| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/10/2004 09:49:41 PM · #1 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
One ALWAYS has the opportunity to behave in an ethical manner. Synonyms for ethical are 'moral' and 'righteous'. For some, those are variable terms - as in "situational ethics". I say they are not variable terms. It would appear that we disagree.
Ron |
Tell that to Oliver North. |
Sorry, I can't. I don't know him. Do you?
But I will say this: Let him who has never done anything un-ethical, cast the first aspersion.
Ron
|
|
|
|
04/10/2004 09:22:38 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by RonB:
One ALWAYS has the opportunity to behave in an ethical manner. Synonyms for ethical are 'moral' and 'righteous'. For some, those are variable terms - as in "situational ethics". I say they are not variable terms. It would appear that we disagree.
Ron |
Tell that to Oliver North. |
|
|
|
04/10/2004 09:10:31 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
I'd be interested in hearing what you feel is ethical for the CIA but not ethical for a camera club. Or vice-versa.
Ron |
I think CIA officers are sworn to an oath to uphold and defend (and perhaps even obey) the laws and Constitution of the USA. They are also paid for there work. Their activities are of necessity constricted by that.
Your camera club, as a voluntary organization of private citizens, has greater freedom to use your talents and resources. For example, you as a private organization could raise and deliver aid for civilian war victims. The CIA as an organization (and its agents) are probably prohibited from such activities -- it is outside their mission and job description.
Ethics is a mighty tricky subject to discuss in a forum like this ... but I think it's obvious that some situations do not allow a black-or-white solution. |
Every situation allows for an ethical solution. The problem is that the ethical solution may lead to repurcussions that are not desirable. As in, when my wife asks "Does this dress make me look too fat?". The ethical response might not lead to a desirable result. But, that doesn't change the fact of whether my response is ethical or not. Restrictions and/or permissions may dictate actions, but they cannot dictate ethics.
One ALWAYS has the opportunity to behave in an ethical manner. Synonyms for ethical are 'moral' and 'righteous'. For some, those are variable terms - as in "situational ethics". I say they are not variable terms. It would appear that we disagree.
Ron |
|
|
|
04/10/2004 08:31:04 PM · #4 |
The UPI article that I refered to said that the CIA was in full knowledge of, as well as, supporting Sadaam Hussein in his bid to assassinate the then Iraqi president Qasim:
"Adel Darwish, Middle East expert and author of "Unholy Babylon," said the move was done "with full knowledge of the CIA," and that Saddam's CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence. U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish's account."
More about the early relationship between the CIA and Hussein:
"While Saddam was in Beirut, the CIA paid for Saddam's apartment and put him through a brief training course, former CIA officials said. The agency then helped him get to Cairo, they said."
More: "But during this time Saddam was making frequent visits to the American Embassy where CIA specialists such as Miles Copeland and CIA station chief Jim Eichelberger were in residence and knew Saddam, former U.S. intelligence officials said."
But again, we're both splitting hairs here. The most damning recent CIA support of Sadaam when they already knew what kind of madman he was:
"The CIA/Defense Intelligence Agency relation with Saddam intensified after the start of the Iran-Iraq war in September of 1980. During the war, the CIA regularly sent a team to Saddam to deliver battlefield intelligence obtained from Saudi AWACS surveillance aircraft to aid the effectiveness of Iraq's armed forces, according to a former DIA official, part of a U.S. interagency intelligence group."
When active CIA members, being paid by the CIA, are supporting a thug and cutthroat, you can be sure the higher ups in the organization are going to know about it also, because there has to be an outlay of money...and big money to do these kinds of jobs. I hope you're not going to be splitting hairs again about this. As far as I'm concerned he was supported by the CIA.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Ron, what is your point about citing the BBC article below? It has little in it about how Saadam Hussein came to power.
Can you please explain your statement below: "While individuals employed by the CIA may have supported his rise to power, the CIA as an organization did not." How on earth is this possible??? I don't believe your statement to be true. If you want a DETAILED summary of the relationship between the CIA and Sadaam Hussein from 1963 all the way to 1990, the read this article here.
