I'm going on the record as being opposed to Torture, period. If we start doing bad, wrong or evil things, then how are we any better than the "Bad guys"?
i was watching the rerun of Fox new sunday(i know, i know, it's my own damn fault!), and Chris Wallace asked the damnedest thing i think i've ever heard.
He asked National security adviser Tom Donilon why it's okay to shoot Bin laden in the head, but Enhanced torture is a no-no? how does one equate the 2?
that's not what his exact words were. Donilon said torture doesn't represent who we are, and Wallace said" shooting someone in the head does?". Yes! the
Ahole with the bullet in his brain pan was shot in a war action!
Then later Darth Cheney was on and they started talking about how torture was good. and Cheney said they spent alot of time figuring out what they could
and couldn't do and was upset over The President not using them. Glad the President is disappointing them.
Not really trying to defend anything. he was killed on a battlefield. people that are being
waterboarded are being picked up on a battlefield....and on tips from others for money,
to save their own skin, or whatever reason they might be picked up. because they're
in a situation to be waterboarded doesn't mean they are a terrorist. Bin laden being killed
was killing the leader of an enemy you are at war with, IMHO.
Funnily enough Paddy Ashdown was on a program called Question Time last week, which I miissed, but was told by my boss it was very lively Obviously one of the discussions at the time was about Bin Laden. Apparently a number of points were raised about what happened and also torture was mentioned. Some ultra con was banging on about that it was right to use it, when Paddy Ashdown proceeded to cut him down and point out torture was a generally a waste of time. Having been through all that type of stuff during his time in the SBS he explained that you just ended up telling them what they wanted to here.
I gather that there was also a feeling that the US shouldn't of slotted him, that we are supposed to above that, which I think is an interesting point. I'll try and grab a copy of it from iPlayer later and watch it myself.
alarmingrick wrote:Not really trying to defend anything. he was killed on a battlefield.
I don't think many people would call the circumstances surrounding bin Laden's death tacit to a battlefield.
Well, that's not true, there a lot of people that would do exactly that, but they are wrong. Unless of course we're also now calling the use of SWAT tacit to the creation of a battlefield, which leads to a whole list of other issues.
alarmingrick wrote:
Bin laden being killed was killing the leader of an enemy you are at war with, IMHO.
The argument Donlon was making is that if killing is bad, and torture is bad, why can't we torture if we can kill? The easy reply is that torture is actually worse than killing.
alarmingrick wrote:Not really trying to defend anything. he was killed on a battlefield.
I don't think many people would call the circumstances surrounding bin Laden's death tacit to a battlefield.
Well, that's not true, there a lot of people that would do exactly that, but they are wrong. Unless of course we're also now calling the use of SWAT tacit to the creation of a battlefield, which leads to a whole list of other issues.
I'll agree with you. my point is how can Wallace, or the conservatives, say if it's okay to shoot Bin laden in the head, then why isn't torture okay? i don't see how they're equating the two. imho, they're apples and oranges.
dogma wrote:
alarmingrick wrote:Bin laden being killed was killing the leader of an enemy you are at war with, IMHO.
The argument Donlon was making is that if killing is bad, and torture is bad, why can't we torture if we can kill? The easy reply is that torture is actually worse than killing.
It was Wallace making the point. Donilon was disagreeing with that position.
alarmingrick wrote:
I'll agree with you. my point is how can Wallace, or the conservatives, say if it's okay to shoot Bin laden in the head, then why isn't torture okay? i don't see how they're equating the two. imho, they're apples and oranges.
They're appealing to emotion, which is a sound, though obnoxious, political strategy.
Just read some of what Frazzled posts and you'll understand why they do it.
Wolfstan wrote:Having been through all that type of stuff during his time in the SBS he explained that you just ended up telling them what they wanted to here.
This, in short, is why torture is pointless, except to dictators who want a foregone conclusion rather than truth. People will say or do almost anything to avoid severe pain, or to make it stop; hence why so many torture victims end up simply saying what the torturer wants to hear.
dogma wrote:The argument Donlon was making is that if killing is bad, and torture is bad, why can't we torture if we can kill? The easy reply is that torture is actually worse than killing.
I would say that the even easier answer would be that we shouldn't be doing either.
I mean, if it represents a realistic chance of danger to our troops, or too great a risk of the suspect escaping, then lethal force should be used, but otherwise we need to capture people and put them through proper justice.
It's really quite incredible that there's a debate going on where people from a mainstream, apparantly respectable political party are arguing "if we do this awful thing, why can't we do this other awful thing as well."
sebster wrote:It's really quite incredible that there's a debate going on where people from a mainstream, apparantly respectable political party are arguing "if we do this awful thing, why can't we do this other awful thing as well."
Exactly! that's what's making me scatch my head and go 'Huh?'! and careful about throwing respectable around so freely.
Well, torture only doesn't work if you have no ability to cross check or follow up on the info you gain. It is pretty morally reprehensible, but it can work.
There have been some accounts that have indicated that some of the information used to find Bin Laden came from waterboarding. Does that mean waterboarding is an appropriate tool for getting information now? After all, if you're using the "ends justify the means" logic (bin Laden is dead = good thing, regardless of how we got there), then waterboarding should be allowed.
The death of bin Laden also represents a major breach with a lot of international law subjects:
- military operations in a foreign country
- without that country's knowledge or consent
- without a declaration of war against that country
- targetted killing of an individual
- inside his home
- in the presence of unarmed civilians
- the victim wasn't armed
So yes, there are a lot of similarities between "torture" (waterboarding) and targetted killing of an unarmed combatant in his home, at least from an international law perspective.
biccat wrote:
-without a declaration of war against that country
- targetted killing of an individual
- inside his home
- the victim wasn't armed
.
We were not attacking the State of Pakastan, so no declaration of war was neccisary. Should we have gotten permision from their government? Thats hard to awnser, supposedly there are binLaden supporters in their government that probably would have tipped him off. You dont post your plans on a billboard in the town where your enemy lives do you?
I would think that the plan and Idea was to capture him first and kill him only if neccesary. As I understand it Leathal Force is only supposed to be used when US forces lives are in danger. If we only wanted him dead, a sniper or a drone dropped bomb would have been a better choice than a couple of helocopters full of soldiers. This was not an assaination.
Would it have been better to wait untill he went back to some cave in the hills? US law Enforcment often captures a fugitive in his/her home.
I havent read or seen anywhere that he was unarmed. I also havent seen or read that he was armed either. Also I wouldnt lable binLaden a Victim. He was an Enemy Combatant. He purpusly and actively planed and initiated Violent attacks upon the the People and property of the US.
We were not attacking the State of Pakastan, so no declaration of war was neccisary. Should we have gotten permision from their government? Thats hard to awnser, supposedly there are binLaden supporters in their government that probably would have tipped him off. You dont post your plans on a billboard in the town where your enemy lives do you?
I would think that the plan and Idea was to capture him first and kill him only if neccesary. As I understand it Leathal Force is only supposed to be used when US forces lives are in danger. If we only wanted him dead, a sniper or a drone dropped bomb would have been a better choice than a couple of helocopters full of soldiers. This was not an assaination.
Would it have been better to wait untill he went back to some cave in the hills? US law Enforcment often captures a fugitive in his/her home.
I havent read or seen anywhere that he was unarmed. I also havent seen or read that he was armed either. Also I wouldnt lable binLaden a Victim. He was an Enemy Combatant. He purpusly and actively planed and initiated Violent attacks upon the the People and property of the US.
I can fully understand why the US would of wanted to of done this, but as a number of us Brits have pointed out before, there is no way in hell the US would of allowed us to do something like this in Ireland.
Could you imagine the uproar if we'd had publically crossed the border into Eire and slotted a member of the IRA? What about if we'd sent a hit team to the US and did it to a known IRA member? For crying out loud, look at the hoops we had to go through when the SAS took out that IRA team in Gibralter. SAS soldiers went on trial because of that.
What about Timothy McVeigh, why did you bother arresting him? I would say that as a home grown terrorist he should be classed as a traitor and killed on the spot.
As I said, I can understand your anger over Bin Laden, but it's very arrogant to think that your suffering is above the suffering of any other nation that has experienced terrorist attacks.
Wait, no one in the US would have known you attacked Ireland, or cared.
Unless you interrupted American Idol of course. Then we would have nuked your sorry ass, and instantly.
EDIT: Why do Brits think Americans care about Ireland again? (unless you're talking about Guinness of course). We would just be confused. "Er ... wait they're attacking themselves? I don't get it Buella, do you?"
Frazzled wrote:Wait, no one in the US would have known you attacked Ireland, or cared.
Unless you interrupted American Idol of course. Then we would have nuked your sorry ass, and instantly.
That would of been nice if that had been the case and that all Americans had your outlook Frazz However they didn't and the US did like to stick it's nose in with regard to The Troubles. I'm pretty certain that a big chuck of the terror attacks would of never happened if the SAS had been allowed full reign, all the major players would be 6ft under.
Frazzled wrote:Wait, no one in the US would have known you attacked Ireland, or cared.
Unless you interrupted American Idol of course. Then we would have nuked your sorry ass, and instantly.
That would of been nice if that had been the case and that all Americans had your outlook Frazz However they didn't and the US did like to stick it's nose in with regard to The Troubles. I'm pretty certain that a big chuck of the terror attacks would of never happened if the SAS had been allowed full reign, all the major players would be 6ft under.
The troubles? Thats not the tribbles is it? Do you and the Klingons share a common enemy?
You'll have to refresh my recollection. What was the US involvement there? I'm more focused on righteous US interventions in Latin American in pursuit of truth, justice, and queso. I've been informed there was some private clamor from Boston way, but this literally is the case of Texas is further from there than there from the UK. Edumakashion me if you would. But throw in some leprachauns and Lucky Charms (silly rabbit) or I'll lose interest...
Nicorex wrote:We were not attacking the State of Pakastan, so no declaration of war was neccisary.
Engaging in a military action within the boundaries of a sovereign state sure looks like war to me. Then again, the AUMF probably gives the President authority to engage in this sort of behavior. However, how this would fly wrt international law is different. The AUMF certainly shouldn't be read to give the president the authority to enter any country.
Nicorex wrote:Should we have gotten permision from their government? Thats hard to awnser, supposedly there are binLaden supporters in their government that probably would have tipped him off. You dont post your plans on a billboard in the town where your enemy lives do you?
You're generally correct, but there's ground between "don't tell anyone anything" and "post your plans on a billboard." Because of our actions, Pakistan has outed a local CIA official, which will mean he will be either withdrawn or probably murdered. Either one will severely crimp (at least temporarily) our ability to gather intelligence in Pakistan.
Nicorex wrote:I would think that the plan and Idea was to capture him first and kill him only if neccesary. As I understand it Leathal Force is only supposed to be used when US forces lives are in danger. If we only wanted him dead, a sniper or a drone dropped bomb would have been a better choice than a couple of helocopters full of soldiers. This was not an assaination.
The reports I have read were that we wanted to avoid drones or snipers so he could be identified. That doesn't necessarily mean that there was a kill order, but the administration has been pretty dodgy about answering that question.
Nicorex wrote:Would it have been better to wait untill he went back to some cave in the hills? US law Enforcment often captures a fugitive in his/her home.
Nope, but again, there's a difference between "wait[ing] until he went back to some cave in the hills" and acting within the bounds of the law. For one thing, Osama had reportedly never left the complex for five years.
Nicorex wrote:I havent read or seen anywhere that he was unarmed. I also havent seen or read that he was armed either.
Originally the story was that there was a firefight and Osama was killed. Then, there was no firefight. Who knows what the truth is, but one way or the other, the administration has lied about the story.
Nicorex wrote:Also I wouldnt lable binLaden a Victim. He was an Enemy Combatant. He purpusly and actively planed and initiated Violent attacks upon the the People and property of the US.
I'm certainly not going to shed any tears over his death. But the manner in which this has been handled is amaturish at best. The administration has tried so hard to make this a political gem that they're pushing information out and making themselves look foolish when elements of the story further develop or change.
There's nothing wrong with Obama trying to use this as to get a political boost (he certainly needs it), but the way he has handled it (including addressing any international law issues) has been very poor.
You want to see how a good politician handles a major capture? See here.
Frazzled wrote:Wait, no one in the US would have known you attacked Ireland, or cared.
Unless you interrupted American Idol of course. Then we would have nuked your sorry ass, and instantly.
That would of been nice if that had been the case and that all Americans had your outlook Frazz However they didn't and the US did like to stick it's nose in with regard to The Troubles. I'm pretty certain that a big chuck of the terror attacks would of never happened if the SAS had been allowed full reign, all the major players would be 6ft under.
The American people have a vested interest in Ireland. We can identify with them(seemingly), and many of us have a tenative link to the country through our heritage of Irish immigrants.
Pakistan has no such ties or history or concern for many of us. They're seen as 'one of those whatever-istans' and considered a Middle Eastern country by most of the American population.
Putting it simply: the American populace likes Ireland. The American populace by and large don't know much about or really even care about Pakistan.
Frazzled wrote:Wait, no one in the US would have known you attacked Ireland, or cared.
Unless you interrupted American Idol of course. Then we would have nuked your sorry ass, and instantly.
That would of been nice if that had been the case and that all Americans had your outlook Frazz However they didn't and the US did like to stick it's nose in with regard to The Troubles. I'm pretty certain that a big chuck of the terror attacks would of never happened if the SAS had been allowed full reign, all the major players would be 6ft under.
