![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
From: "Emmanuel Gustin"
(1) In democracies, ministers who make major blunders, are responsible for catastrophes (or, in Britain, go to bed with their secretary) are expected to resign or to be fired by parliament. (2) The situation in Iraq is in deep crisis. The USA (and the world) need a competent and untarnished secretary of defense to be in place ASAP if anything is to be salvaged. (3) I did not "agree that it is not guilty" except in the sense of "not guilty until convicted." I hope that the question of his guilt will be subject of due investigation and, if justified, trial. All of that is exactly right. As you might have noticed if you had actually bothered to try to understand any of my earlier posts, I am neither claiming that all US soldiers behaved badly, not am I out to harshly condemn those who did, considering the circumstances. My concern is that the US DoD has some policies in place that stimulate bad behaviour, and that these need to be changed, and that those who put these policies in place have to be identified and held responsible for them. Today's decision to ban the use of "special interrogation techniques" in Iraq illustrates, IMHO, that the US army shares this concern; although this decision does not yet go far enough. I think the US Army officers are very upset over what happened. The Army has been working on its reputation for a long time, now it is all besmirched again. You are already getting your CID investigation results, though--in the form of the courts martial proceedings against those found to be criminally liable. Your talent for missing the point is truly formidable. To investigate only the criminal liability would be a dereliction of duty. The steely determination of American conservatives to focus exclusively on the criminal liability is highly significant in itself. It reveals that they understand only too well that the Bush administration is morally and politically responsible. Also a good point. To make the point, Belgian had *besides* the criminal investigations, a commission of inquiry, a study of problems in the army that might have contributed to the events in Somalia, and (following on the conclusions of that review) an investigation in the occurrence of racism in the army. Brooks said: your armed forces) seem to be a bit lacking--not to mention the fact that unlike the US in this case, your own investigations did not even begin until forced upon you by the international media--are you real proud of that? We have enough problems of our own; Brooks is just trying to deflect blame and shame Emmanuel into silence. Walt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Weekend IFR ground school with Aviation Seminars | Brad Z | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | September 20th 04 03:05 PM |
Germany Lost the War... So What? | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 55 | February 26th 04 08:51 AM |
Lost comms after radar vector | Mike Ciholas | Instrument Flight Rules | 119 | January 31st 04 11:39 PM |
Soviet Submarines Losses - WWII | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 4 | October 30th 03 03:09 AM |
About French cowards. | Michael Smith | Military Aviation | 45 | October 22nd 03 03:15 PM |