Be sure to read the WHOLE thing as it gives names but make sure you read the last 5 paragraphs, that also talk about how the CIA helped Sadaam during the 1980-1988 Iraq/Iran war.
edited for spelling
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Dim7:
I was under the impression that the CIA SUPPORTED his rise to power many years ago, I bet you wont find that in any printed CIA factbook |
Probably because it isn't true. While individuals employed by the CIA may have supported his rise to power, the CIA as an organization did not.
For more on how he came to power read THIS ARTICLE from the BBC news.
Note: in fairness, the CIA DID, in fact, support the Ba'ath Party long before Saddam was an influential part of it. At the time, the Ba'ath Party was considered preferable to the pro-Soviet government that was in place. That was in 1963. Saddam didn't become head of the party until 1979. That was the beginning of the reign of terror for the Iraqi people.
1963 - John F. Kennedy was President
1979 - Jimmy Carter was President
Ron |
|
The BBC article does provide an overview of Saddam's rise to power.
The article you link to doesn't disagree with the BBC article. By the time the U.S. supported SADDAM ( not the Ba'ath Party, MUCH earlier ) he has already risen to power.
Let's say that I am a member of the local Photo Club. Then, let's say that I, and several other members of the local Photo Club support Adolph Coors for President. It would be erroneous to say that the local Photo Club supports Adolph Coors. Individual members may support Adolph, but that does not rise to the level of saying that the Photo Club supports Adolph. Same with the CIA.
Ron |
|
|
|
|
04/10/2004 08:20:14 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I'd be interested in hearing what you feel is ethical for the CIA but not ethical for a camera club. Or vice-versa.
Ron |
I think CIA officers are sworn to an oath to uphold and defend (and perhaps even obey) the laws and Constitution of the USA. They are also paid for there work. Their activities are of necessity constricted by that.
Your camera club, as a voluntary organization of private citizens, has greater freedom to use your talents and resources. For example, you as a private organization could raise and deliver aid for civilian war victims. The CIA as an organization (and its agents) are probably prohibited from such activities -- it is outside their mission and job description.
Ethics is a mighty tricky subject to discuss in a forum like this ... but I think it's obvious that some situations do not allow a black-or-white solution. |
|
|
|
04/10/2004 08:12:24 PM · #6 |
Ron, not sure who you are referring to when you say below that you don't trust a man who admits to lying. Who is lying and what is the lie?
Are you referring to John Oliveira in the article I posted?
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
HERE's an article about a 16 year veteren who was totally disgusted about what we were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. In it, he brings up that both junior sailors and senior leadership within the navy questioning what they were doing in Iraq and how they were getting depressed and leading to a higher than normal suicide rate. It also talks about the embedded reporters and how many of them were dissatisfied about how they were managed by their public relations officers. So much for objective reporting.
Originally posted by jamesdak:
I'm not asking anyone to agree with the administration, just to understand the true facts. Maybe I do seem a bit zealous but after 20 plus years serving in the military I really get sick and tired of some people's ignorance of what is really going on in the world. But hey, you know what they say "ignorance is bliss"! |
|
It's interesting to note that even though Mr. Oliveira claims to have given the embedded reporters carte blanche access to talk to anyone they wanted to while onboard, and only edited their reports for accuracy, none of their articles mention the complaints and doubts that he claims were so rampant. FWIW, the embedded reporters were:
George Jahn, Associated Press
Gary Strieker, CNN
Janine Zacharia, Jerusalem Post
I won't bore you with a list of all the links to their articles. And before you take off on me, I will admit that no, i did not read every word of every article. The margin of error is +-5%.
Also, for what it's worth - I don't have much trust in the word of a man who acknowledges that he lies ( he was either lying then, or is lying now, since he now says he was lying then ).
Ron |
|
|
|
|
04/10/2004 07:30:46 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Let's say that I am a member of the local Photo Club. Then, let's say that I, and several other members of the local Photo Club support Adolph Coors for President. It would be erroneous to say that the local Photo Club supports Adolph Coors. Individual members may support Adolph, but that does not rise to the level of saying that the Photo Club supports Adolph. Same with the CIA.
