HaloScan.com - Comments

The wonderful thing about this program is that it can be practised on any subjects, for whatever reason. The polygraph is a nice touch.

But it seems to me that the techniques described in the article are primitive, crude.

I'll meet you in Room 101 for your brain implant.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.27.07 - 2:29 pm | #

In Newspeak, would that be "HoWis" or "HouWis"?
Franklin Jennings | 09.27.07 - 2:44 pm | #

Because of Dubya's firm grasp of history, we can rest assured that he's just getting revenge for the Jannisaries.
Sean P. Dailey | Homepage | 09.27.07 - 2:51 pm | #

What do you do when 11, 12 and 13 year-old boys are caught attempting to kill or help to kill American soldiers in a war zone? Surely, the answer can't be "shoot them." But at the same time it can't be a good idea to just give them a stern lecture and take them to their parents for a spanking and grounding. You have to arrest them. You could just turn them over to the Iraqi court system, I suppose, but does anybody know how well that thing is working these days? So they detain and jail (some of) them. What to do then? Just put them in lock-up with older teens and young men? Not a good idea; that will inevitably result (as it does in United States prisons) in hardening of the boy's heart still more and in a couple of years you'll have another young man who's purpose in life is to kill American soldiers, only he'll be a few years older and tougher. So you take the ones you deem redeemable, separate them and build them soccer fields. This is horrible? Didn't men like St. Don Bosco and Fr. Flanagan take young toughs out of society before they could be totally corrupted, teach them games, and, *gasp*, even try to adjust their religious outlook? Not saying I'd trust our government to do any such thing correctly (it does very little correctly as it is), but just askin'.
Joe | 09.27.07 - 3:43 pm | #

It's a real problem, and if the article gave any indication that these kids had been caught doing such things, you'd have a point. But the article only tells us they are guilty of thoughtcrime. We have to trust to the infinite competence, truthfulness, and mercy of Caesar if we are to assume that these boys have, you know, actually *done* something beside be in the wrong place at the wrong time or said the wrong thing to the wrong person.

But that's okay! Because the important thing is that Big Brother is keeping us safe and if He says these kids are enemies then that's good enough for me! They don't *have* to have done anything and we certainly don't need all that fuss about "actions" and "evidence". If Big Brother want to round up irreconcilables and lock them up indefinitely for re-education, what that's as American as apple pie in my book!
Mark Shea | Homepage | 09.27.07 - 3:54 pm | #

"You could just turn them over to the Iraqi court system, I suppose, but does anybody know how well that thing is working these days?"

It's a sovereign country, so why not?

As for us, we have our own juvenile delinquency and behavior problems. Why not re-education camps here?

In fact, we could all use a bit of re-education, couldn't we? Law and order for everyone. Any objections? Do you oppose law and order?

I think we should all spend our vacations at a re-education camp, although the name for one of those could be brisked up. Volleyball, and a polygraph afterward.

"Didn't men like St. Don Bosco and Fr. Flanagan take young toughs out of society before they could be totally corrupted, teach them games..."

Gen. Stone is a saint? Whatever will the meeting of St. Don Bosco and Gen. Stone be like?
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.27.07 - 4:09 pm | #

Mark - The story said: "Stone said that youths grow up to become insurgents by starting out as messengers, guards and even planters of makeshift bombs." To me, that's at least an indication that they had been caught doing those things. I see no evidence in the story that this is just indiscriminant collecting of youth, either. Stone also said of releasing some prisoners: "And then when he's assessed to no longer be a threat, I'm going to release the detainee being less likely to be a recidivist."
Again, to me, calling someone a potential "recidivist" means they have been caught doing something wrong. The story's last sentence refers to finding work for those being released because if they don't have income they will go "back to the insurgency." Frankly, I can't see how anyone without an agenda could read this story as saying that American troops are collecting Iraqi youth at random and throwing them in detention jails along with insurgents. Also, you might want to consider that the people doing the things you're complaining about are not the administration, they are the United States military on the ground in Iraq. I suppose you might think they are just puppets doing whatever the "Evil Grand Commander" tells them to do, but somehow I think the reality is different than that.

