I don't think the wars are too similar, but atrocities are atrocities no matter which way you cut it.

I wouldn't purport that American soldiers who rape Iraqis do so in order to get a leg-up on the enemy. In Sudan, the case is strikingly different. Rape embodies the concept of a war tactic. Rape is a humiliating, dehumanizing experience. Watching enemy soldiers rape one's wife creates a very distinct tactical advantage by changing the emotional state of those people. Multiply this by the thousands and thousands of rapes that are occurring, and you have rape being used as a tactic of war.

It's just not a tactic that American soldiers use.

And I re-read GR's post and apologized, man we took a long time getting here....but at least I'm almost done with work...lol

Thanks Dr Fager. Thanks!
I'm not giving up. There's far to much at stake.
Keep fighting against the hate, the ignorant, and those that believe murder is a way to gain.
Speak truth to lies.
Thanks!!!

We just ran a big circle around the comment that started our whole conversation :)

Was the original poster implying that without CNN there, that our troops would resort to such tactics? Of course they wouldn't, so what does the original poster think we should be doing that we currently cannot?

Then I just got carried away proving that rape is a tactic of war, which had nothing to do with anything at all. :D

Yeah, I really need to work on my comprehension skills...and that's depressing. I used to be sharp...lol

I apologize too.

:(

I hate war too, but I feel for our soldiers (friends and family for many of us) that have to fight this war.

Brian,
The tactic of blaming the messanger rather than the message has been around for quite a while. Is there any wonder why the flag draped coffins are flown back at night to Dover, where only the military has access?
Who came up with the concept of imbedding the press in the first place?
In my humble view, if the people are uniformed of the reality, the unreality is much easier to sell.
I think the last number for killed reporters is 67. Kill the messangers. The story is still the same.
Jefferson said that the government derived its just consent from "informed" people that it governs.
Denying information makes a mockery of the premise on which this nation was founded.

Cajun,
I'm so with you on that! I ache for them all.
Peace sister.
DTS

Hey, Dr. Fager-- thanks for this post; I was all set to hit "reply" and say, "Dudes! That's not what I'm saying!" and then I read your post I quote here. :) I was trying to say, what does do anything to win mean? Does it mean the poster advocating it is okay with rape? Torture? Abuse? Where's the line? If it's win dirty, there isn't one. It's easy to say we should win dirty or get out, but harder when we really think about what exactly winning dirty might mean. Judging from how angry fellow DTers got at even the implication that American soldiers might be raping Iraqis (other than that one case of those three or four American soldiers charged with raping that 14-year-old Iraqi girl, I don't know of any, by the way), I take that to mean that for all of the chest-beating of "win at any cost" the actual nuts and bolts of it horrify people, and that's a good thing; it should. Because some things are not okay to do in war, no matter what the cause.

Of course rape is not a tactic of, for want of a better word, civilized war. Because rape is not okay. But it has happened in virtually every assault of one people on another. Because it's effective at terrorizing and demoralizing the side under assault. It works-- look at women who, decades later, are still traumatized by it. Now, be that woman's husband. If you could stop that happening to her, even by surrender, would you? Which is more important to you, your government or your wife?

No, most American soldiers would never stoop to such tactics, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still have rules about combat and capture and treatment of prisoners that we follow no matter what the other side is doing, or whether the news cameras are on or not. Whatever Bush's idiotic, Oedipal reasons for starting this nightmare may have been (not that I'm biased or anything), it's turning into a clash of an Islamic, faith-based culture against a Western, secular (kinda)- based one. And if we are to ever have any hope of persuading the average man or woman living in a repressive regime that West is Best, then we MUST, MUST take the high road, even in war. We must not torture, we must not abuse, we must make it clear that we value human life, all human life. Because if we don't, they will see no difference between us and them, and we truly are big, bad invaders.

Dr. Fager-- I bet you did fine on your verbal SATs- when I posted, I thought, I bet a lot of people misinterpret this statement, but I thought, well, let's see how they react. And, thankfully, they got upset and angry at the suggestion of American soldiers raping Iraqis. I don't think anyone posted with, "Hey, if it helps demoralize the opposition, go ahead, attack those women" or anything like that. Indicating that, words aside, most of us still believe in taking the high road in war or otherwise.

Dr Fager,
Believe me, you're not on my ignore.
Only one guy is, and since he just showed up, I'm out.
DTS

Someone told me that I've been insulted by being called a hypocrite.
If that's the case, do me a favor and quote it.
If any war monger wishes to supply the definition of "victory", I'm listening.
Facts, not personal attacks.
Definition of "victory" is ____________________.

Win ugly, or gtf out. Let's decide before any more kids are lost for no good reason. Never thought I would see it this way, but there is too much indecision for me to see it any other way, at least for now.[/quote]

Wow, I thought this thread had run its course, and it probably has or should, but I want to clarify what I was trying to say. Stretch, Risk, et al, I said "win ugly", and that's different in my own mind than win "dirty". I guess ugly to me means annihalation of the enemy factions, beyond recovery, with no means of further reprisal, and with no more risk to the Iraqi population of civilians, women, and children. Total surrender,and probably impossible to achieve. Win Dirty, as win ugly was interpreted, must mean rape to some, and that is not what I meant. I could not support that, ever, under any circumstance.

Wow, I thought this thread had run its course, and it probably has or should, but I want to clarify what I was trying to say. Stretch, Risk, et al, I said "win ugly", and that's different in my own mind than win "dirty". I guess ugly to me means annihalation of the enemy factions, beyond recovery, with no means of further reprisal, and with no more risk to the Iraqi population of civilians, women, and children. Total surrender,and probably impossible to achieve. Win Dirty, as win ugly was interpreted, must mean rape to some, and that is not what I meant. I could not support that, ever, under any circumstance.[/quote]
Minn,
Thanks for the clarification.
Sorry to say, this one is not a win. Ugly or handsome...ain't happening.
Bush has about 11 senators that support the surge.
Murtha has the best take on this. He was a decorated marine, and is looking out for the best interests of our brave military on their mission impossible.
He also holds a key position. Listen to him.
I also want what he advocates. That's my support.
DTS

Hell Stretch, my whole point was about media inteference--I had never realized that imbedded media put our troops at a disadvantage, but according to this fine young man it did. He was there, he lived it, and he shared his thoughts with me.
I agree--we ain't winning this one either, there is no military solution, and a political solution is nowhere to be found either. Let's get our people out.

Yes, yes, yes. I'm with you and 89% of our people on that. Now if only the ones that control this insanity would realize and listen.
The media isn't to blame.

Minn,
A friend of mine who's a police officer once told me, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."
Here's an article you might find interesting. Notice who is doing the hiding, and who is trying to find.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070105/...house_visitors

Genuine Risk,
I don't want to keep this pot bubbling much longer...but on the topic of sexual assult, if you read this, you might find that we're not only doing this to theirs, we're doing it to our OWN!!!
http://www.alternet.org/asoldierspeaks/46294/

However, it seems that one could do a Bush betting angle-- take what seems like the obvious choice, and bet that he'll do the opposite:

http://salon.com/news/feature/2007/01/06/aei/

Cajun,
I don't think the Iraqi insurgents are fighting "fair", IED's and all.
Bad things happen in any conflict, from both sides.
You asked about Haditha, and here's today's story. Careful if you read it... the children in their pajamas kind of choked me up.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010502248.html

These kinds of things only inflame the resistance.