Ron |
You think the CIA should be held to the same organizational and ethical standards as a camera club? Now I'm starting to get scared. "Individual support" by a CIA agent is probably not a modest check to a re-election campaign .... |
Organizational, no; ethical, definitely. To me "ethical" is not a term that varies in meaning from one person, or organization, to another. Something or someone is either ethical or it isn't. Perhaps you have a differing viewpoint. I'd be interested in hearing what you feel is ethical for the CIA but not ethical for a camera club. Or vice-versa.
Ron |
|
|
|
04/10/2004 06:20:56 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Let's say that I am a member of the local Photo Club. Then, let's say that I, and several other members of the local Photo Club support Adolph Coors for President. It would be erroneous to say that the local Photo Club supports Adolph Coors. Individual members may support Adolph, but that does not rise to the level of saying that the Photo Club supports Adolph. Same with the CIA.
Ron |
You think the CIA should be held to the same organizational and ethical standards as a camera club? Now I'm starting to get scared. "Individual support" by a CIA agent is probably not a modest check to a re-election campaign .... |
|
|
|
04/10/2004 05:37:43 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
interesting |
Yes, very.
Michelle Mairesse is the owner/operator of Hermes Press, whose Web Site is called "The New Enlightenment, A Journal of Social and Metaphysical Inquiry" The Home Page can be viewed HERE
Her "Keys to 9/11, Deja Vu All Over Again" is but one of her more "interesting" articles.
Ron |
|
|
|
04/10/2004 05:18:37 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
HERE's an article about a 16 year veteren who was totally disgusted about what we were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. In it, he brings up that both junior sailors and senior leadership within the navy questioning what they were doing in Iraq and how they were getting depressed and leading to a higher than normal suicide rate. It also talks about the embedded reporters and how many of them were dissatisfied about how they were managed by their public relations officers. So much for objective reporting.
Originally posted by jamesdak:
I'm not asking anyone to agree with the administration, just to understand the true facts. Maybe I do seem a bit zealous but after 20 plus years serving in the military I really get sick and tired of some people's ignorance of what is really going on in the world. But hey, you know what they say "ignorance is bliss"! |
|
It's interesting to note that even though Mr. Oliveira claims to have given the embedded reporters carte blanche access to talk to anyone they wanted to while onboard, and only edited their reports for accuracy, none of their articles mention the complaints and doubts that he claims were so rampant. FWIW, the embedded reporters were:
George Jahn, Associated Press
Gary Strieker, CNN
Janine Zacharia, Jerusalem Post
I won't bore you with a list of all the links to their articles. And before you take off on me, I will admit that no, i did not read every word of every article. The margin of error is +-5%.
Also, for what it's worth - I don't have much trust in the word of a man who acknowledges that he lies ( he was either lying then, or is lying now, since he now says he was lying then ).
Ron
|
|
|
|
04/10/2004 05:15:21 PM · #11 |
interesting
Message edited by author 2004-04-10 17:23:58. |
|
|
|
04/10/2004 05:08:09 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Ron, what is your point about citing the BBC article below? It has little in it about how Saadam Hussein came to power.
Can you please explain your statement below: "While individuals employed by the CIA may have supported his rise to power, the CIA as an organization did not." How on earth is this possible??? I don't believe your statement to be true. If you want a DETAILED summary of the relationship between the CIA and Sadaam Hussein from 1963 all the way to 1990, the read this article here.
Be sure to read the WHOLE thing as it gives names but make sure you read the last 5 paragraphs, that also talk about how the CIA helped Sadaam during the 1980-1988 Iraq/Iran war.
edited for spelling
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Dim7:
I was under the impression that the CIA SUPPORTED his rise to power many years ago, I bet you wont find that in any printed CIA factbook |
Probably because it isn't true. While individuals employed by the CIA may have supported his rise to power, the CIA as an organization did not.
For more on how he came to power read THIS ARTICLE from the BBC news.
Note: in fairness, the CIA DID, in fact, support the Ba'ath Party long before Saddam was an influential part of it. At the time, the Ba'ath Party was considered preferable to the pro-Soviet government that was in place. That was in 1963. Saddam didn't become head of the party until 1979. That was the beginning of the reign of terror for the Iraqi people.