Pavel - However you want to characterize it, or whatever you happen to think about General Stone, the methods described in the article are not so far afield from what I've seen on movies about Don Bosco and Boys Town. Of course, the religious instructors are Muslem, of course, but without ascribing bad intention to those who run the program it's hard not to at least be charitable enough to see that they are trying to give young boys who seem on the road to a very poor life of crime a happier future. And, if we had a large group of 11-13 year old boys in Ohio who were going around randomly committing violence and helping others kill people, I'd think a little "reeducation" would be a good thing.
Joe | 09.27.07 - 4:24 pm | #

"Stone said that youths grow up to become insurgents by starting out as messengers, guards and even planters of makeshift bombs."

And no doubt they do. What I'd like to see in this story, and what the reporter doesn't bother to ask, is whether the kids we've got locked up in the House of Wisdom for re-education have actually done these things.

Frankly, I can't see how anyone without an agenda could read this story as saying that American troops are collecting Iraqi youth at random and throwing them in detention jails along with insurgents.

Nor can I, which is why I didn't say that.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 09.27.07 - 4:40 pm | #

Sorry Mark, then I misread your first post. I took your saying that all they were guilty of (per the article) is "thoughtcrime" and that Big Brother can just round 'em up even if they hadn't done anything wrong to mean random collection of youths. Glad to be put straight that that's not what you meant.
Joe | 09.27.07 - 4:49 pm | #

"Pavel - However you want to characterize it, or whatever you happen to think about General Stone, the methods described in the article are not so far afield from what I've seen on movies about Don Bosco and Boys Town."

Don Bosco said: "I'll shave off their frickin' beards"?!

I don't know a thing about Gen. Stone. I did say that the concept has potentially wider applications. Don't you think so?

But, after all, it's only a news article. Who knows what goes on at that camp, or who's in it, or who's running it, or what kind of instruction goes on there.

I do know, having worked at a 'news' agency, how 'news' articles are made.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.27.07 - 4:50 pm | #

Joe:

All we know from the article is that these kids are guilty of thoughtcrime. We have no idea how they were detained, who did the detaining, or why.

Remember: 80% of the victims at Abu Ghraib were never charged with anything. They just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now we are being asked to believe that the police and military infrastructure of Iraq is suddenly capable of rounding up 25,000 people for thoughtcrime re-education and we can be sure that lots and lots of those people are not there because some Sunni has some old score to settle with some Shia or vice versa? Or maybe somebody didn't make their graft payment to the local cops, so their kid was taken as collateral and handed over to us with assurances he's a "terrorist". Who knows? We know nothing from this story other than that Big Brother has appointed himself Commissar of Acceptable Religion in the Occupied Territories. It's a crazy thing for us to be trying to police.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 09.27.07 - 4:57 pm | #

Pavel - I have less than zero confidence in most of what I read or hear in the media. Oh, and I wouldn't put it past Don Bosco to have shaved the hair off some kid who was using the way he wore it to advance some evil agenda.

Mark - We'll disagree about how to interpret the story. Even if your interpretation is correct - that the story is silent about whether these young men have been caught doing anything wrong - I think you're jumping to conclusions to go off on our military men and woman who are responsible for this program like you have, at least until we know more facts.
Joe | 09.27.07 - 5:12 pm | #

I'm not going off on our troops. They, as usual, are stuck hold the bag trying to carry out the insane secular messianic delusions of the dunces in the Administration. And since the Administration works for me, I think it's important to go off on them, on the theory that even Bush Administration officials can eventually learn.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 09.27.07 - 5:24 pm | #

Okay Mark, if you say so. Again glad to hear it.

In case anyone is interested, here's the link to a transcript of the entire interview I just found.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp...1801969_pf.html
Joe | 09.27.07 - 5:41 pm | #

What must strike many people who read this self-defeating article is that in a sovereign country people's kids are re-educated at an establishment run by armed foreigners, who will incarcerate at least some of them indefinitely.