The American people have a vested interest in Ireland. We can identify with them(seemingly), and many of us have a tenative link to the country through our heritage of Irish immigrants.
Pakistan has no such ties or history or concern for many of us. They're seen as 'one of those whatever-istans' and considered a Middle Eastern country by most of the American population.
Putting it simply: the American populace likes Ireland. The American populace by and large don't know much about or really even care about Pakistan.
I see, it all makes sense now. Because we were the old Imperialistic enemy it was fine for some of your Irish cousins to blow us up, but bad form for us to retaliate? That would be just reinforce the image of us trying to keep the Empire going p
Slotting dirty foreigners who worship God in a different way is fine )
... BEFORE your get a strop on, let me just point out that my comments are just intended to point out why some people would be hacked why you think you can go around doing what you want. And I know the likes of Frazz will say that you can and stuff what the world thinks, which is a shame as that is the stance of a child.
Personally I don't have an issue with you slotting him, as having him in prison wouldn't be worth the trouble.
Well like I said, I think Alby jumped me on this before so I am not falling into that again, but I'm not seeing why thats not a British affair. If some dude from Boston has an issue he can freaking move. Its not America %&*^$ Yea! so its not our issue.
Frazzled wrote:Wait, no one in the US would have known you attacked Ireland, or cared.
Unless you interrupted American Idol of course. Then we would have nuked your sorry ass, and instantly.
That would of been nice if that had been the case and that all Americans had your outlook Frazz However they didn't and the US did like to stick it's nose in with regard to The Troubles. I'm pretty certain that a big chuck of the terror attacks would of never happened if the SAS had been allowed full reign, all the major players would be 6ft under.
The American people have a vested interest in Ireland. We can identify with them(seemingly), and many of us have a tenative link to the country through our heritage of Irish immigrants.
Pakistan has no such ties or history or concern for many of us. They're seen as 'one of those whatever-istans' and considered a Middle Eastern country by most of the American population.
Putting it simply: the American populace likes Ireland. The American populace by and large don't know much about or really even care about Pakistan.
I see, it all makes sense now. Because we were the old Imperialistic enemy it was fine for some of your Irish cousins to blow us up, but bad form for us to retaliate? That would be just reinforce the image of us trying to keep the Empire going p
Well that and Irish didn't really want the English there. We, as Americans, can relate pretty easily to that. Then you have instances like the "Bloody Sunday Massacre" and things like the "Birmingham Six" also did a far better job of turning the American populace off to the way the English behaved in regards to Ireland than the IRA ever could have done.
Slotting dirty foreigners who worship God in a different way is fine )
... BEFORE your get a strop on, let me just point out that my comments are just intended to point out why some people would be hacked why you think you can go around doing what you want. And I know the likes of Frazz will say that you can and stuff what the world thinks, which is a shame as that is the stance of a child.
Yeah. The problem is that Fraz isn't exactly alone in thinking like that.
But in either case, America is kind of damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we don't intervene in these conflicts--we get decried as being heartless and uncaring.
So even if we had waited and gotten Pakistan involved, hoped they don't blow things getting into position, et al--there'd still be public outcry about it.
Personally I don't have an issue with you slotting him, as having him in prison wouldn't be worth the trouble.
Having him in prison or on trial would have given him a fantastic media opportunity.
Having two in the face makes him a martyr forever to those who would have made him a martyr even if the penguins in Antarctica had managed the trial and convicted him of being the world's biggest terrorist.
1. Why is everyone mentioning me? Before I get jumped-can someone explain what I am about to get jumped about??? In the words of Han Solo "Its not my fault!"
2. Its not the US. Unless it impacts the US thats their problem, let them deal with it. I can use my First A rights if I have an issue, but other than that, push off. This is the USoffreaking A not bumf&6whereverhellhole our ancestors came from. Leave that drama there. We don't have the time, after all those reality shows are not going to watch themselves!
Frazzled wrote:1. Why is everyone mentioning me? Before I get jumped-can someone explain what I am about to get jumped about??? In the words of Han Solo "Its not my fault!"
Because, putting it as gently as I can, you're the perfect example of the "Rah rah America!" steroetype that many people outside of the US believe in.
Frazzled wrote:1. Why is everyone mentioning me? Before I get jumped-can someone explain what I am about to get jumped about??? In the words of Han Solo "Its not my fault!"
Because, putting it as gently as I can, you're the perfect example of the "Rah rah America!" steroetype that many people outside of the US believe in.
In that, take from Mr. Rah Rah America! We don't care. Sure some nattering nabobs may care, but then again they're nattering nabobs now aren't they?
dogma wrote:The argument Donlon was making is that if killing is bad, and torture is bad, why can't we torture if we can kill? The easy reply is that torture is actually worse than killing.
I would say that the even easier answer would be that we shouldn't be doing either.
I mean, if it represents a realistic chance of danger to our troops, or too great a risk of the suspect escaping, then lethal force should be used, but otherwise we need to capture people and put them through proper justice.
It's really quite incredible that there's a debate going on where people from a mainstream, apparantly respectable political party are arguing "if we do this awful thing, why can't we do this other awful thing as well."
This. It's really moronic. But that's why I only watch Fox News if I'm prepared to or looking to see something moronic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolfstan wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:Putting it simply: the American populace likes Ireland. The American populace by and large don't know much about or really even care about Pakistan.
I see, it all makes sense now. Because we were the old Imperialistic enemy it was fine for some of your Irish cousins to blow us up, but bad form for us to retaliate? That would be just reinforce the image of us trying to keep the Empire going p
Slotting dirty foreigners who worship God in a different way is fine )
... BEFORE your get a strop on, let me just point out that my comments are just intended to point out why some people would be hacked why you think you can go around doing what you want. And I know the likes of Frazz will say that you can and stuff what the world thinks, which is a shame as that is the stance of a child.
In more detail, please bear in mind that America received huge amounts of Irish immigration, and that in some parts of the country enormous percentages of us are of Irish descent. It's something we have an ancestral connection to. Also, the vast majority of those Irish immigrants tended to hate Britain (some with very good reason, as the history of the nations makes clear), which means many of us had being-on-Ireland's-side fed to us with our milk as children. Or our parents did. Or our grandparents. Or great-grandparents. Etc.
I completely agree that Americans were wrong to support the IRA, and people who gave them money were supporting terrorism. That was definitely wrong. Bear in mind, though, that it was a small number of private citizens doing that. Not our government, nor even a large percentage of our citizens.
I will also note that I find your comments about "slotting dirty foreigners", and your generalizations about us thinking it was okay for Irish to blow you up, and your idea that Fraz or people like him are representative of most of us, to be rather offensive. I'm not going to insult you in return. I'd appreciate if you'd try to keep your discourse a little more polite.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
Wolfstan wrote:Personally I don't have an issue with you slotting him, as having him in prison wouldn't be worth the trouble.
Having him in prison or on trial would have given him a fantastic media opportunity.
Having two in the face makes him a martyr forever to those who would have made him a martyr even if the penguins in Antarctica had managed the trial and convicted him of being the world's biggest terrorist.
I'm a bit confused by this. You seem to be contradicting yourself here, but maybe I'm misreading or you just explained your thinking badly. Would a trial give him a media opportunity, or did killing him make him just as much a martyr? You seem to be saying both.
I think there's room for legimate disagreement on this, although it's all speculation, of course. Personally, I think the more powerful message would have been sent by hauling him back alive and trying him as a mass murderer. We tried the Nazis at Nuremberg. We could give this scumbag the same kind of due process. I think there would be an extremely strong moral message sent about the strength of our convictions and the virtues of the Western concept of the Rule of Law if we had managed this.
I don't condemn the killing. I would definitely disagree if it was purely a kill order, not a "grab him if you can, kill him if it's too dangerous to grab him or he might get away" order. I think the lives of the Spec. Forc. guys do have value too, and their judgment on the ground in that situation has to be respected.
Frazzled wrote:1. Why is everyone mentioning me? Before I get jumped-can someone explain what I am about to get jumped about??? In the words of Han Solo "Its not my fault!"
Because, putting it as gently as I can, you're the perfect example of the "Rah rah America!" steroetype that many people outside of the US believe in.
In that, take from Mr. Rah Rah America! We don't care. Sure some nattering nabobs may care, but then again they're nattering nabobs now aren't they?
Nattering Nabob is a new one. I think I'll note it down for future reference.
"Bad Guys and Good Guys" is a completely subjective way of thinking.
There is never "good guys"...ever. People see black people who do "illegal" actions as bad guys, when they are just doing anything to survive.
I wish I still had the innocence that you posses.
To quote a great man:
Nasir bin Olu Dara Jones wrote:If you ill come get me, cause I ain't runnin'
If your gun's off the hook then we'll both be gunnin'
Come get me if you real, cause I ain't scared
It's all fair in love and war
Torture is necessary in times of war when there is the very real threat of attacks on our homeland and our people. You would think the same if you remember 9/11.
Jeffrey Atkins wrote:I should bust em
Cuz see me killin' you don't mean nothin'
I'll put you through a lifetime of sufferin' brotha'
Then you'll learn that bridges ain't made to be burned
Drug money is rightfully earned, well deserved
Some rules just think, are fit for takes
And Ja's rules make em large, that you fatefully break
Unless you wanna get spanked, with the 9 fully loaded
We can murder each other, meet at the Crossroads
And if I die tonight, in the immortal words of Pac
My brotha's gonna hunt you till you drop, believe that
Karon wrote:Torture is necessary in times of war when there is the very real threat of attacks on our homeland and our people. You would think the same if you remember 9/11.
Someone kills a child, you kill a child? Someone rapes a woman, you rape a woman?
We choose to fight against some things and people not just because they have hurt us, but because what they are doing hurts everyone, and is more-or-less objectively wrong.
Karon wrote:Torture is necessary in times of war when there is the very real threat of attacks on our homeland and our people. You would think the same if you remember 9/11.
Someone kills a child, you kill a child? Someone rapes a woman, you rape a woman?
We choose to fight against some things and people not just because they have hurt us, but because what they are doing hurts everyone, and is more-or-less objectively wrong.
To quote another great man:
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Mind breaking that article down a bit? What I got from the quick skim was that we shouldn't waterboard/torture because the people we are fighting does it too.
What would you suggest we do to get information? In war, we shoot death machines, known as firearms, at each other. Waterboarding does not kill you like these people made it a mission to do so.
Killing children and raping women? I did not say this. I said that if you attack me, I will attack you back. Al Qaeda attacked us, we attacked back...rather clumsily, but we did retaliate, and eventually took out the mastermind of the plot that caused us to enter the Middle East. Indeed, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda's only objective is to hurt everyone, and that's why we shouldn't skimp on the torture when we are fighting an enemy that has no other objective but to harm us in any way possible.
Karon wrote:"Bad Guys and Good Guys" is a completely subjective way of thinking.
There is never "good guys"...ever. People see black people who do "illegal" actions as bad guys, when they are just doing anything to survive.
So a black kid from an upper class family who steals Nikes is "doing anything to survive"? How about a black kid from a middle class family who, rather than attending college, drops out and starts selling drugs? He's "doing anything to survive", right?
Being black and committing an "illegal action" doesn't automatically mean they're "doing anything they can to survive".
Karon wrote:"Bad Guys and Good Guys" is a completely subjective way of thinking.
There is never "good guys"...ever. People see black people who do "illegal" actions as bad guys, when they are just doing anything to survive.
So a black kid from an upper class family who steals Nikes is "doing anything to survive"? How about a black kid from a middle class family who, rather than attending college, drops out and starts selling drugs? He's "doing anything to survive", right?
Being black and committing an "illegal action" doesn't automatically mean they're "doing anything they can to survive".
I was not speaking for all black people, lol. I was saying that the majority of, here, poor people who don't have any other option besides to engage in illegal actions, do it to survive.
The two examples you provided were committed by, respectively, a dumbass, and a dumbass.
Karon wrote:"Bad Guys and Good Guys" is a completely subjective way of thinking.
There is never "good guys"...ever. People see black people who do "illegal" actions as bad guys, when they are just doing anything to survive.
So a black kid from an upper class family who steals Nikes is "doing anything to survive"? How about a black kid from a middle class family who, rather than attending college, drops out and starts selling drugs? He's "doing anything to survive", right?
Being black and committing an "illegal action" doesn't automatically mean they're "doing anything they can to survive".
I was not speaking for all black people, lol. I was saying that the majority of, here, poor people who don't have any other option besides to engage in illegal actions, do it to survive.
The two examples you provided were committed by, respectively, a dumbass, and a dumbass.
To say that the majority of black people are poor who "don't have any other option besides to engage in illegal actions" is a far more offensively ignorant statement than anything the KKK could ever say.
Karon wrote:Mind breaking that article down a bit? What I got from the quick skim was that we shouldn't waterboard/torture because the people we are fighting does it too.
Karon wrote:What would you suggest we do to get information? In war, we shoot death machines, known as firearms, at each other. Waterboarding does not kill you like these people made it a mission to do so.
How about you ask experts like Nance and Herrington? Or maybe just read the articles in which they've already explained it, instead of blindly buying into the torture apologetics?
Karon wrote:Killing children and raping women? I did not say this. I said that if you attack me, I will attack you back.
No, that's not what you said. You said "you push me, I push back", as a defense of torture. Which comes across as a clear indication that if someone does something bad to you, you feel justified doing the same bad thing to them. Maybe that's not what you meant.