1963 - John F. Kennedy was President
1979 - Jimmy Carter was President
Ron |
|
The BBC article does provide an overview of Saddam's rise to power.
The article you link to doesn't disagree with the BBC article. By the time the U.S. supported SADDAM ( not the Ba'ath Party, MUCH earlier ) he has already risen to power.
Let's say that I am a member of the local Photo Club. Then, let's say that I, and several other members of the local Photo Club support Adolph Coors for President. It would be erroneous to say that the local Photo Club supports Adolph Coors. Individual members may support Adolph, but that does not rise to the level of saying that the Photo Club supports Adolph. Same with the CIA.
Ron |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 10:54:39 PM · #13 |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 10:49:42 PM · #14 |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 10:47:32 PM · #15 |
HERE's an article about a 16 year veteren who was totally disgusted about what we were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. In it, he brings up that both junior sailors and senior leadership within the navy questioning what they were doing in Iraq and how they were getting depressed and leading to a higher than normal suicide rate. It also talks about the embedded reporters and how many of them were dissatisfied about how they were managed by their public relations officers. So much for objective reporting.
Originally posted by jamesdak:
I'm not asking anyone to agree with the administration, just to understand the true facts. Maybe I do seem a bit zealous but after 20 plus years serving in the military I really get sick and tired of some people's ignorance of what is really going on in the world. But hey, you know what they say "ignorance is bliss"! |
|
|
|
|
04/09/2004 10:15:03 PM · #16 |
Ron, what is your point about citing the BBC article below? It has little in it about how Saadam Hussein came to power.
Can you please explain your statement below: "While individuals employed by the CIA may have supported his rise to power, the CIA as an organization did not." How on earth is this possible??? I don't believe your statement to be true. If you want a DETAILED summary of the relationship between the CIA and Sadaam Hussein from 1963 all the way to 1990, the read this article here.
Be sure to read the WHOLE thing as it gives names but make sure you read the last 5 paragraphs, that also talk about how the CIA helped Sadaam during the 1980-1988 Iraq/Iran war.
edited for spelling
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Dim7:
I was under the impression that the CIA SUPPORTED his rise to power many years ago, I bet you wont find that in any printed CIA factbook |
Probably because it isn't true. While individuals employed by the CIA may have supported his rise to power, the CIA as an organization did not.
For more on how he came to power read THIS ARTICLE from the BBC news.
Note: in fairness, the CIA DID, in fact, support the Ba'ath Party long before Saddam was an influential part of it. At the time, the Ba'ath Party was considered preferable to the pro-Soviet government that was in place. That was in 1963. Saddam didn't become head of the party until 1979. That was the beginning of the reign of terror for the Iraqi people.
1963 - John F. Kennedy was President
1979 - Jimmy Carter was President
Ron |
Message edited by author 2004-04-09 23:14:05. |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 03:25:00 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So you're saying that the both the Shi'a and Sunni would be denied to be part of the new gov't of Iraq? Together they are more than 2/3rds of the population.
I would think that it would be to their benefit to wait until the occupying forces leave and then fight the new gov't since the new gov't would most likely have weak military and police forces and could easily be overcome. |
No. Not at all. Both the Shia's AND the Sunni's will have members in the new government. It's those who are causing the trouble right now that are not represented on the council. That's one of the ( many ) reasons that they are fighting. And if they waited to take over the government AFTER the turnover - though it would be much easier, just as you say - would NOT be supported by the Iraqi people. It would be considered a coup, just like what happened in '63 - and the people know darned well where that would lead, and would not support it in the least. Before the turnover is the only opportunity the rebels have to establish themselves without turning the people against them.
Ron |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 02:59:41 PM · #18 |
So you're saying that the both the Shi'a and Sunni would be denied to be part of the new gov't of Iraq? Together they are more than 2/3rds of the population.
I would think that it would be to their benefit to wait until the occupying forces leave and then fight the new gov't since the new gov't would most likely have weak military and police forces and could easily be overcome. |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 02:48:39 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
But why the anti-American violence now? Didn't we help the Iraqis to write a new democratic constitution a few weeks ago and promise to hand over power to the Iraqis by July 1? Why is the violence targeted against us and other coalition force members in Iraq at this time when we are set to leave in a few weeks? Wouldn't violence such as this delay our leaving? |
In a word - Opportunity.