There's also an implication that the locals can't be trusted to take care of the situation, and that therefore a large part of the populace is hostile.

Finally, what happens to the kids who are released - will they be presumed to be spies and therefore isolated or worse, even if they never engaged in hostile acts for any side?
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.27.07 - 5:44 pm | #

Pavel - It might help to read the transcript (although it is a bit longish). Here is just a part of what he said about the youth program:

"And so the answer is, we're treating the youth in some respects as we -- with the same program, although different. I have a specialist in Islamic youth programs here now, designing the education system. And that's in part why the Iraqis are coming over to kind of take a look at it, because they're really fascinated by it. It's a positive program that has been proven in Islam to actually turn the kids around to sort of reject some of these other things."
Joe | 09.27.07 - 5:56 pm | #

"And so the answer is, we're treating the youth in some respects as we -- with the same program, although different. I have a specialist in Islamic youth programs here now, designing the education system. And that's in part why It's a positive program that has been proven in Islam to actually turn the kids around to sort of reject some of these other things."

Quoth Gen. Stone?

Do you really think this article is intended to put the US military and the US in a good light?

It makes Stone sound like a bizarre character from a Joseph Heller novel.

"...the Iraqis are coming over to kind of take a look at it, because they're really fascinated by it."

Quite likely.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.27.07 - 6:19 pm | #

Pavel - The quote didn't come from the article, it came from the transcript. This was a telephone interview between General Stone and several bloggers (many were invited, but only four or six "attended" the conference call). The transcript isn't "intended" to do anything other than report what was said. If you think the quote I pulled makes General Stone sound bizarre, so be it. I don't. I think the tone of the entire transcript runs counter to the conclusion-jumping fest around here. If you, or Mark, think this is some kind of Kafka-esque clandestine operation rounding up and incarcerating kids for "thought crimes," do you think an American General would take the time to answer questions for ordinary bloggers via telephone? Or invite ordinary Iraqi's in to watch what's going on? That's more bizarre than anything Stone said.
joe | 09.27.07 - 7:13 pm | #

Greg:

How should I know what several hundred thousand people think?
Mark Shea | Homepage | 09.27.07 - 8:15 pm | #

"If you think the quote I pulled makes General Stone sound bizarre, so be it. "

The military representative of a foreign power (we're foreigners in Iraq) running a 're-education camp' for the children of another country, in that country, is not bizarre?

You don't think that this:

'Stone said he wants to identify "irreconcilables" -- those detainees whose views cannot be moderated -- and "put them away" in permanent detention facilities.' [Where, by the way, and by what authority?]

is remarkable?

OK.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.27.07 - 9:19 pm | #

There's a thread of incoherence that runs through many if not most of the present discussions of the situation in Iraq.

Is Iraq now a sovereign country, or is it not?

If it is not sovereign, then what is Maliki's beef about Blackwater?

If Iraq is sovereign, then why are Blackwater and other private companies immune from Iraqi law?

We are undermining our own clients.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.27.07 - 9:28 pm | #

Or do you not understand why Maliki flew into a rage over the Blackwater incident?

By what authority does an American general threaten to permanently incarcerate Iraqi children? Don't you understand what that does to the prestige and legitimacy of the Iraqi government?
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.27.07 - 9:33 pm | #

Pavel, I'm about done with this, but I have to ask, because I haven't seen it - where does General Stone call what he's running a "re-education camp" for Iraqi children? And, did you see the quotes from General Stone saying that the sovereign Iraqi government actually approves of the program? If so, what is your beef, exactly, other than to use any stick to beat the heads of the American military trying to do a tough job in a tough place? (In a place and an action which I opposed from before the outset, by the way, lest anyone accuse me of being a war-monger and "Bush-likker.") As for the other quote you bring up now, it wasn't part of the original post I was commenting on, so it's somewhat of a bait-and-switch on your part, which, frankly, seems to be par for the course around here.
joe | 09.27.07 - 9:38 pm | #