Karon wrote:Al Qaeda attacked us, we attacked back...rather clumsily, but we did retaliate, and eventually took out the mastermind of the plot that caused us to enter the Middle East. Indeed, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda's only objective is to hurt everyone, and that's why we shouldn't skimp on the torture when we are fighting an enemy that has no other objective but to harm us in any way possible.
I'm glad Bin Laden's dead, but I'd prefer that he were on trial first. I think it would represent an even bigger victory for civilization and justice. Killing him the way we did is acceptable, and certainly more just than letting him get away, but it's not as good IMO.
They have much bigger objectives. And by torturing people we help them achieve them. By torturing people we help convince moderate Arabs and Muslims (and others) that we are in fact as bad as Al Qaeda claims. By torturing people we help make more enemies.
Karon wrote:
Killing children and raping women? I did not say this. I said that if you attack me, I will attack you back. Al Qaeda attacked us, we attacked back...rather clumsily, but we did retaliate, and eventually took out the mastermind of the plot that caused us to enter the Middle East. Indeed, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda's only objective is to hurt everyone, and that's why we shouldn't skimp on the torture when we are fighting an enemy that has no other objective but to harm us in any way possible.
Should we also kill innocent women and children in order to inspire fear in the people living near our enemies?
biccat wrote:There have been some accounts that have indicated that some of the information used to find Bin Laden came from waterboarding. Does that mean waterboarding is an appropriate tool for getting information now?
No. The problem was never that the information couldn't be valuable, the problem was you're torturing people. It is absolutely incredible that I have to type that out.
After all, if you're using the "ends justify the means" logic (bin Laden is dead = good thing, regardless of how we got there), then waterboarding should be allowed.
The death of bin Laden also represents a major breach with a lot of international law subjects:
- military operations in a foreign country
- without that country's knowledge or consent
- without a declaration of war against that country
- targetted killing of an individual
- inside his home
- in the presence of unarmed civilians
- the victim wasn't armed
So yes, there are a lot of similarities between "torture" (waterboarding) and targetted killing of an unarmed combatant in his home, at least from an international law perspective.
Except that's absolute bs.
First up, the operation was conducted in complete accordance with international and multilateral institutions. Following the attack UN General Secretary Ban-Ki Moon said "“I am very much relieved by the news that justice has been done.” So your claim the operation was in any way illegal is utter piffle.
Your claim that it was the targetted kiling of an individual is also complete nonsense, the special rapporteurs on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin put up these requirements for the operation; "In respect of the recent use of deadly force against Osama bin Laden, the United States of America should disclose the supporting facts to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards. For instance it will be particularly important to know if the planning of the mission allowed an effort to capture Bin Laden." This condition was met, as described by Bob Woodward; "Specific orders were issued to the SEALs not to shoot the women or children unless they were clearly threatening or had weapons. (During the mission, one woman was killed and a wife of bin Laden was shot in the leg.) Bin Laden was to be captured, one official said, if he “conspicuously surrendered."
Worse, it's hypocritical bs, because you've never, ever deemed it necessary to criticise the US for any of the predator strikes it has launched.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karon wrote:Torture is necessary in times of war when there is the very real threat of attacks on our homeland and our people. You would think the same if you remember 9/11.
The British police thought the same at the height of the IRA. Subsequent reviews into what happened make for shocking, but worthwhile reading for anyone who still likes to play around with the fantasy of the necessity of torture. One comment I remember from my reading was that torture was justified on the basis of necessity, but once it become unofficially allowed it moved to being done as part of all information gathering, to being done simply for the sake of inflicting suffering. What's worse, the change in thinking didn't take years or even months, it took a matter of days.
Those words were highly prophetic in regards to the use of torture by the US. You would think the same if you remember Abu Ghraib.
sebster wrote:
First up, the operation was conducted in complete accordance with international and multilateral institutions. Following the attack UN General Secretary Ban-Ki Moon said "“I am very much relieved by the news that justice has been done.” So your claim the operation was in any way illegal is utter piffle.
The legality of the bin Laden operation is debatable, but you're correct that it is not comparable to torture. Torture is categorically illegal, the only way to defend things like waterboarding is to argue that they are not examples of torture (hence all the effort the Bush administration put into doing exactly that). The attempted arrest of someone like bin Laden, however, is very different as it can be argued that it was a war time action; which eliminates most of the legal issues.
dogma wrote:The legality of the bin Laden operation is debatable, but you're correct that it is not comparable to torture.
If it is illegal, then it's far less illegal than any of the predator drone strikes on targets within Pakistan.
Given Pakistan gave authority for operations against AQ, I'm really struggling to see the illegality. Particularly when Ban-Ki Moon said it was justice, and the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights only showed concern that there was an effort made to capture if possible* and didn't worry about the movement into Pakistan at all, I'm inclined to think it was pretty legal.
*To which the answer is more subjective, sitting somewhere between 'a purely legalistic recognition of the need to capture was recognised but the intent was always clear' and 'they would have captured him if there was absolutely no risk in doing so'.
sebster wrote:If it is illegal, then it's far less illegal than any of the predator drone strikes on targets within Pakistan.
Well, I would say that its just as illegal, and that Pakistan long ago forfeited its classical sovereignty, or at least consented to the violation of it by the US. Going farther, the question of Pakistani sovereignty could be regarded as open due to the existence of the Pakistani Taliban, and its ability to contend against the will of Islamabad; thereby violating the monopoly on legitimate force which underpins Westphalian states.
Of course, none of that matters if we all admit that sovereign states aren't what we thought they were, but the US and China don't like that one bit.
sebster wrote:
Given Pakistan gave authority for operations against AQ, I'm really struggling to see the illegality. Particularly when Ban-Ki Moon said it was justice, and the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights only showed concern that there was an effort made to capture if possible* and didn't worry about the movement into Pakistan at all, I'm inclined to think it was pretty legal.
Well I-Law is such that whatever is popular is legal, so calling this particular incident "illegal" is a bit different than saying "Punching dude X in the face is illegal."
Still, insofar as Pakistan is a sovereign government it must be said that this action was illegal by all conventional definitions. Of course, lots of people have argued that conventional sovereignty is obsolete, myself among them.
dogma wrote:Well, I would say that its just as illegal, and that Pakistan long ago forfeited its classical sovereignty, or at least consented to the violation of it by the US.
There are agreements in place for the US to operate in Pakistan, going back to 2004 or 05. If you agree to another military operating in your space, it isn't a violation. Else the US troops in South Korea would be a violation, as would every US navy ship that comes to port in Australia.
Of course, none of that matters if we all admit that sovereign states aren't what we thought they were, but the US and China don't like that one bit.
Which was always my biggest argument against Iraq. Once it becomes okay to invade a country just because we don't like what we think they might be doing, then sovereignty as an issue is dead. Fortunately that whole thing was such a balls up that sovereignty survived to fight another day...
Well I-Law is such that whatever is popular is legal, so calling this particular incident "illegal" is a bit different than saying "Punching dude X in the face is illegal."
Sure, but that only means the rightwing noise machine bleating about the operation being illegal only looks even sillier.
sebster wrote:
There are agreements in place for the US to operate in Pakistan, going back to 2004 or 05. If you agree to another military operating in your space, it isn't a violation. Else the US troops in South Korea would be a violation, as would every US navy ship that comes to port in Australia.
Its very different. For example, the US military has actually fought battles against Pakistani border guards. Then there is the whole issue of ISI/military control of the state. Its messy.
sebster wrote:
Sure, but that only means the rightwing noise machine bleating about the operation being illegal only looks even sillier.
No disagreement there.
I might not be as liberal as you, but I'm also not dumb.
dogma wrote:Its very different. For example, the US military has actually fought battles against Pakistani border guards. Then there is the whole issue of ISI/military control of the state. Its messy.
It isn't neat, especially when no formal agreement was given for the operation to get Osama, but there are agreements in place between the Pakistani government (such as it is) and the US for them to operate in Pakistani territory, and that included many operations where no direct consent was given by Pakistan.
No disagreement there.
I might not be as liberal as you, but I'm also not dumb.
sebster wrote:
Sure, but that only means the rightwing noise machine bleating about the operation being illegal only looks even sillier.
No disagreement there.
It's only illegal according to the standards established to declare the Iraq War "illegal" and waterboarding "torture" - that is the standards of international law. However, it appears to be the contention of the current administration that those laws are only applicable when politically favorable.
It's a better position to object to all international law limits on military action than to selectively enforce those that help you politically. If for no reason other than consistency.
And it appears that sebster's posts haven't gotten any better. The OT is a much better read without his periodic hate-filled rants.
dogma wrote:The argument Donlon was making is that if killing is bad, and torture is bad, why can't we torture if we can kill? The easy reply is that torture is actually worse than killing.
I would say that the even easier answer would be that we shouldn't be doing either.
I mean, if it represents a realistic chance of danger to our troops, or too great a risk of the suspect escaping, then lethal force should be used, but otherwise we need to capture people and put them through proper justice.
It's really quite incredible that there's a debate going on where people from a mainstream, apparantly respectable political party are arguing "if we do this awful thing, why can't we do this other awful thing as well."
I think Sebster summed it up here, I can't think of a more concise way in which to carry the point any further.
Bin Laden was a mass murderer and extracting him from the area was most likely close to impossible, to let him remain unmolested simply because he could not be taken in to custody alive would have been irresponsible.
As to the whole torture thing... many Americans, and people in general, are often willing to forgo personal liberty for what they believe is a return on their own security (one need look no farther than the Patriot Act, a law about as patriotic as the Democratic Republic of the Congo is democratic or republican). Having grown up in the South I understand the feelings and emotions of a lot of conservatives in the region on the issue. Many people are not terribly well informed on the issues themselves or simply don't know exactly what they are trading for their "security." As a result, they rely heavily on news organizations that appeal to their innate sense of patriotism and independence, and therefor deem these organizations to be more credible because of these factors. This is the reason why Darth Cheny and the others are able to convince good, hard working, and well meaning Americans that it is in their best interest to allow torture to take place.
Combine all this with other forms of war propaganda, and you have a perfect blend of fear and detachment to allow people to condone torture.
Mannahnin wrote:Nattering nabob is a great old person or period Victorian expression. Goes great alongside cad and bounder.
INdeed. Its best use is "nattering nabob of negativity" its old person speak for cheese eating surrender monkey.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
dogma wrote:
sebster wrote:
Sure, but that only means the rightwing noise machine bleating about the operation being illegal only looks even sillier.
No disagreement there.
It's only illegal according to the standards established to declare the Iraq War "illegal" and waterboarding "torture" - that is the standards of international law. However, it appears to be the contention of the current administration that those laws are only applicable when politically favorable.
It's a better position to object to all international law limits on military action than to selectively enforce those that help you politically. If for no reason other than consistency.
And it appears that sebster's posts haven't gotten any better. The OT is a much better read without his periodic hate-filled rants.
You know when you put on IGNORE its just a line and you can skip right past it. I find many OT threads with a flood of lines that I can choose to read or not, thus saving my blood pressure, and of course saving them from the provolone beatdown they so richly deserve.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karon wrote:"Bad Guys and Good Guys" is a completely subjective way of thinking.
There is never "good guys"...ever. People see black people who do "illegal" actions as bad guys, when they are just doing anything to survive.
I wish I still had the innocence that you posses.
To quote a great man:
Nasir bin Olu Dara Jones wrote:If you ill come get me, cause I ain't runnin'
If your gun's off the hook then we'll both be gunnin'
Come get me if you real, cause I ain't scared
It's all fair in love and war
Torture is necessary in times of war when there is the very real threat of attacks on our homeland and our people. You would think the same if you remember 9/11.
Jeffrey Atkins wrote:I should bust em
Cuz see me killin' you don't mean nothin'
I'll put you through a lifetime of sufferin' brotha'
Then you'll learn that bridges ain't made to be burned
Drug money is rightfully earned, well deserved
Some rules just think, are fit for takes
And Ja's rules make em large, that you fatefully break
Unless you wanna get spanked, with the 9 fully loaded
We can murder each other, meet at the Crossroads
And if I die tonight, in the immortal words of Pac
My brotha's gonna hunt you till you drop, believe that
You push me, I push back.
I agree with much of this, strangely enough. Clearly its time for coffee.
You know, people can be well informed, not blinded by propaganda and still believe that enhanced interrogations (again, not torture, despite what some hyper-partisans have said) provide valuable benefit and a reasonable tradeoff.
Too many liberals (especially those on this board) believe that the root of conservativism is greed, stupidity, or blind patriotism. Believe it or not, there are reasoned and rational reasons for conservative ideas.
I would love to try a role-reversal exercise with a liberal sometimes. I know that I can make a liberal argument, but I doubt that any of the liberals here could make a conservative argument. Their continued inability to even afford any conservative ideas any reasonable interpretation proves this daily.
biccat wrote:You know, people can be well informed, not blinded by propaganda and still believe that enhanced interrogations (again, not torture, despite what some hyper-partisans have said) provide valuable benefit and a reasonable tradeoff.
Too many liberals (especially those on this board) believe that the root of conservativism is greed, stupidity, or blind patriotism. Believe it or not, there are reasoned and rational reasons for conservative ideas.
I would love to try a role-reversal exercise with a liberal sometimes. I know that I can make a liberal argument, but I doubt that any of the liberals here could make a conservative argument. Their continued inability to even afford any conservative ideas any reasonable interpretation proves this daily.