They would not be a part of the new government, so they can't wait until after it is installed without overturning it in a coup ( in the same way that the Ba'ath Party came to power in 1963 ). So they've been looking for an excuse to wrest control of the country earlier than July 1. They see this as that opportunity. They don't really understand the ( new ) mentality of the U.S. to see this through. They were taught by the history of former administrations ( Carter, Bush Sr. and Clinton ) that when we are attacked, we either do nothing ( as in embassay bombings ) or cut and run ( as in Somalia ).
The Iraqi people's worst fear was that we were going to repeat the '91 Gulf war - run in, declare victory, then leave - only to leave THEM in the same dire straights as before. They STILL think that that is a possibility. So, 10% of the population hates us for being there, and the other 90% fears that we will leave too soon.
Ron |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 02:24:42 PM · #20 |
But why the anti-American violence now? Didn't we help the Iraqis to write a new democratic constitution a few weeks ago and promise to hand over power to the Iraqis by July 1? Why is the violence targeted against us and other coalition force members in Iraq at this time when we are set to leave in a few weeks? Wouldn't violence such as this delay our leaving?
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So why do you think the Sunni's and Shiite's are uniting to fight the American and coalition forces? |
99% of the Sunni's and Shia's are NOT uniting to fight the American and coalition forces. As for those who are, in my opinion they're doing it for one reason, and one reason only - and that reason can be explained in one word - POWER. They want it. They want to turn Iraq back into a Dictatorship with THEM running the show. So THEY can tell everyone in the country what they can and cannot do, when they can or cannot do it, where they can or cannot do it. What religion they must observe, what clothes they must wear. etc. Namely, just like the Taliban in Afghanistan used to do.
Ron |
|
|
|
|
04/09/2004 02:01:12 PM · #21 |
** deleted, was almost an exact duplicate of RonB's post **
Message edited by author 2004-04-09 14:02:51. |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 01:59:32 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So why do you think the Sunni's and Shiite's are uniting to fight the American and coalition forces? |
99% of the Sunni's and Shia's are NOT uniting to fight the American and coalition forces. As for those who are, in my opinion they're doing it for one reason, and one reason only - and that reason can be explained in one word - POWER. They want it. They want to turn Iraq back into a Dictatorship with THEM running the show. So THEY can tell everyone in the country what they can and cannot do, when they can or cannot do it, where they can or cannot do it. What religion they must observe, what clothes they must wear. etc. Namely, just like the Taliban in Afghanistan used to do.
Ron |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 01:58:25 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by cbeller:
While I'm all for the political discussions, let's have some respect for Alan and others and take the left/right bashing to another thread. Just seems kinda disrespectful to me. Flame away. :-) |
Exactly! There is another thread with the same title for the political discussion. Pushing your political agenda on top of someone's loss is discusting. |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 01:28:00 PM · #24 |
This thread is being moved to the Rant page because some people cannot control their tempers. Do not resort to personal attacks, or your account will be suspended.
Drew |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 01:25:47 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by jamesdak:
OrionS -
Tell us what would honestly happen if all the US troops pulled out of your region right now. Can you honestly say there would be peace? "Everything was fine when Clinton was there" - Wow, do you really believe this? |
Honestly I dont know what would happen, but war would not happen again. Being here, or at the other part of the world, for some period ,day or month, doesnt make someone an expert. There were lot of things going on here in Bosnia, but you cant explain that to someone in 5 minutes, it is not so simple. US Troops here are not in the streats or bildings, they are in theirs military objects mostly avay from cities. War is in the past.
For the other thing(speaking globaly not for Bosnia) I dont remeber this much wars, killings and terorist attacks while Clinton was president. They sudenly seem to apear for some reson. If that is the true you have to ask your self, WHY?
You say Bush is solving world problem and that problem are terorist. OK thats true, but, he is solving just consequences not the real problem. US is a world leading contry and everyone turns to you for help, but that help sometimes is selectiv...need to mention Palestine? |
|