Pavel - Also, you obviously still have not bothered to read the interview transcript I posted since the "quote" you cited last doesn't come from General Stone but from the originaly posted newspaper article (which I thought you had noted was not reliable). In fact, I don't think any such thing was said with respect to the youth program and I don't really think the way the reporter said it was any sort of direct quote from General Stone (about "permanent detention facilities"), but I could have missed something. Like I said, it is a rather long interview.
joe | 09.27.07 - 9:53 pm | #

"If so, what is your beef, exactly, other than to use any stick to beat the heads of the American military trying to do a tough job in a tough place?"

I don't recognize myself in that description. You must be thinking of someone else. Right, Joe? I know that you wouldn't make a reckless and false charge against someone just because you're engaged in a dispute. You're not that sort of person.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.28.07 - 6:06 am | #

"And, did you see the quotes from General Stone saying that the sovereign Iraqi government actually approves of the program?"

It's the approval of the Iraqi government that I'd be interested in seeing. An authoritative representative of Maliki's administration, perhaps?
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.28.07 - 6:09 am | #

Greg:

How should I know what several hundred thousand people think?

Well, judging from the fact that troops in Iraq are reenlisting in record numbers, many troops who have been severely injured have rehabed extra hard and cut through a whole bunch of red tape to rejoin their units in Iraq, I think it would be safe to say that they would take great offense at what you say.

Furthermore, many troops bitterly complain about American media are portrayal (which is often echoed on this blog) this war.

I know you are well aware of this. So, what you are saying, without admitting it of course, is the troops are either too stupid to figure out that they dupes of neo-con Leviathan and/or they are willing participants in an unjust war.

In any event, your saying you support the troops while badmouthing the mission that an overwhelming majority of them support is a bald faced lie.
Greg Mockeridge | Homepage | 09.28.07 - 10:10 am | #

"Well, judging from the fact that troops in Iraq are reenlisting in record numbers, many troops who have been severely injured have rehabed extra hard and cut through a whole bunch of red tape to rejoin their units in Iraq..."

I have no doubt this is true, and it is characteristic of American combat troops in general. Loyalty to buddies taking the form of re-enlistment and rejoining one's unit in spite of injury happened in previous wars also - WWII is one I'm aware of.

However, the connection of re-enlistment to political approval of a given civilian policy is at least questionable. One would also have to poll possible differences between support personel and combat troops, officers and enlisted men.

Since our military is firmly non-political, where are the data coming from?
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.28.07 - 10:28 am | #

Note: Re-enlistment was not an issue in WWII, but many combat troops did rejoin units in spite of injuries, sometimes in defiance of orders, a sort of anti-AWOL.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.28.07 - 10:29 am | #

In any event, your saying you support the troops while badmouthing the mission that an overwhelming majority of them support is a bald faced lie.

http://www.boston.com/news/natio...e_at_high_rate/

http://www.mainandcentral.org/ ar...ers_leavin.html

The fact is Mr. Shea does support the troops. It is the Messianic Mad Man, Bush, who has questionable motives vis a vis the troops.

In proving true the observation that oil and Jacobinism does mix, Bush is willing to do the Unjust to try and advance the insane - all the while in service (pun intended) of undoing all of his campaign promises.
I'm not Spartacus | 09.28.07 - 11:38 am | #

Pavel - From the transcript, about Vice President Tariq Hasimi (a Sunni) and his involvement and approval (somehow didn't make it into the newspaper article, go figure):

"And Tariq has been every single day of Ramadan to one of the releases, to the pledging guarantor ceremonies. He has given the most eloquent, the most -- just incredibly moving presentations to these guys, saying: "Listen, I understand that what you did was done for a reason. What I am telling you is what the coalition forces are doing for you, what General Stone is doing for you in the youth education, these are things that we are not even doing for own people. And you have to help us do that."