Agreed. Your statement really hits the nail on the head.
biccat wrote:You know, people can be well informed, not blinded by propaganda and still believe that enhanced interrogations (again, not torture, despite what some hyper-partisans have said) provide valuable benefit and a reasonable tradeoff.
Too many liberals (especially those on this board) believe that the root of conservativism is greed, stupidity, or blind patriotism. Believe it or not, there are reasoned and rational reasons for conservative ideas.
I would love to try a role-reversal exercise with a liberal sometimes. I know that I can make a liberal argument, but I doubt that any of the liberals here could make a conservative argument. Their continued inability to even afford any conservative ideas any reasonable interpretation proves this daily.
Ok try this:
I believe that if a country messes with you, you come down hard on them. You should never back down to terrorists and have no problem with sending special forces to rescue hostages, no matter where they are. If all the terrorists get wiped out all the better. I also believe that there should be the minimum of red tape when it comes to businesses and we clamp down on immigrants who aren't paying their way or are here illegally.
However I do believe in a social warfare system and that we have a moral obligation to look after people who can't and who are vulnerable, does that count as be liberal?
biccat wrote:You know, people can be well informed, not blinded by propaganda and still believe that enhanced interrogations (again, not torture, despite what some hyper-partisans have said) provide valuable benefit and a reasonable tradeoff.
Too many liberals (especially those on this board) believe that the root of conservativism is greed, stupidity, or blind patriotism. Believe it or not, there are reasoned and rational reasons for conservative ideas.
I would love to try a role-reversal exercise with a liberal sometimes. I know that I can make a liberal argument, but I doubt that any of the liberals here could make a conservative argument. Their continued inability to even afford any conservative ideas any reasonable interpretation proves this daily.
Ok try this:
I believe that if a country messes with you, you come down hard on them. You should never back down to terrorists and have no problem with sending special forces to rescue hostages, no matter where they are. If all the terrorists get wiped out all the better. I also believe that there should be the minimum of red tape when it comes to businesses and we clamp down on immigrants who aren't paying their way or are here illegally.
However I do believe in a social warfare system and that we have a moral obligation to look after people who can't and who are vulnerable, does that count as be liberal?
Social welfare doesn't make you liberal. Its how much of a social welfare system is out there and how much ontrol the government has to tell you what to is what defines that better.
biccat wrote:You know, people can be well informed, not blinded by propaganda and still believe that enhanced interrogations (again, not torture, despite what some hyper-partisans have said) provide valuable benefit and a reasonable tradeoff.
Too many liberals (especially those on this board) believe that the root of conservativism is greed, stupidity, or blind patriotism. Believe it or not, there are reasoned and rational reasons for conservative ideas.
I would love to try a role-reversal exercise with a liberal sometimes. I know that I can make a liberal argument, but I doubt that any of the liberals here could make a conservative argument. Their continued inability to even afford any conservative ideas any reasonable interpretation proves this daily.
Ok try this:
I believe that if a country messes with you, you come down hard on them. You should never back down to terrorists and have no problem with sending special forces to rescue hostages, no matter where they are. If all the terrorists get wiped out all the better. I also believe that there should be the minimum of red tape when it comes to businesses and we clamp down on immigrants who aren't paying their way or are here illegally.
However I do believe in a social warfare system and that we have a moral obligation to look after people who can't and who are vulnerable, does that count as be liberal?
Social welfare doesn't make you liberal. Its how much of a social welfare system is out there and how much control the government has to tell you what to is what defines that better.
I have never meet a "conservative" who told me, in words or subtle inference, that not helping the elderly, disabled, or otherwise vulnerable was something they believed in or condoned. Virtually everyone wants to help these people, the disagreement comes about on how to enact the help itself. "Liberals" believe it should be done through a central government, "Conservatives" believe in private charity organizations or other such non-governmental venues on the basis that they are more resilient to political influence as well as more effective in their delivery of goods and services.
biccat wrote:
And it appears that sebster's posts haven't gotten any better. The OT is a much better read without his periodic hate-filled rants.
I laughed. Seriously.
I swear, he's the least offensive, and most levelheaded poster I've ever seen in this section of Dakka. No extreme viewpoints, no blaming the victim, and clear, logical reasoning for pretty much everything he says. He even admits it if he's wrong (if you can use aforementionec lear logical reasoning to show him why).
biccat wrote:
And it appears that sebster's posts haven't gotten any better. The OT is a much better read without his periodic hate-filled rants.
I laughed. Seriously.
I swear, he's the least offensive, and most levelheaded poster I've ever seen in this section of Dakka. No extreme viewpoints, no blaming the victim, and clear, logical reasoning for pretty much everything he says. He even admits it if he's wrong (if you can use aforementionec lear logical reasoning to show him why).
biccat wrote:You know, people can be well informed, not blinded by propaganda and still believe that enhanced interrogations (again, not torture, despite what some hyper-partisans have said) provide valuable benefit and a reasonable tradeoff.
Too many liberals (especially those on this board) believe that the root of conservativism is greed, stupidity, or blind patriotism. Believe it or not, there are reasoned and rational reasons for conservative ideas.
I would love to try a role-reversal exercise with a liberal sometimes. I know that I can make a liberal argument, but I doubt that any of the liberals here could make a conservative argument. Their continued inability to even afford any conservative ideas any reasonable interpretation proves this daily.
Ok try this:
I believe that if a country messes with you, you come down hard on them. You should never back down to terrorists and have no problem with sending special forces to rescue hostages, no matter where they are. If all the terrorists get wiped out all the better. I also believe that there should be the minimum of red tape when it comes to businesses and we clamp down on immigrants who aren't paying their way or are here illegally.
However I do believe in a social warfare system and that we have a moral obligation to look after people who can't and who are vulnerable, does that count as be liberal?
Social welfare doesn't make you liberal. Its how much of a social welfare system is out there and how much control the government has to tell you what to is what defines that better.
I have never meet a "conservative" who told me, in words or subtle inference, that not helping the elderly, disabled, or otherwise vulnerable was something they believed in or condoned. Virtually everyone wants to help these people, the disagreement comes about on how to enact the help itself. "Liberals" believe it should be done through a central government, "Conservatives" believe in private charity organizations or other such non-governmental venues on the basis that they are more resilient to political influence as well as more effective in their delivery of goods and services.
Ok count me a as a Liberal then as I do think that Government does need to watch over us a lot of the time, for our own good. I have no faith in the general public looking after itself, so some control is needed. It needs to be balanced, but it is needed.
Take smoking for example. It took a government for it to be kept out of public places. You want to smoke, fine, go ahead your choice. However I have no wish to inhale your smoke. Not rocket science, but it took a ban for it to be controlled. A lot of the time the general public has an attitude of "it won't happen to me", then 20 years down the line, it does and then they whine about it.
Karon wrote:
Torture is necessary in times of war when there is the very real threat of attacks on our homeland and our people. You would think the same if you remember 9/11.
I remember 9/11.
I went to Afghanistan right after, twice.
And Iraq, I went there twice too.
I suspect you have never tortured a man before.
Most soldiers serving in elite regiments Ive spoken to are against torture, some aren't of course as its a complex subject and each to their own, but whether for or against, I have never heard anyone speak about it as easily and merrily as you seem to. People that have seen enemy combatants eye to eye are under no illusions as to what is required when torturing another human being, Its only chickenhawks like Bill O who seem to think its all just a big game.
I dont support torture, I like to feel as if we do at least our best to play by the rules, and rather than surrender to my hatred (Its there alright) accept the fact that the people above my pay scale seem to think that its use is overrated anyway.
biccat wrote:You know, people can be well informed, not blinded by propaganda and still believe that enhanced interrogations (again, not torture, despite what some hyper-partisans have said) provide valuable benefit and a reasonable tradeoff.
Too many liberals (especially those on this board) believe that the root of conservativism is greed, stupidity, or blind patriotism. Believe it or not, there are reasoned and rational reasons for conservative ideas.
I would love to try a role-reversal exercise with a liberal sometimes. I know that I can make a liberal argument, but I doubt that any of the liberals here could make a conservative argument. Their continued inability to even afford any conservative ideas any reasonable interpretation proves this daily.
Ok try this:
I believe that if a country messes with you, you come down hard on them. You should never back down to terrorists and have no problem with sending special forces to rescue hostages, no matter where they are. If all the terrorists get wiped out all the better. I also believe that there should be the minimum of red tape when it comes to businesses and we clamp down on immigrants who aren't paying their way or are here illegally.
However I do believe in a social warfare system and that we have a moral obligation to look after people who can't and who are vulnerable, does that count as be liberal?
Social welfare doesn't make you liberal. Its how much of a social welfare system is out there and how much control the government has to tell you what to is what defines that better.
I have never meet a "conservative" who told me, in words or subtle inference, that not helping the elderly, disabled, or otherwise vulnerable was something they believed in or condoned. Virtually everyone wants to help these people, the disagreement comes about on how to enact the help itself. "Liberals" believe it should be done through a central government, "Conservatives" believe in private charity organizations or other such non-governmental venues on the basis that they are more resilient to political influence as well as more effective in their delivery of goods and services.
Ok count me a as a Liberal then as I do think that Government does need to watch over us a lot of the time, for our own good. I have no faith in the general public looking after itself, so some control is needed. It needs to be balanced, but it is needed.
Take smoking for example. It took a government for it to be kept out of public places. You want to smoke, fine, go ahead your choice. However I have no wish to inhale your smoke. Not rocket science, but it took a ban for it to be controlled. A lot of the time the general public has an attitude of "it won't happen to me", then 20 years down the line, it does and then they whine about it.
You see though, based on the example you just gave, I could not call that viewpoint to be especially liberal. In the example that you just cited you are showing a case in which the government has stepped in to protect a right. It is the opinion of many conservative libertarians and conservatives that the primary function of government is to protect rights and liberties. You have a right to to live and operate in an area that is not filled with dangerous and life threatening chemicals, therefor the government should act on your behalf.
An example of government acting in a way it shouldn't is perhaps... and this is a big one.... medical care. By moving in and acting as the medium between people and their health care providers governments unknowingly create monopolies and increase prices. Medicare here in the U.S. is a great example of this. We can all agree that it is nice to help out the elderly, whose wages are often limited, when it comes to buying their prescription drugs. Unfortunately, when you have an agency that steps forth and says "we will cover all the costs, no matter what" suddenly the Big-Pharma companies realize they can jack up the prices to the highest they possibly can. This creates two problems: A. It makes the cost of Medicare very burdensome on the tax payer and B. it makes it so the elderly are totally dependent upon medicare, whereas before they could afford most drugs as a result of open market competition between drug manufacturers, now they cannot because of a government endorsed monopoly. It is for this reason that Big-Pharma is one of the biggest supporters and pushers of Medicare and the new "Obama-Care."
biccat wrote:And it appears that sebster's posts haven't gotten any better. The OT is a much better read without his periodic hate-filled rants.
This is as tragic as it is amusing. First Jon Stewart is embarassing himself rather than John Kyl, and now sebster engages in "hate-filled rants."
If I took things here personally enough to want to permanently discredit everything political that you post, I'd just need to sig those two statements.
biccat wrote:You know, people can be well informed, not blinded by propaganda and still believe that enhanced interrogations (again, not torture, despite what some hyper-partisans have said) provide valuable benefit and a reasonable tradeoff.
Malcolm Nance and Stu Herrington are hyper-partisans? Huh, that's funny. I thought they were a decorated SERE instructor and an Army interrogator with decades of experience. But what does Nance know? He's only a guy who's waterboarded people. Let me give you those links again.
• A wounded North Vietnamese Army sergeant, captured only after he exhausted his ammunition, brags that his Army is "liberating" the South and refuses to cooperate under harsh treatment by South Vietnamese interrogators. He then provides Americans with information about his unit, its missions, its infiltration route. He even assists in interrogating other prisoners. Granted amnesty, he serves in the South Vietnamese Army for the duration of the war.
• A captured Panamanian staff officer, morose and angry, initially lies and stonewalls his American interrogator but ultimately reveals his role in his leader's shadowy contacts with North Korea, Cuba, Libya and the Palestine Liberation Organization. He provides information about covert arms purchases and a desperate attempt to procure SAM missiles to shoot down American helicopters in the event of an American invasion.
• An Iraqi general, captured and humiliated during Operation Desert Storm, is initially frightened and defiant but eventually cooperates, knowing that Saddam Hussein's penalty for treason was certain death. Before repatriation, the general hands his captor his prayer beads and a scrap of paper bearing an address, saying with emotion, "Our Islamic custom requires that we show gratitude to those who bestow kindness and mercy. These beads comforted me through your Air Force's fierce bombings for 39 days, but they are all I have. When Saddam is gone, please come to my home. You will be an honored guest and we will slaughter a lamb to welcome you."
Answer: All three were treated by their American captors with dignity and respect. No torture; no mistreatment.
-- Stuart Herrington
biccat wrote:Too many liberals (especially those on this board) believe that the root of conservativism is greed, stupidity, or blind patriotism. Believe it or not, there are reasoned and rational reasons for conservative ideas.
I grew up a Libertarian conservative, in a family where my parents ran for Congress and Governor as members of that party. I'm no stranger to conservative values and have a great deal of respect for classic conservative ideas.
