I have to agree with psyopspec's analysis of Ross' Psy-Ops suggestions/critiques here.
As for Marion Barry, I side with beerslurpy. Consentually planning to sleep with former girlfriends on video tape is not exactly the highest standards of conduct. I'd say it was borderline entrapment because he refused numerous times. To say the least, I suspect the police might have had other motives. Why do I think this? Because digging up an old girlfriend (and convincing her to ply him with alcohol first), putting that much manpower on one person suspected of minor drug use, etc sounds a bit extreme for a drug possession charge. How many murders were unsolved during on THAT day alone in DC?
I've never heard of the Israelis actually coating their bullets with pig fat, but it wouldn't suprise me. Their rules of engagement are downright bloodthirsty at times. I've heard IDF soldiers tell me that they've opened fire into crowds before hoping to hit one suspected terrorist. (Note, SUSPECTED terrorist, not "confirmed terrorist".)
As for Carter/Reagan... Carter at least attempted military action against Iran. After Desert One failed, there was no way he could have convinced Congress to let him conduct any further military action. Look up the political party that flamed him the hardest for the failed rescue mission.
Reagan on the other hand not only did not conduct ANY military operations against Iran, HE FREAKIN SOLD WEAPONS! Oh yea, he was too busy invading Grenada. I guess no one bothered to tell him that the State Department more or less OK'd Cuba to send military engineers to Grenada. The Iranians obviously knew they couldn't outmaneuver Reagan. Yep. Righto. Then care to explain "Iran-Contras" to me in terms that somehow explain how the Iranians did not outmaneuver Reagan? Best of luck in that endeaver, it'll be a challenge.
As for "Arabs lying to Westerners", heh. People like to quote "Ask not questions about which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble." They, of course, take it out of context.
"O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. But if ye ask about things when the Quran is being revealed, they will be made plain to you, God will forgive those: for God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Forbearing. Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith. (The Quran, 5:101-102)"
The section is meant to deal with people who question their faith too much. This is similiar to asking a Catholic priest where Cain's wife came from, or pointing out contradictions in the Bible. Obviously, few religions like folks pointing out contradictions in their holy books.
As for the B-1 program, look up how much those suckers cost per aircraft. Not to meantion, the USAF retired over a third of its B-1B fleet due to maintaince cost. They were cannibalized for parts, with a few exceptions. Ironically, guess what? WE'RE STILL USING B-52'S! And when we don't use B-52's, we generally use the B-2 bomber. Is it useful? Sure, almost everything has some use. Cost effective? Probably not.
Arabs view eating pork as worse than Americans view eating human flesh. Got that? It's not just some affectation. THEY REALLY BELIEVE THIS STUFF.
Uh, care to quote the verse of the Koran that says pork is worse than eating human? Even if it did, so what? Judiasm doesn't look kindly on eating pork either. Certain branches of Christianity sincerely believe that they ARE eating human flesh during communion, as well as drinking human blood. I'm not slamming Christianity, but they also "REALLY BELIEVE THIS STUFF".
All religions have their quirks. If Jews and Muslims think eating pork is really bad, fine. As long as Christians only practice symbolic cannibalism, I'm happy also. I see both practices as 'weird', but fairly tolerable.
As for the practices at Abu Ghraib prison, I don't find sexual abuse funny. I don't care whether it's a girl sexually abusing a guy, or a guy sexually abusing a girl. Oh, but just curious... If the photos had been males doing the SAME torture to naked females, would some posters here still be calling it "harmless pranks" ? It sickens me to know that some probably would. Some posters here also might say, "It wasn't sexual abuse!" Read the official Army report. It says very clearly in black and white what happened, and classified it as sexual abuse. I can't repeat the activities here obviously, because they are rather graphic.
Mr Ross seems to confused on something I am also confused on. Are we liberating Iraq, or occupying it? If we are liberating Iraq on the behalf of the Iraqi people, we must play nice. If we are occupying their country, we can do as we please. The current answer is that we are supposedly liberating Iraq.
If liberating a country means torture and sexually abusing prisoners... Uhm, does anyone else here see the conflict?