I mean, if I could play for you the recordings -- and I -- I'm tempted to do it because he's been filming them all for himself, and I'm sure if you could get on the Islamic news, you would find him. But if you saw the key messages that he has been giving, they are over the top. And so, I haven't seen the boss yet, he's -- you know, he's working his way home. But I do -- I always brief him for about an hour on all our programs and everything we're doing. And Friday I'm taking in with me, you know, the quotes from Vice President Hashimi, the -- I'm taking in a brand new program that he's created for referrals for these guys.

If you were on my side of -- you know, the Sunni concern in the April and May and early June time frame and the number of times that they sent over, you know, this -- you know, sort of these messages like, you know, "You evil empire" kind of stuff, and then to have him go out to the programs and look at the education taking place, go to the youth school, go see the counseling and psychiatrist programs that are going on, and then to see us moving in a very clear process to get these guys evaluated and out.

And I've told them, "I'm not letting guys out that I think are not as secure." He says, "I understand that." He said, "I believe you are a fair and honest man, and I support that."

And those -- and we have never once gone back on our word to him. And he, frankly, has never once gone back on his word to us. So, the answer to your question is, I think we've kept him in the government, and I think my boss thinks that, at least that's the input that I've gotten back. I know that Vice President Hashimi sent a very nice letter -- handed a very nice letter to President Bush when he was out here, so he has to have some kind of orientation towards that. You know, I just have to believe that. But yes, I think the answer is simply yes."
Joe | 09.28.07 - 11:38 am | #

And the above is a quotation from Gen. Stone?

If so, is there a quotation from an authoritative Iraqi source concerning and approving the facility mentioned in the Washington Post article?
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.28.07 - 11:50 am | #

"Listen, I understand that what you did was done for a reason. What I am telling you is what the coalition forces are doing for you, what General Stone is doing for you in the youth education, these are things that we are not even doing for own people. And you have to help us do that."

That's Gen. Stone quoting Vice President Hashimi. I suppose we could just assume the general is lying, though. Think what you want.
Joe | 09.28.07 - 12:20 pm | #

This cannot be Constitutional!

Further, while the current president isn't anti-Christian (at least, with intention), future administrations can and would (based upon past behavior) use this precedent to deal with -us-. Indeed, the NEA has been calling for this for many years, as not-so-new teaching textbooks prove.
Puzzled | 09.28.07 - 12:28 pm | #

Joe, I don't usually do this, but I suggest you give up. Chichikov and Shea will put out an eye rather than actually admit that something good may be coming of this.

Heaven forbid we take emotionally abused children who were being used as weapons and try to get them to be sane. Never mind that there is zero evidence of actual wrong doing, or that anything dark and evil is happening. But they can read it as being the same as totalitarian horror stories, so they do! It's wrong in this book, and I can see how it *could* be misused, so I must assume that it's being misused!

The actual fact that a lot of troops *do* support the war, and that every single person I know who re-upped would be quite pissed to be condescended to in such a form, never seems to enter someone's head-- at least, not long enough to effect their writing. (Oh, it's just unit loyalty! They're too stupid to be willing to separate from their friends, even if they think this is an evil war and we must leave now. It's perfectly alright for me to "support the troops" and call the job they keep signing up to do evil, borderline fascist, any other name. Because I support the troops, you know.)

Frankly, I'm remembering why I quit reading this blog so many months ago. Despite the great skill in writing possessed by the author, it really sticks in the craw of this veteran of the war over there-- before one of you vultures leaps on that to ask why I'd leave a fight I support, I hold having children as a higher calling-- to have someone say they "support" my guys, and in the same breath imply that we're playing footsy with being fascists. For a while there the supply of great posts outweighed the single-political-issue derangement; that balance seems to be shifting back.

They're not going to be reasonable. You are doing a very nice job, and I do appreciate it, but it's in vain. Most folks have something that just causes their brains to shut down and all previously shown reasonability to fly out a window. I've accepted this is Shea's topic of that type.
Foxfier | Homepage | 09.28.07 - 3:25 pm | #

"(Oh, it's just unit loyalty! They're too stupid to be willing to separate from their friends, even if they think this is an evil war and we must leave now. It's perfectly alright for me to "support the troops" and call the job they keep signing up to do evil, borderline fascist, any other name. Because I support the troops, you know.)"