The tragedy of modern conservatism is most apparent to me in two areas. One, that one of its more powerful current incarnations, Neo-Conservatism, abandons traditional conservative values of fiscal responsibility and keeping our own house in order in favor of unchecked greed and foreign adventurism. Two, that it co-opts and cynically manipulates people's religious beliefs and values to create and take political advantage of wedge issues which oppress and harm vulnerable groups in our society (including poor women and gay people) to motivate voters on social issues which are antithetical to traditional conservative ideals of freedom and equality.
Mannahnin wrote:The tragedy of modern conservatism is most apparent to me in two areas. One, that one of its more powerful current incarnations, Neo-Conservatism, abandons traditional conservative values of fiscal responsibility and keeping our own house in order in favor of unchecked greed and foreign adventurism. Two, that it co-opts and cynically manipulates people's religious beliefs and values to create and take political advantage of wedge issues which oppress and harm vulnerable groups in our society (including poor women and gay people) to motivate voters on social issues which are antithetical to traditional conservative ideals of freedom and equality.
it makes it hard to believe that you're serious when you say this:
Mannahnin wrote:I grew up a Libertarian conservative, in a family where my parents ran for Congress and Governor as members of that party. I'm no stranger to conservative values and have a great deal of respect for classic conservative ideas.
You obviously have no respect for conservative ideas, and don't appear to even give them weight as respectful disagreement. I am pretty sure if I started calling all liberals closet communists who only aspire to enslave the poor to maintain their power base, I would be (rightly) banned from this board. Yet somehow refusing to accept that there's any legitimacy to conservative ideas (they're based on unchecked greed and foreign adventurism, and cynically manipulate peoples' religious beliefs to take political advantage of wedge issues that oppress and harm) is not similarly mocked and derieded.
If you're not willing to accept opposition to your political views can be based on rational disagreement, then it's not worth discussing political issues with you. This is the problem with modern liberalism. It promises a free and open democracy, but anyone deviating from the party line is punished.
Your recurrent and persistent habit of misrepresenting what other people have written, and responding based on this false pretense, is commonly known as a Strawman, and/or Trolling. I am, to this point, uncertain whether you are doing it deliberately or if it is representative of some kind of psychological blind spot/involuntary behavior.
The problem with modern political debate is that people too-infrequently engage honestly with other people's real positions, and are encouraged to fight by our media culture and the failings of our news organizations.
I don't condemn or slam conservatism. I specifically condemn and disagree with the perversions of conservatism which have largely (but not entirely) taken over the Republican party. There's a difference there.
Mannahnin wrote:Your recurrent and persistent habit of misrepresenting what other people have written, and responding based on this false pretense, is commonly known as a Strawman, and/or Trolling.
I am, to this point, uncertain whether you are doing it deliberately or if it is representative of some kind of psychological blind spot/involuntary behavior.
Biccat's 'arguments' make much more sense once you put him on Ignore.
Mannahnin wrote:Your recurrent and persistent habit of misrepresenting what other people have written, and responding based on this false pretense, is commonly known as a Strawman, and/or Trolling. I am, to this point, uncertain whether you are doing it deliberately or if it is representative of some kind of psychological blind spot/involuntary behavior.
You wrote that modern conservativism "co-opts and cynically manipulates people's religious beliefs and values to create and take political advantage of wedge issues which oppress and harm vulnerable groups in our society (including poor women and gay people) to motivate voters on social issues which are antithetical to traditional conservative ideals of freedom and equality."
This is a completely absurd statemenet, because modern conservativism does not do any such thing. If you think this is the basis for modern conservativism, then you obviously aren't listening to the arguments that are made in support of modern conservative ideas.
I fail to see how calling you out on your inflamatory statements is "trolling" or misreading your posts.
If I have not addressed an unwritten portion of your post, then the failure is on your end, not mine.
Mannahnin wrote:I don't condemn or slam conservatism. I specifically condemn and disagree with the perversions of conservatism which have largely (but not entirely) taken over the Republican party. There's a difference there.
Only to you Manny. The fact you think perversions of conservatism have taken over the Republican party is kind of an indictment of your position.
"I specifically condemn and disagree with perversions of liberalism which have largely but not entirely taken over the Democratic Party." That sounds as extreme as it looks.
Mannahnin wrote:Your recurrent and persistent habit of misrepresenting what other people have written, and responding based on this false pretense, is commonly known as a Strawman, and/or Trolling. I am, to this point, uncertain whether you are doing it deliberately or if it is representative of some kind of psychological blind spot/involuntary behavior.
You wrote that modern conservativism "co-opts and cynically manipulates people's religious beliefs and values to create and take political advantage of wedge issues which oppress and harm vulnerable groups in our society (including poor women and gay people) to motivate voters on social issues which are antithetical to traditional conservative ideals of freedom and equality."
This is a completely absurd statemenet, because modern conservativism does not do any such thing. If you think this is the basis for modern conservativism, then you obviously aren't listening to the arguments that are made in support of modern conservative ideas.
Perhaps I'm wrong to associate and equate modern conservatism with the Republican party. I don't mean all of modern conservative thought, I mean the people and ideas which dominate the party which purports to represent conservatism, and which is supported and voted for by most self-identified conservatives I speak with.
These are observable behaviors of that party, in my opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:I don't condemn or slam conservatism. I specifically condemn and disagree with the perversions of conservatism which have largely (but not entirely) taken over the Republican party. There's a difference there.
Only to you Manny. The fact you think perversions of conservatism have taken over the Republican party is kind of an indictment of your position.
"I specifically condemn and disagree with perversions of liberalism which have largely but not entirely taken over the Democratic Party." That sounds as extreme as it looks.
I won't condemn you for saying it. I'll ask you to give specific examples of immoral and harmful behaviors of the Democratic party which are antithetical to the ideas of Liberalism. And I may well agree with you.
Here's one to start us off: Continuing and supporting crap like the Patriot Act, and other executive-branch-sanctioned violations of civil and constititional freedoms. Obama and the Democrats have deeply disappointed me in their promulgation of such terrible and un-American policies.
Mannahnin wrote:Perhaps I'm wrong to associate and equate modern conservatism with the Republican party. I don't mean all of modern conservative thought, I mean the people and ideas which dominate the party which purports to represent conservatism, and which is supported and voted for by most self-identified conservatives I speak with.
These are observable behaviors of that party, in my opinion.
The issue isn't that you are conflating Republicans and Conservatives, it's your refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of opposition.
Why do people vote Republican? According to your post it's because they're "cynically manipulated" and "take[n] advantage of" by (either Republicans or Conservatives).
How about: "They have different values than me and view history different."
Or maybe, why do NeoConservatives approach issues differently? According to your post, it is because of "unchecked greed and foreign adventurism." Did you ever stop to think that maybe it's about something other than being greedy and evil (and sometimes stupid)?
Just because it doesn't fit the Narrative doesn't mean it's wrong.
Mannahnin wrote:I don't condemn or slam conservatism. I specifically condemn and disagree with the perversions of conservatism which have largely (but not entirely) taken over the Republican party. There's a difference there.
Only to you Manny. The fact you think perversions of conservatism have taken over the Republican party is kind of an indictment of your position.
"I specifically condemn and disagree with perversions of liberalism which have largely but not entirely taken over the Democratic Party." That sounds as extreme as it looks.
I won't condemn you for saying it. I'll ask you to give specific examples of immoral and harmful behaviors of the Democratic party which are antithetical to the ideas of Liberalism. And I may well agree with you.
Here's one to start us off: Continuing and supporting crap like the Patriot Act, and other executive-branch-sanctioned violations of civil and constititional freedoms. Obama and the Democrats have deeply disappointed me in their promulgation of such terrible and un-American policies.
Well you've got me there. I don't support said statement so I can't support the argument and don't particularly want to go there. But it reveals a very heavy bias and supports Biccat's point. Its hard to discuss something when someone comes from that position or at least posts like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yad wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Your recurrent and persistent habit of misrepresenting what other people have written, and responding based on this false pretense, is commonly known as a Strawman, and/or Trolling.
I am, to this point, uncertain whether you are doing it deliberately or if it is representative of some kind of psychological blind spot/involuntary behavior.
Biccat's 'arguments' make much more sense once you put him on Ignore.
-Yad
And that is indeed a workable option. Heck you might even have me on ignore in which case
Mannahnin wrote:I don't condemn or slam conservatism. I specifically condemn and disagree with the perversions of conservatism which have largely (but not entirely) taken over the Republican party. There's a difference there.
Only to you Manny. The fact you think perversions of conservatism have taken over the Republican party is kind of an indictment of your position.
"I specifically condemn and disagree with perversions of liberalism which have largely but not entirely taken over the Democratic Party." That sounds as extreme as it looks.
I won't condemn you for saying it. I'll ask you to give specific examples of immoral and harmful behaviors of the Democratic party which are antithetical to the ideas of Liberalism. And I may well agree with you.
Here's one to start us off: Continuing and supporting crap like the Patriot Act, and other executive-branch-sanctioned violations of civil and constititional freedoms. Obama and the Democrats have deeply disappointed me in their promulgation of such terrible and un-American policies.
Well you've got me there. I don't support said statement so I can't support the argument and don't particularly want to go there. But it reveals a very heavy bias and supports Biccat's point. Its hard to discuss something when someone comes from that position or at least posts like that.
You don't support breaches of privacy, of freedom of speech, and of habeus corpus, or you do?
Are there any other specific behaviors of the Democratic party; specific observable political strategies or acts which its members and supporters engage in, which you find to be objectionable and/or immoral, and contrary to the principles of Liberalism and democracy? I'd be happy to hear them (although we might want to take them to another thread), and may well agree with you. I'm not a Democrat. When I support the Democrats it is as the lesser of two weevils (tip of the hat to Patrick O'Brien). They do all kinds of stuff I disagree with. I just find that they generally do fewer objectionable things than the Republicans.
Everyone has a bias. I have some firmly-held beliefs about right and wrong, liberty and equality, truth and justice, and I write sometimes in strong and judgmental terms when I see those principles being violated. A long time ago I got sick of seeing self-proclaimed conservatives and moralists arrogate to themselves the voice of the morally-superior, or the "Moral Majority". I believe it's entirely fair and legitimate to make moral judgments about the policies and actions of any poltical orientation.
Bringing it back to the subject of this thread, torture is a particularly ironic issue in that regard.
Mannahnin wrote:I don't condemn or slam conservatism. I specifically condemn and disagree with the perversions of conservatism which have largely (but not entirely) taken over the Republican party. There's a difference there.
Only to you Manny. The fact you think perversions of conservatism have taken over the Republican party is kind of an indictment of your position.
"I specifically condemn and disagree with perversions of liberalism which have largely but not entirely taken over the Democratic Party." That sounds as extreme as it looks.
I won't condemn you for saying it. I'll ask you to give specific examples of immoral and harmful behaviors of the Democratic party which are antithetical to the ideas of Liberalism. And I may well agree with you.
Here's one to start us off: Continuing and supporting crap like the Patriot Act, and other executive-branch-sanctioned violations of civil and constititional freedoms. Obama and the Democrats have deeply disappointed me in their promulgation of such terrible and un-American policies.
Well you've got me there. I don't support said statement so I can't support the argument and don't particularly want to go there. But it reveals a very heavy bias and supports Biccat's point. Its hard to discuss something when someone comes from that position or at least posts like that.
You don't support breaches of privacy, of freedom of speech, and of habeus corpus, or you do?
Are there any other specific behaviors of the Democratic party; specific observable political strategies or acts which its members and supporters engage in, which you find to be objectionable and/or immoral, and contrary to the principles of Liberalism and democracy? I'd be happy to hear them (although we might want to take them to another thread), and may well agree with you. I'm not a Democrat. When I support the Democrats it is as the lesser of two weevils (tip of the hat to Patrick O'Brien). They do all kinds of stuff I disagree with. I just find that they generally do fewer objectionable things than the Republicans.
Everyone has a bias. I have some firmly-held beliefs about right and wrong, liberty and equality, truth and justice, and I write sometimes in strong and judgmental terms when I see those principles being violated. A long time ago I got sick of seeing self-proclaimed conservatives and moralists arrogate to themselves the voice of the morally-superior, or the "Moral Majority". I believe it's entirely fair and legitimate to make moral judgments about the policies and actions of any poltical orientation.
Bringing it back to the subject of this thread, torture is a particularly ironic issue in that regard.
What? I said I don't support the underlying premise so I am not going to argue for it. But if you're coming from that premise in the other direction then there really isn't room for polite discussion.
Mannahnin wrote:Perhaps I'm wrong to associate and equate modern conservatism with the Republican party. I don't mean all of modern conservative thought, I mean the people and ideas which dominate the party which purports to represent conservatism, and which is supported and voted for by most self-identified conservatives I speak with.
These are observable behaviors of that party, in my opinion.
The issue isn't that you are conflating Republicans and Conservatives, it's your refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of opposition.
Why do people vote Republican? According to your post it's because they're "cynically manipulated" and "take[n] advantage of" by (either Republicans or Conservatives).
How about: "They have different values than me and view history different."
Or maybe, why do NeoConservatives approach issues differently? According to your post, it is because of "unchecked greed and foreign adventurism." Did you ever stop to think that maybe it's about something other than being greedy and evil (and sometimes stupid)?
I'm basing my judgments on specific actions and decisions. I don't refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of opposition in general. I refuse to grant legitimacy to specific illigitimate and false arguments, and immoral and harmful policies.
