages 
 our activities in Iraq are sending to the people,  so 
 there can hardly be a wonder that they're not buying it 
 "hook, line and sinker."  Nor the rest of the world 
 either!  This is the kind of thing that is causing us 
 to be left alone with the serious error of judgement 
 we've made in Iraq. 
  
   Since that is the reality of it, no amount of 
 rhetorical spin is going to overcome the vision of the 
 hubris this kind of thing is expected to breed.  We get 
 lip service up front,  borne of the fear of our might, 
 but in the darkened corners our men and women continue 
 to die for it. 
  
   Until accountability for this passel of grievous 
 errors is assigned and appropriately re mediated,  it's 
 stain will continue to spread cynical thinking on both 
 sides of the oceans. 
  
    Obwon 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)