Isn't it fun, arguing with straw? You can put arguments in your notional opponent's mouth and then demolish them.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.28.07 - 4:00 pm | #

If you had been reading this thread a few years ago you would have read me supporting the idea of approximately half a million troops for this operation, like many other people, including professional soldiers. What should be opposed is the vast screw up this has been, the immense waste of lives and resources (including the precious resource of time), and the counter-productive brainstorms invented as stuffing for press releases.

Gen. Petraeus seems to be ok, but like the other generals he hasn't been given sufficient resources, and as he says himself the solutions, whatever they may be, are not military, but political. *Political.* Not publicity stunts.

If you think that watching failure happen and keeping mum or even cheering for it is loyalty, you and I are not on the same page.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.28.07 - 4:15 pm | #

it really sticks in the craw of this veteran of the war over there--

Congratulations on your engagement.

As a professional service woman you were "doing your job," correct?

Can I support and appreciate your professionalism while at the same time thinking the Mad man who sent you there sent you to the wrong place or should not have sent you at all?

After 911, did you think, "Damn, the friggin' Iraqis did this. I hope we invade and occupy Iraq?"

If you're willing, I'd like to read your responses to a few other questions.

How many wonmen were on the ship with you?

How many pregnant women were on the ship with you?

What drugs does the military give women to prevent menstruation?

How many women are in combat on the ground in Iraq?

How many pregnant women are serving on the ground in Iraq?

How many service women have given birth while in Iraq ?

Are service women in Iraq fearful of being raped by their fellow soldiers?

I have asked similar questions of my Congressman, Senators, The Pentagon and The Do D but they never respond other than to thank me for writing.

Imagine you were born in Iraq and had borne and raised your son there and he decided to fight against the forces occupying his country - that is sort of a natural thing for patriots to do, right?

Now imagine that he was caught and sent to a detention center to be reeducated by the forces occupying his country.

How do you think your son would feel?

How would you feel?

Do you think the gov't should round me up and put me in a detention center so I could be re-educated?
I'm not Spartacus | 09.28.07 - 4:39 pm | #

"I'm not Spartacus" -
1) We didn't invade Iraq because Saddam caused 9/11. We invaded Iraq because 9/11 showed that trying to box the problem in wasn't going to work.

2) If you bothered to look it up, you'd find that the Navy doesn't allow pregnant women to remain on the ship. It is too dangerous for the service member and the child. All of the US military branches require that pregnant members be close to medical care fitting for their condition; additionally, family members who have special needs are required to have access to facilities that can handle their conditions. It's basic care for the workforce.

3) There are women fearful of many things. This doesn't mean that it is justified. In case you missed it, military members are human. That means we do have some scumbags. A notably lower level than the general public, but they are still there.

4) The military doesn't enforce any "drugs" beyond regular vaccinations. Many women go on birth control, just as in the civilian population. The idea that the military is drugging women to prevent menstruation is about as solid as the old "salt peter in boot camp" story.

They probably don't respond because if you actually wanted answers, you could very easily look them up for yourself. Via official sites and sources.

Or maybe they just don't care for the relativism shown by equating my future children with terrorists. *shrug*

Isn't it fun, arguing with straw?

You seem to enjoy it.
Foxfier | Homepage | 09.28.07 - 6:16 pm | #

We invaded Iraq because 9/11 showed that trying to box the problem in wasn't going to work.

Well, no. We invaded Iraq because the Administration continually suggested there was some link between Iraq and 9/11 and because the Administration insisted there was a lasting, grave, and certain threat that Iraq would deploy WMDs against us. The link is non-existent and the WMDs weren't there. And recent stories are making it clear that the Administration was determined to attack Iraq whether the WMDs were there or not.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 09.28.07 - 6:29 pm | #

Thank you Foxfier, and thanks for your service.
joe | 09.28.07 - 7:20 pm | #

Isn't it fun, arguing with straw?