I'm certain that many people vote Republican out a loyalty to old, classical conservative values which said voters believe the Republicans still represent better than the Democrats do. That's a legitimate reason, even if I disagree with it. I know just as clearly that many people vote Republican (for example) at least in part because they are prejudiced against homosexuals, and the Republicans are usually the guys standing up for not giving homosexuals the same rights as you and me. Karl Rove and everyone cooperating with him cynically manipulated the electorate in 2004 when they got a crapload of anti-gay-marriage laws on ballots around the country right when they needed those people in the polls to support Bush over Kerry.
I judge Republicans harshly not for supporting small government and fiscal responsibility. I judge them harshly when they claim to support small government while presiding over large expansions thereof (see 2000-2006), and continuing to irresponsibly slash taxes while supporting multiple wars. These are actions both harmful to our nation and contrary to the traditional conservative policies to which they are giving lip service.
By foreign adventurism I refer to Iraq, primarily. A country which had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, but which the administration wanted to go to war with for dubious reasons, and manipulated the American public into supporting by misrepresenting and cherry-picking intelligence, and waging a media campaign to stoke fear and aggression towards Iraq. The Iraq war was one of choice, not of necessity. War of choice is one of the greatest evils mankind can perpetrate. And in the process we've wasted not only the money one would think a conservative would be responsible with, not only the lives of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, but the lives of too many of our own people and our allies' people. That's immoral, as well as being contrary to traditional conservative policies and ideals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Here's one to start us off: Continuing and supporting crap like the Patriot Act, and other executive-branch-sanctioned violations of civil and constititional freedoms. Obama and the Democrats have deeply disappointed me in their promulgation of such terrible and un-American policies.
Well you've got me there. I don't support said statement so I can't support the argument and don't particularly want to go there. But it reveals a very heavy bias and supports Biccat's point. Its hard to discuss something when someone comes from that position or at least posts like that.
You don't support breaches of privacy, of freedom of speech, and of habeus corpus, or you do?
Are there any other specific behaviors of the Democratic party; specific observable political strategies or acts which its members and supporters engage in, which you find to be objectionable and/or immoral, and contrary to the principles of Liberalism and democracy? I'd be happy to hear them (although we might want to take them to another thread), and may well agree with you. I'm not a Democrat. When I support the Democrats it is as the lesser of two weevils (tip of the hat to Patrick O'Brien). They do all kinds of stuff I disagree with. I just find that they generally do fewer objectionable things than the Republicans.
Everyone has a bias. I have some firmly-held beliefs about right and wrong, liberty and equality, truth and justice, and I write sometimes in strong and judgmental terms when I see those principles being violated. A long time ago I got sick of seeing self-proclaimed conservatives and moralists arrogate to themselves the voice of the morally-superior, or the "Moral Majority". I believe it's entirely fair and legitimate to make moral judgments about the policies and actions of any poltical orientation.
Bringing it back to the subject of this thread, torture is a particularly ironic issue in that regard.
What? I said I don't support the underlying premise so I am not going to argue for it. But if you're coming from that premise in the other direction then there really isn't room for polite discussion.
I don't follow. What premise are you disagreeing with?
Mannahnin wrote:I know just as clearly that many people vote Republican (for example) at least in part because they are prejudiced against homosexuals, and the Republicans are usually the guys standing up for not giving homosexuals the same rights as you and me.
Not all opposition to gay marriage is rooted in prejudice against homosexuals. By assuming so you're denying the legitimacy of opposition.
Mannahnin wrote:Karl Rove and everyone cooperating with him cynically manipulated the electorate in 2004 when they got a crapload of anti-gay-marriage laws on ballots around the country right when they needed those people in the polls to support Bush over Kerry.
How is it "cynical manipulation" to give the electorate what they wanted? And again, you're suggesting that the only reason people voted for Bush was because he was anti-gay marriage (or a bigot like them). People legitimately believed that John Kerry was a bad choice for President.
Mannahnin wrote:These are actions both harmful to our nation and contrary to the traditional conservative policies to which they are giving lip service.
Again, not giving the other side legitimacy. You've already decided that the actions were harmful. Do you oppose Obamacare, a much larger expansion of federal power, because it is harmful to the nation?
Mannahnin wrote:By foreign adventurism I refer to Iraq, primarily. A country which had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, but which the administration wanted to go to war with for dubious reasons, and manipulated the American public into supporting by misrepresenting and cherry-picking intelligence, and waging a media campaign to stoke fear and aggression towards Iraq. The Iraq war was one of choice, not of necessity. War of choice is one of the greatest evils mankind can perpetrate.
The association of Iraq and 9/11 is a modern left-wing fairy tale. Both Bush and Cheney denied that there was any connection to 9/11. However, Iraq was part of a broader war against terror and those countries who support and arm terrorists. There were legitimate national interests in Iraq and the intelligence available at the time supported those interests.
You're not affording rational disagreement to your opponents. See, I think that liberals (US liberals) are wrong on a lot of things. And they are dangerously wrong on the rest. But I don't think that they do it out of a deliberate intention to harm this country (although they may be intentionally ignorant of the consequences of their actions).
I acknowledge that they have rational reasons for supporting policies like nationalized health care and affirmative action. They just don't realize that these are bad ideas and, more importantly, don't actually accomplish their stated goals.
Well it does mention 9/11 so Manny is technically accurate.
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility
for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests,
including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are
known to be in Iraq;
However it also mentions a dozen other reasons, primarily weapons of mass instruction. Five single spaced pages worth of reasons.
So Biccat is also right. I'm not seeing the three strikes point.
Mannahnin wrote:I know just as clearly that many people vote Republican (for example) at least in part because they are prejudiced against homosexuals, and the Republicans are usually the guys standing up for not giving homosexuals the same rights as you and me.
Not all opposition to gay marriage is rooted in prejudice against homosexuals. By assuming so you're denying the legitimacy of opposition.
Yes, it is. I am denying the legitimacy of the claim that homosexuals getting married is in any way harmful. I am denying the legitimacy of the idea that they do not deserve the same legal protections and rights that heterosexuals enjoy. No assumptions involved. It's an opinion based on research and years of evidence and consideration. It should be pretty self-evident, but I did spend some time looking at other possible rationales people might have, and whether there might be any real merit to them.
Biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Karl Rove and everyone cooperating with him cynically manipulated the electorate in 2004 when they got a crapload of anti-gay-marriage laws on ballots around the country right when they needed those people in the polls to support Bush over Kerry.
How is it "cynical manipulation" to give the electorate what they wanted?
Do you feel the same was about the Segregationists? Do you just defend the homophobic bigots, or do you feel the same way about the racists?
Biccat wrote:And again, you're suggesting that the only reason people voted for Bush was because he was anti-gay marriage (or a bigot like them). People legitimately believed that John Kerry was a bad choice for President.
Not at all! Kerry was a long way from my first choice. I preferred him to Bush, but that's not saying much. Some people certainly had legitimate reasons for believing he was a bad choice. Others had totally illigitimate reasons, like buying the entire Swift Boat smear campaign, or being afraid of and hating gay people.
Biccat wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:These are actions both harmful to our nation and contrary to the traditional conservative policies to which they are giving lip service.
Again, not giving the other side legitimacy. You've already decided that the actions were harmful. Do you oppose Obamacare, a much larger expansion of federal power, because it is harmful to the nation?
This nebulous "other side" you're referring to seems to conflate both real conservatives who I sometimes disagree with, and neo-conservatives whom I almost always disagree.
Slashing taxes while waging multiple wars is manifestly harmful to our nation. Expanding the government while supporting small government is inarguably hypocritical, but debateably harmful. It depends on the nature of the expansion. I think some of the expansions were bad, some acceptable, some good. Health Care Reform is an expansion of government, with which I agree as I'm personally more on the Liberal/socialist side of the aisle, even if I don't agree with them on everything. On the subject of universal and non-profit healthcare, I'm with the Canadians, Brits, and Germans. It's too important to make secondary to the profit motive. In this I class it with National Security, Police, Fire Departments, and Highways; important things most conservatives don't seem to mind having socialized.
Well it does mention 9/11 so Manny is technically accurate.
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility
for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests,
including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are
known to be in Iraq;
However it also mentions a dozen other reasons, primarily weapons of mass instruction. Five single spaced pages worth of reasons.
So Biccat is also right. I'm not seeing the three strikes point.
Biccat is not in any sense right on this.
There was a deliberate campaign to gather as much intelligence as possible to support a war with Iraq, for reasons which had very little to do with terrorism. Bush started in on it right when 9/11 happened, despite Richard Clarke and others telling him that there was no evidence to support Iraqi involvement. He asked for such evidence and formed an intelligence office specifically to find it. Condi went on TV telling us that we didn't want evidence to show up in the form of "a mushroom cloud", threatening us with a totally fallacious prospect that Iraq was anywhere near having nukes themselves, much less wanting to, much less actually giving them to Al Qaeda. Bush's people put the claim about Saddam trying to buy yellow cake from Niger back into one of his major pre-war speeches despite being told by the CIA that it was extremely dubious and unsubstantiated (and did turn out to be false). Powell went before the UN, against his own beliefs, to sell the war to the world, and largely succeeding in doing so on false pretences. Not all of our allies bought it, but sadly some (we love you too, Britain) did. There was a deliberate, organized, and multi-year campaign by the Bush administration to go to war with Iraq, and to sell the American people on it despite that country representing no real threat to us, not being allied with Al Qaeda in general, and having nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 specifically.
Three strikes refers to the third statment of Biccat's I've seen which is at that particular level of absurdity, where something seems to cross over from falsehood into a whole new territory of... I don't even know if I have a word. Delusion, maybe?
biccat wrote:
It's only illegal according to the standards established to declare the Iraq War "illegal" and waterboarding "torture" - that is the standards of international law. However, it appears to be the contention of the current administration that those laws are only applicable when politically favorable.
Obviously, that's how international law works.
That being said, there are commonly accepted conventions that the United States is party to which explicitly forbid torture. This is most evident in the United Nation Convention Against Torture, which the United States has ratified, and which defines torture in a way that is inclusive of waterboarding. This is why so much effort was put into convincing people that waterboarding was not torture. Regardless of what you believe on that front, it is absolutely impossible to claim that the Convention Against Torture is no being violated via the systematic practice of waterboarding.
Seriously, if waterboarding isn't a means of inflicting pain or suffering (all that is necessary in order to qualify as torture under UNCAT), then how does it manage to induce people into divulging information? Pleasure?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
The association of Iraq and 9/11 is a modern left-wing fairy tale. Both Bush and Cheney denied that there was any connection to 9/11. However, Iraq was part of a broader war against terror and those countries who support and arm terrorists. There were legitimate national interests in Iraq and the intelligence available at the time supported those interests.
I'm fully willing to allow for the idea that there was classified intelligence which supported the invasion of Iraq, but none of what was displayed in public supported the decision. It was all incredibly old, including smoking gun images of targets that were destroyed under Clinton, or circumstantial.
I'm also not sure why you would divorce Iraq from 9/11. We would not have invaded Iraq were it not for the terrorist strike, and it was very clear that the Administration was taking advantage of the The War Against Terror (that's a wonderful acronym, by the by) in order to accomplish the neoconservative agenda of democratic peace (which has, thus far, not been vindicated).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
"I specifically condemn and disagree with perversions of liberalism which have largely but not entirely taken over the Democratic Party." That sounds as extreme as it looks.
I don't see why that is extreme, excepting the issue of discerning between perversions and legitimate developments.
There was a deliberate campaign to gather as much intelligence as possible to support a war with Iraq, for reasons which had very little to do with terrorism. Bush started in on it right when 9/11 happened, despite Richard Clarke and others telling him that there was no evidence to support Iraqi involvement. He asked for such evidence and formed an intelligence office specifically to find it. Condi went on TV telling us that we didn't want evidence to show up in the form of "a mushroom cloud", threatening us with a totally fallacious prospect that Iraq was anywhere near having nukes themselves, much less wanting to, much less actually giving them to Al Qaeda. Bush's people put the claim about Saddam trying to buy yellow cake from Niger back into one of his major pre-war speeches despite being told by the CIA that it was extremely dubious and unsubstantiated (and did turn out to be false). Powell went before the UN, against his own beliefs, to sell the war to the world, and largely succeeding in doing so on false pretences. Not all of our allies bought it, but sadly some (we love you too, Britain) did. There was a deliberate, organized, and multi-year campaign by the Bush administration to go to war with Iraq, and to sell the American people on it despite that country representing no real threat to us, not being allied with Al Qaeda in general, and having nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 specifically.
There was no way Saddam was in a position to threaten us and he wouldn't want anything to do with Bin Laden and his cronies. All he was interested was money & power in his region. As I've mentioned before, he couldn't be seen to back down to the West at any point what so ever. if he had his enemies in the region would of torn him apart. We made the mistake of not telling him he had no say over where the inspectors went, but again that goes back to losing face, so we'd of still been chasing our tails over that.
Wolfstan wrote:
There was no way Saddam was in a position to threaten us and he wouldn't want anything to do with Bin Laden and his cronies.
Exactly.
Saddam had no control over 2/3 of his country due to no-fly zones, and his secular Arabist government hardly had any common interests with respect to Al-Qaeda.
Anyway, back on topic, torture is both wrong and dumb.
The actual experts on waterboarding, like Malcolm Nance, state that it is torture, period. They know, having done it themselves and having been through it.
