Bush, Cheney, General Myers on record in favor of "sensistive" useof force

[papau]

Bush, Cheney, General Myers on record in favor of "sensistive" use of force - media says?

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1338421&l=50429

CHENEY CALLS THE KETTLE BLACK

Yesterday, Vice President Dick Cheney lashed out at Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) for suggesting that America needs to fight "a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror."<1> Cheney said, "America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive."<2> Cheney neglected to mention that President Bush and other top administration officials - including Cheney himself - have publicly called for "sensitive" use of American military power. Here is a selection:

On 3/4/01, at the christening of the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan, President Bush said, "because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence."<3>

On 1/7/03, Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the president's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the administration asks "our troops to go out there and be, on the one hand, very sensitive to cultural issues, on the other hand, be ready to respond in self-defense to a very ticklish situation."<4>

On 4/13/03, Cheney said, "We recognize that the presence of U.S. forces can in some cases present a burden on the local community. We're not insensitive to that. We work almost on a continual basis with the local officials to remove points of friction and reduce the extent to which problems arise in terms of those relationships."<5>

Sources:

1. "Cheney blasts Kerry for 'sensitive' remark," Chicago Sun-Times, 08/13/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1338421&l=50430.
2. Ibid.
3. "Remarks by the President at Christening Ceremony for the USS Ronald Reagan," The White House, 03/04/01, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1338421&l=50431.
4. "DoD News Briefing - Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers," U.S. Department of Defense, 01/07/03, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1338421&l=50432.
5. "Remarks by the Vice President at the Washington Post-Yomiuri Shimbun Symposium," The White House, 04/13/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1338421&l=50433.

[stellanoir]

1. here's something posted yesterday re: "sensitivity"

Sensitivity, not towards the terrorists, but towards Islamic culture
would have won the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and usured in the peace.

I fear that after all the injustices, idiocies, and cruelty that our troops have mostly unwittingly, imposed on the Iraqis, we can never be honest brokers of peace there.

Beyond the undeniable occurance of the heinous torture, rape, and murder of innocents, had there not been a rush to war with heavily programmed ("axis of evil" BS) hateful rhetoric, perhaps our troops could have been instructed as to simple aspects of Islam. Initially they were only taught how to bark commands in Arabic. They were not taught any pleasantries whatsoever. Simple things like knowledge that a devout Muslim cannot touch a Koran until they thoroughly wash their hands up to their elbows. Women would carry Korans in their purses for protection on Baghdad's dangerous streets. At check points our troops would rifle through their purses and grab the Korans and throw them down on the sidewalk. Thereby, losing yet another heart and mind.

I just feel so badly that our troops plowed into Iraq believing that that country had anything to do with 9/11. Those poor kids have been set up so horrifically.

On edit-

An aside. . .when people compare Iraq to Vietnam they don't consider a few facts. There was pre-exisiting conflict in 'Nam unlike Iraq. Vietnam is comprised mostly of Buddhists. Buddhism is the most forgiving of all the faiths. Muslims are probably traditionally the most vengeful. "An eye for an eye. . ." In that culture, if two people have a conflict, often their descendants are still fighting about it five generations later (gross generalization there- but I trust you get my point). Thirdly, we had the South Vietnamese as allies in Vietnam. We potentially had the Shia's as allies but now look what's happenned. We had to arrogantly shut down al Sadr's paper which maybe had a readership of a few thousand.

I started a rant a while ago called "Occupation for dummies." Or how to imitate all the blunders of every Imperial power throughout history. . .but it got too frustrating.

Didn't mean to derail this thread. i just had watched the morning snooze shows and was all stirred up over the "sensitivity" crapola.

Please Excuse-the one liner for the "sensitivity" issue is at the very top of this rambling diatribe.