"You seem to enjoy it."

I'll consider the nose thumbed, and the ears wiggled. : )
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 09.28.07 - 7:22 pm | #

*bows to Joe*

Thank you for your different fight.
Foxfier | Homepage | 09.28.07 - 8:15 pm | #

They probably don't respond because if you actually wanted answers,

You think I took the time to write and call my Congressman and Senators because I did not want answers. Does that make sense?

you could very easily look them up for yourself. Via official sites and sources.

I tried. The facts, if they are even generated, are not published. Try it. Prove me wrong.

Or maybe they just don't care for the relativism shown by equating my future children with terrorists. *shrug*

I was trying to get you to put yourself in their place. If we were invaded, don't you think we'd resist? I am from Vermont. Even though no Vermonter I have ever met thinks it is a good idea to send women into war zones, I'd be willing to bet some of the pretty and tough Vermont women I know would not dissuade their children from fighting the invading and occupying foreign army. It would be thought an act of Patriotism.

Are only Americans patriots?

I know a woman who was a Chaplin. She was a member of the 2nd ARC from Ft. Polk Louisiana. In their entire history they had never been sent overseas into war zones.

Their Commander desired to bump-up his Bona Fides and needed overseas service to do it.

So he finagled and politicked and got them sent overseas were he remained for six months, got what he needed, and came home.

The ARC he left behind had to serve two consecutive tours of duties there due to your typical service snafus; even though they were repeatedly told they were going home.

The death and the destruction she saw, and the constant lies she was told about coming home drove her mad. Literally. She had a psychotic break. She has been seriously ill for along time.

While there she and the other women were forced to take birth control to stop menstruating because they were constantly on the move in their Humvee. They felt it was their only option.

This woman is a poor black woman from the rural south who desired to be the first person in her family ever to go to College - Randolph-Macon.

After her first year - she had a LOT of grants and loans - she needed to quit and work for awhile to make some money.

She was told by a Military recruiter that she was a perfect candidate for their Chaplincy program and they promised her she'd never be sent into a war zone as a female member of the 2nd ARC.

Her name is Andrea and she was severely re-educated about her own military.

She is a friend om my son. She came home with him for Christmas break in 2000. She is quite a beautiful and gentle young woman. She told us she was gonna have to drop out of school and get work but she was determined to be the first one in her family to go to College.

She signed-up for the Chaplincy program in August of 2001.
I'm not Spartacus | 09.29.07 - 6:34 am | #

We didn't invade Iraq because Saddam caused 9/11. We invaded Iraq because 9/11 showed that trying to box the problem in wasn't going to work.

For the moment, let's leave aside the fact the war was unjust and had nothing to do with the terrorist attack son 911. It was an insane project and Dick Cheney knew it. Here in The Veep after the First Gulf War.

The question that is usually asked is why didn’t we go on to Baghdad and get rid of [Saddam]? ... We made that decision not to go on to Baghdad because ...we’d liberated Kuwait and destroyed most of his offensive capability—his capacity to threaten his neighbors. … If we’d gone on to Baghdad ... we would have moved from fighting in a desert environment, where you had clear areas where you knew who everybody was ... there was no intermingling of any significant civilian population. If you go into Baghdad, that changes dramatically ... you’re fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques. … You know, then you have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq. Now, what kind of government are you going to establish? Is it going to be a Kurdish government, a Shia government, or a Sunni government...? And the final point ... I don’t think you could have done all that without significant additional US casualties. … And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damn many. So I think we got it right ...
I'm not Spartacus | 09.29.07 - 7:36 am | #

I know a woman who was a Chaplin.

Was her name Geraldine?
Seamus | 09.29.07 - 3:45 pm | #

Seamus....andrea
I'm not Spartacus | 10.01.07 - 5:50 am | #

Commenting by HaloScan