They also say that it's a terrible and dumb idea, for several reasons. Including encouraging other countries to do it, hindering our efforts in our real and important war to win the hearts and minds of Muslims and other real people around the world, and not reliably resulting in actionable intelligence.
Expert military interrogators like Stu Herrington advise that humane methods of interrogation are far more effective in practical terms as well as in the long run.
Recently revealed White House memos have raised the ugly question yet again: Is torturing prisoners captured in the Global War on Terrorism an effective and permissible use of our nation's might?
I served 30 years in the U.S. Army as an intelligence officer, which included extensive experience as an interrogator in Vietnam, in Panama and during the 1991 Gulf War. In the course of these sensitive missions, my teams and I collected mountains of excellent, verified information, despite the fact that we never laid a hostile hand on a prisoner. Had one of my interrogators done so, he would have been disciplined and most likely relieved of his duties.
Since my retirement, I have twice answered the Army's call, journeying to Guantanamo and Iraq to evaluate interrogation procedures. Subsequently, when the terrible tsunami of verified reports of detainee torture by American soldiers overwhelmed the dikes, the Army asked me to assist in training a new battalion of Iraq-bound Army interrogators in non-coercive interrogation techniques.
As regular readers of these pages may recall, I am a native Pittsburgher, the product of a superlative education at Mt. Lebanon High School and Duquesne University. I was commissioned through Army ROTC at Duquesne after completing a liberal arts curriculum. Fundamental concepts of right and wrong were basic building blocks of this education.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forty-plus years ago, as fall winds coursed across the Bluff, ethics professor Dr. Arthur Schrynemakers, in a voice of Dutch-accented English that still rings in my memory, declared to my freshman class that ethical principles were absolute. Right was right; wrong was wrong. When he pointed his finger at those of us in the front row and thundered that it was ethically impermissible to commit an evil act and attempt to justify it because that evil act might lead to some future good, we listened -- and some of us remembered.
Coming from this background, it has been disappointing to observe the ongoing debate about torture in interrogation, usually carried out be people who have never interrogated a soul. Nor is it easy to accept that the current debate is framed pragmatically by the question, "Does torture work or not?"
In a recent interview with NPR's Terry Gross, I told her that 10 years ago the notion we would even be having such a dialogue was unthinkable. Somehow, perhaps blinded by the horrors of 9-11 and its aftermath, or by that barrage of chilling video footage of hooded executioners snuffing out the lives of journalists, civilians and soldiers, we have lost sight of other equally relevant questions: Is torture right or wrong? Is the brutalizing of helpless prisoners a practice that will advance or harm our nation's position as it wages a just war against Islamist extremists?
One can almost hear the late Dr. Schrynemakers expound on this question. Wagging his finger, he would note that government sanctioning of mistreatment of prisoners by its intelligence officers is an essentially evil act committed in the name of self-defense, which has propelled our great country down a slippery moral slope and imperiled us further.
dogma wrote:Obviously, that's how international law works.
Well...yeah. But Obama didn't campaign on that.
dogma wrote:Seriously, if waterboarding isn't a means of inflicting pain or suffering (all that is necessary in order to qualify as torture under UNCAT), then how does it manage to induce people into divulging information? Pleasure?
I'm pretty sure that the use of bright lights, loud music, or so-called "stress-positions" (keeping someone standing or sitting) wouldn't constitute torture, and may induce people into divulging information. Heck, hard labor is a legitimate use of prisoners of war, and we don't call that torture.
dogma wrote:I'm also not sure why you would divorce Iraq from 9/11. We would not have invaded Iraq were it not for the terrorist strike, and it was very clear that the Administration was taking advantage of the The War Against Terror (that's a wonderful acronym, by the by) in order to accomplish the neoconservative agenda of democratic peace (which has, thus far, not been vindicated).
I prefer "Winning the Future."
But again, it wasn't Bush or Cheney who invented the "Iraq caused 9/11" myth. Yes, they used it as a starting point for the global war on terror, but that doesn't legitimize the claims that Bush blamed 9/11 on Saddam Hussein.
dogma wrote:Seriously, if waterboarding isn't a means of inflicting pain or suffering (all that is necessary in order to qualify as torture under UNCAT), then how does it manage to induce people into divulging information? Pleasure?
I'm pretty sure that the use of bright lights, loud music, or so-called "stress-positions" (keeping someone standing or sitting) wouldn't constitute torture, and may induce people into divulging information. Heck, hard labor is a legitimate use of prisoners of war, and we don't call that torture.
Actually, I think you'll find that Stress Positioning is classed as a form of torture, as it is clearly intended to inflict suffering due to the action of the person's muscles being forced to hold a position.
biccat wrote:
Well...yeah. But Obama didn't campaign on that.
He also didn't campaign on increasing the US respect for international law.
biccat wrote:
I'm pretty sure that the use of bright lights, loud music, or so-called "stress-positions" (keeping someone standing or sitting) wouldn't constitute torture, and may induce people into divulging information. Heck, hard labor is a legitimate use of prisoners of war, and we don't call that torture.
Under UNCAT all of that would be considered torture.
biccat wrote:
But again, it wasn't Bush or Cheney who invented the "Iraq caused 9/11" myth. Yes, they used it as a starting point for the global war on terror, but that doesn't legitimize the claims that Bush blamed 9/11 on Saddam Hussein.
There is good evidence to suggest that is exactly what was done.
When you argue that it was not possible to prove a negative (that there was no connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda) you are effectively inducing people to believe that it either was, or may have been, the case.
Karon wrote:"Bad Guys and Good Guys" is a completely subjective way of thinking.
There is never "good guys"...ever. People see black people who do "illegal" actions as bad guys, when they are just doing anything to survive.
So a black kid from an upper class family who steals Nikes is "doing anything to survive"? How about a black kid from a middle class family who, rather than attending college, drops out and starts selling drugs? He's "doing anything to survive", right?
Being black and committing an "illegal action" doesn't automatically mean they're "doing anything they can to survive".
I was not speaking for all black people, lol. I was saying that the majority of, here, poor people who don't have any other option besides to engage in illegal actions, do it to survive.
The two examples you provided were committed by, respectively, a dumbass, and a dumbass.
To say that the majority of black people are poor who "don't have any other option besides to engage in illegal actions" is a far more offensively ignorant statement than anything the KKK could ever say.
So congrats for that.
Can you read?
the majority of, here, poor people who don't have any other option besides to engage in illegal actions, do it to survive.
I didn't say black people. Statistically, however, where I live (Chicago) the majority of poor people are black. Its just how it is. I didn't say black people, I said poor people who are in bad situations for a variety of reasons.
You like twisting words, huh?
I laughed at the "what, we killed bush?" comment.
I'll get back to you Manahin(SP) on your post, don't have the time to respond ATM.
Karon wrote:
There is never "good guys"...ever. People see black people who do "illegal" actions as bad guys, when they are just doing anything to survive.
Karon wrote:I was not speaking for all black people, lol. I was saying that the majority of, here, poor people who don't have any other option besides to engage in illegal actions, do it to survive.
The first statement was an large generalization on my part, and was really citing from where I live, where it is true.
The seconds statement I explained above.
I said that poor people who do "illegal" actions, do it to survive because they don't have any other option because of their upbringing or a bad situation.
Are you reading it right, or am I not reading it right?
dogma wrote:He also didn't campaign on increasing the US respect for international law.
"Today it's become fashionable to disparage the United Nations, the World Bank, and other international organizations. In fact, reform of these bodies is urgently needed if they are to keep pace with the fast-moving threats we face. Such real reform will not come, however, by dismissing the value of these institutions, or by bullying other countries to ratify changes we have drafted in isolation. Real reform will come because we convince others that they too have a stake in change - that such reforms will make their world, and not just ours, more secure"
Barack Obama, April 23, 2007.
And, although this is post-election:
"a new era of engagement has begun and renewed respect for international law and institutions is critical if we are to resume American leadership in a new global century." Attributed to Obama by Harold Koh, March 25, 2010.
Also, in a quick search, I found this particularly hilarious: "I think what would be important would be for us to [capture Bin Laden] in a way that allows the entire world to understand the murderous acts that he's engaged in and not to make him into a martyr and to sure that the United States government is abiding by the basic conventions that would strengthen our hand in the broader battle against terrorism."
To his credit, however Obama had previously stated that he would go into Pakistan if we had intelligence that Osama was there.
dogma wrote:There is good evidence to suggest that is exactly what was done.
When you argue that it was not possible to prove a negative (that there was no connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda) you are effectively inducing people to believe that it either was, or may have been, the case.
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in September 11" - George W. Bush, Sept. 19, 2003.
Now, as I have said, the administration certainly used 9/11 to launch the GWOT, and had information that connected al-Qaeda and the Hussein (not BHO, the other one) regime. And that could have led to a false impression that there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. But as the quote above illustrates, the administration clearly recognized and articulated that there was no link.
biccat wrote:
"Today it's become fashionable to disparage the United Nations, the World Bank, and other international organizations. In fact, reform of these bodies is urgently needed if they are to keep pace with the fast-moving threats we face. Such real reform will not come, however, by dismissing the value of these institutions, or by bullying other countries to ratify changes we have drafted in isolation. Real reform will come because we convince others that they too have a stake in change - that such reforms will make their world, and not just ours, more secure"
I don't see anything about increasing US respect for international law in there. Claiming that organization X is valuable is not the same as claiming that you will do what organization X wants when it is against your articulated interests.
biccat wrote:
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in September 11" - George W. Bush, Sept. 19, 2003.
Now, as I have said, the administration certainly used 9/11 to launch the GWOT, and had information that connected al-Qaeda and the Hussein (not BHO, the other one) regime. And that could have led to a false impression that there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. But as the quote above illustrates, the administration clearly recognized and articulated that there was no link.
No, that's not what Bush said. He said that there was no evidence of a link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, which is not the same as saying that there is no connection. As I said before it wasn't a matter of stating that Iraq and 9/11 were connected, it was a matter of alluding to the fact that they might be, as illustrated by Cheney's statement that the absence of involvement had not been proven (an impossibility).
Either you didn't read what I wrote, or you didn't understand it. Given that you've displayed good intelligence in the past I'm inclined to think that you didn't actually read my words.
When the rightwing of the US continues to defend torture, then it is fair to say that the rightwing of the US does not represent conservative values, and is at best a perversion of those values.
Thing is, conservatism has a fine and proud history of good governance throughout the democratic world. The US could really benefit from a conservative government, and the genuine conservatives out there deserve to have their views represented.
But the Republican party right now and the arguments they're making simply don't have any intellectual backing in conservative thought.
And yes, waterboarding is obviously torture. Claiming otherwise is absolutely ridiculous. It was one of the three techniques authorised by the Spanish Inquisition.
Also, Bush made deliberate attempts to tie 9/11 to the need to invade Iraq. He played around with weasel words because he knew it was bs, but left the connections implied (constantly mentioning 9/11 then Iraq, and vice versa).
Both of those are debates where one side is absolutely, completely correct, and the other side is absolutely completely wrong, and are acting either dishonestly or delusionally. When people say that the modern Republican party has nothing to do with conservatism, they're talking about stuff like that.
The Spanish Inquisition's definition on torture was religious, and seeing as though we believe in separation of church and state that means we have different definitions of torture and water boarding is not one of them.
It'll all change soon I think Sebster, soon the Democrats will claim to be conservative and the Republicans will be liberal and it won't really matter until the right kind of person takes charge.
halonachos wrote:The Spanish Inquisition's definition on torture was religious, and seeing as though we believe in separation of church and state that means we have different definitions of torture and water boarding is not one of them.
That's entirely false. You, personally, might not believe that waterboarding is torture (you would still be blatantly incorrect) but the issue is, minimally, highly contentious and thus it is wrong to say that our definitions of torture do not include that particular practice. Notably, the State Department, under Bush, filed a public memo indicating that the submersion of the head in water constitutes torture. This is not waterbaording per se, but it is sufficiently close as to be indistinguishable.
Waterboarding is torture, admit it and further admit that you have no personal issue with the use of torture. There is nothing wrong with adopting such a position, but there is something wrong with hiding from it.
halonachos wrote:The Spanish Inquisition's definition on torture was religious, and seeing as though we believe in separation of church and state that means we have different definitions of torture and water boarding is not one of them.
That's entirely false. You, personally, might not believe that waterboarding is torture (you would still be blatantly incorrect) but the issue is, minimally, highly contentious and thus it is wrong to say that our definitions of torture do not include that particular practice. Notably, the State Department, under Bush, filed a public memo indicating that the submersion of the head in water constitutes torture. This is not waterbaording per se, but it is sufficiently close as to be indistinguishable.
Waterboarding is torture, admit it and further admit that you have no personal issue with the use of torture. There is nothing wrong with adopting such a position, but there is something wrong with hiding from it.
Did I forget to add the at the end of that part, my bad. I do condone torture as a necessary evil, but the whole "separation of church and state" part should've made you think "wow I hope he's being silly.".
halonachos wrote:The Spanish Inquisition's definition on torture was religious, and seeing as though we believe in separation of church and state that means we have different definitions of torture and water boarding is not one of them.
The point was that there are people who are claiming that waterboarding isn't torture. This is obviously wrong, and one way of establishing that it's obviously wrong is to point out that an organisation that is famous for the cruel and inhumane torture it put people under had waterboarding as one of its three authorised methods.
Because waterboarding is cruel and inhumane.
It'll all change soon I think Sebster, soon the Democrats will claim to be conservative and the Republicans will be liberal and it won't really matter until the right kind of person takes charge.
It doesn't matter who claims to be liberal and who claims to be conservative, as you point out that changes from time to time. What matters is that the ideas embraced by a party make sense and are useful in the real world. Right now, the Republicans as a whole do not have ideas like that.
Karon wrote:
Torture is necessary in times of war when there is the very real threat of attacks on our homeland and our people. You would think the same if you remember 9/11.
I remember 9/11.
I went to Afghanistan right after, twice.
And Iraq, I went there twice too.
I suspect you have never tortured a man before.
Most soldiers serving in elite regiments Ive spoken to are against torture, some aren't of course as its a complex subject and each to their own, but whether for or against, I have never heard anyone speak about it as easily and merrily as you seem to. People that have seen enemy combatants eye to eye are under no illusions as to what is required when torturing another human being, Its only chickenhawks like Bill O who seem to think its all just a big game.
I dont support torture, I like to feel as if we do at least our best to play by the rules, and rather than surrender to my hatred (Its there alright) accept the fact that the people above my pay scale seem to think that its use is overrated anyway.
Karon wrote:
Torture is necessary in times of war when there is the very real threat of attacks on our homeland and our people. You would think the same if you remember 9/11.
I remember 9/11.
I went to Afghanistan right after, twice.
And Iraq, I went there twice too.
I suspect you have never tortured a man before.
Most soldiers serving in elite regiments Ive spoken to are against torture, some aren't of course as its a complex subject and each to their own, but whether for or against, I have never heard anyone speak about it as easily and merrily as you seem to. People that have seen enemy combatants eye to eye are under no illusions as to what is required when torturing another human being, Its only chickenhawks like Bill O who seem to think its all just a big game.
I dont support torture, I like to feel as if we do at least our best to play by the rules, and rather than surrender to my hatred (Its there alright) accept the fact that the people above my pay scale seem to think that its use is overrated anyway.
biccat wrote:
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in September 11" - George W. Bush, Sept. 19, 2003.
No, that's not what Bush said. He said that there was no evidence of a link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, which is not the same as saying that there is no connection. As I said before it wasn't a matter of stating that Iraq and 9/11 were connected, it was a matter of alluding to the fact that they might be, as illustrated by Cheney's statement that the absence of involvement had not been proven (an impossibility).
Either you didn't read what I wrote, or you didn't understand it. Given that you've displayed good intelligence in the past I'm inclined to think that you didn't actually read my words.
This is simply an attempt to put words into the former President's mouth. He said that there was no evidence of a link, so that means that he really meant that there was a link and tried to get everyone to believe that? Sorry, but no.
During the lead up to the Iraq war there was a lot of information and misinformation being spread by the Iraqi government (and, as we later found out, vengeful former Iraqi citizens). The administration was clear that the purpose of going into Iraq wasn't to get the 9/11 hijackers, nor was it to seek "vengeance" for the attacks on 9/11. They said that they had no evidence of a link because based on the information available, there was no link.
Like I said, the administration didn't make any attempts to link Iraq to 9/11 except through the GWOT. If you think that they did, please provide evidence of your claim. Otherwise, like I said, it's a modern liberal fairy tale that Bush linked Saddam Hussein to 9/11.
Everyone in the administration put on an extended sales campaign attempting to convince the American public that Iraq represented a direct threat to us. They constantly invoked 9/11 in the same conversations, using it as emotional leverage and implying that they were connected, and that such evidence was just around the corner. That it would inevitably be found. Just as they constantly attempted to convince us that there were WMDs, despite only the sketchiest evidence to suggest any chance of them, and the consistent expert opinions (such as those of the CIA, and the weapons inspectors) that there were none.
Even when they admitted they had not found any evidence yet, they said things like Condi's infamous remark about not wanting to wait to act and have such evidence show up in "the form of a mushroom cloud."
To anyone who actually watched the news from 2001-2003 there were only two possible conclusions one could draw from the administration's statements:
1. Iraq represented a direct threat of terrorist attack on the US, in the form of WMDs- specifically nuclear or biological. They might deploy these threats themselves or by employing Al Qaeda.
2. The administration was attempting to convince us of the above theory.
Many, many Americans fell into group one. The association campaign was extremely successful. Public opinion polls showed clearly that a majority of Americans believed that Iraq and Al Qaeda were associated, and that Saddam and/or Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Fox News viewers, in particular, showed higher percentages of both of those beliefs, but not just them. The Administration successfully created the association and most Americans bought it.
Now, this isn't to say that there weren't other reasons for going in. Some rational people I frequently agree with supported it, on human rights/deposing a dictator grounds.
I'm not universally opposed to that sort of action, but I believe and believed that it was the wrong war, at the wrong time. That Iraq would result in unacceptable losses of life, and distract from the primary mission of fighting terrorism. That it would also be fundamentally counterproductive, in presenting evidence to the world (particularly moderate or nonviolent but Anti-American-leaning Muslims) of us invading a sovereign Arab nation for reasons other than terrorism. Thus aiding Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups' recruitment efforts. The deaths of tens (or hundreds, possibly) of thousands of innocent Iraqis, thousands of Americans and allied personnel, and the incalculable damage resulting to Iraq and its infrastructure seem to have demonstrated that it wasn't really a good idea. Now, I'm still hopeful for a longterm positive outcome in Iraq becoming a functional democracy where its citizens can feel safe, but I don't think invading was the best way to get there.
All that said, I'm not of the more paranoid lefty persuasion that thinks Iraq was really just for oil and for contractor profits. While Halliburton's, Blackwater's, and other contractors' profits and operating parameters are pretty obscene, both in terms of how they gouge the taxpayer and how they abuse Iraqis, I've never bought that this effect was central point of the war. More a nice side-benefit, as far as the Administration was concerned.
I think the real reasoning behind Iraq is pretty obvious and a matter of public record. A specific Neoconservative agenda of interventionism in the Middle East, both to secure oil access/pricing, and to attempt to spread Democracy and American hegemony. There are other factors tied into this, of course. Bush having a personal dislike for Saddam and probably a desire to "finish what his father started", for example. As well as he and Rove having a clear conviction that being a wartime president of a successful war would represent a permanent political legacy, ensure reelection in 2004 and give a massive bump to the political futures of everyone involved.
Undoubtedly much of the decisionmaking surrounding the war, the leadup to it, the preparation, and the execution, was made in sincere ignorance. Chickenhawks like Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, Bush and Rove, who had no direct experience of war and thought it would be easy. Thought we would need far fewer men, far less money, and far less time to execute it than would actually be the case. These are the guys who thought (or claimed) that the war would be paying for itself in oil in less than a year. The guys who felt okay putting "Mission Accomplished" on an aircraft carrier a couple of months in. Experienced hands like Cheney (who knew, and made clear public statements after Desert Storm that Iraq would be a quagmire) and especially Powell, knew better. But either chose not to say so or allowed themselves to be overruled and kept working for the war-bent Administration.
Either way, for a combination of noble and ignoble motives, informed and based on ignorance and dire misconceptions, we went to war with a country which was absolutely no threat to us. We (and particularly the Bush Administration) are responsible for everything which has happened in that war. It wasn't forced on us. It was a war of choice. Everyone who supported it bears a share of responsibility for it. Those who engineered it have its weight on their souls.
biccat wrote:
This is simply an attempt to put words into the former President's mouth. He said that there was no evidence of a link, so that means that he really meant that there was a link and tried to get everyone to believe that? Sorry, but no.
Is that what I said? That doesn't look like what I said.
If you want to argue that I'm putting words into the mouth of another, then perhaps you should observe your own criticism.
What I said was that Bush, Cheney, and other administration officials argued that there was no evidence of a link, but they also went out of their way to state that there was no evidence supporting the absence of a link. This second statement, when made by officials accustomed to speaking in calculated phrase, is not necessary except to invite public speculation.
It may strike you as odd, but I'm well aware of the uses of rhetoric, and so are other well educated people.
Manstein wrote:
Like I said, the administration didn't make any attempts to link Iraq to 9/11 except through the GWOT. If you think that they did, please provide evidence of your claim. Otherwise, like I said, it's a modern liberal fairy tale that Bush linked Saddam Hussein to 9/11.
I already did, and you either didn't bother to read it, or made an incompetent attempt at disputing the relevant argument.
It takes a significant leap of logic to go from this:
Mannahnin wrote:1. Iraq represented a direct threat of terrorist attack on the US, in the form of WMDs- specifically nuclear or biological. They might deploy these threats themselves or by employing Al Qaeda.
to this:
Mannahnin wrote:Saddam and/or Iraq had something to do with 9/11
Simply because some people believed that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 doesn't mean that the administration encouraged that view. In fact, every time administration officials were asked about a link between Saddam and 9/11, they denied it.
VP Cheney: "again, I want to separate out 9/11, from the other relationships between Iraq and the al-Qaeda organization. But there is a pattern of relationships going back many years."
The argument "it was implied" or "they wanted people to think there was a connection" is unprovable, and there is sufficient evidence to rebut the argument.
"But there is a pattern of relationships going back many years" is a direct and successful attempt to undercut the meaning of the previous disclaimer; to open the possibilty that such a connection exists, and to establish that in the listener's mind. He has put 9/11, Iraq, and Al Qaeda in the same sentence. He has said that there is a relationship; implying clearly that they work together. Even if the listener accepts that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (which many Americans obviously did not fully believe), he thinks Iraq bears some responsibility and might well cooperate with Al Qaeda on a future, similar attack.
This kind of statement in isolation might have meant little. As a consistent, pervasive, and multi-year campaign, it became evident as a clear message.
The Bush Administration successfully associated Iraq with terrorism in general, with terrorism toward us more specifically, and with Al Qaeda more specifically. They let Americans fill in the blanks; they didn't even need to use direct falsehoods. False implications worked very well.
Mannahnin wrote:The Bush Administration successfully associated Iraq with terrorism in general, with terrorism toward us more specifically, and with Al Qaeda more specifically. They let Americans fill in the blanks; they didn't even need to use direct falsehoods. False implications worked very well.
The irony of the War of Terrorism eventually leading to the Iraq invasion is that the intervention of American troops has led to terrorist groups being founded in Iraq.
Mannahnin wrote:They let Americans fill in the blanks; they didn't even need to use direct falsehoods. False implications worked very well.
So we can agree that the Bush Administration never falsely claimed there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
And we can agree that the Bush Administration specifically disclaimed any association between Iraq and the 9/11 operation.
And we can agree that the Bush Administration clearly and unequivocally, when asked, stated that there was no evidence of a connection.
We can therefore conclude that any connection between 9/11 and Iraq was therefore in direct contradicition to the facts and statements provided by the Bush Administration, and simply in the minds of the American public.
So the only thing you're left with it that Bush insinuated and suggested the connection by false implications. And somehow he did this while saying that there was no evidence of a connection.
If that's a reliable standard of proof (people believe something and the administration denies it), do you also accept that the moon landing was faked?
biccat wrote:So the only thing you're left with it that Bush insinuated and suggested the connection by false implications. And somehow he did this while saying that there was no evidence of a connection.
No, this is a falsehood.
They insinuated the connection to 9/11, and suggested that evidence might yet come to light.
They directly claimed that Iraq and Al Qaeda had a relationship, going back years.
They directly claimed that Iraq supported terrorism (which was to a limited extent true, like Saddam's payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers).
They strongly suggested that Iraq supported terrorism against us (which they had not done in any material way in ~ a decade, IIRC).
They stated that Iraq represented a direct threat to us via WMDs, delivered by terrorists, Al Qaeda or otherwise. There was NEVER any good evidence of the latter claim.
They successfully (in the sense that they achieved their goal of starting a war) made their argument, convincing the American people that there was sufficient reason for war. When Iraq was no direct threat to us, and never cooperated with Al Qaeda, nor was there any good reason to believe that they would.
biccat wrote:So the only thing you're left with it that Bush insinuated and suggested the connection by false implications. And somehow he did this while saying that there was no evidence of a connection.
No, this is a falsehood.
No, it's not.
Mannahnin wrote:They insinuated the connection to 9/11, and suggested that evidence might yet come to light.
They said that there was no evidence linking the two. Given that there was no evidence linking the two, I think this was a sound judgment call. YMMV.
Mannahnin wrote:They directly claimed that Iraq and Al Qaeda had a relationship, going back years.
Which has since been shown to be true. And substantiated with evidence at the time.
Mannahnin wrote:They directly claimed that Iraq supported terrorism (which was to a limited extent true, like Saddam's payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers).
Which is true. Because Iraq had been on the list of state sponsors of terrorism since the '90s.
Mannahnin wrote:They strongly suggested that Iraq supported terrorism against us (which they had not done in any material way in ~ a decade, IIRC).
Which you appear to agree with.
Mannahnin wrote:They stated that Iraq represented a direct threat to us via WMDs, delivered by terrorists, Al Qaeda or otherwise. There was NEVER any good evidence of the latter claim.
The administration made their case at the time, and the evidence was accepted by Congress and the American people. Sounds like sufficient evidence to me.
Mannahnin wrote:They successfully (in the sense that they achieved their goal of starting a war) made their argument, convincing the American people that there was sufficient reason for war. When Iraq was no direct threat to us, and never cooperated with Al Qaeda, nor was there any good reason to believe that they would.
The threat of a foreign country to the US is a judgment call made by the President and Congress (with a presumption of approval by the populace). Using an ex post facto analysis to condemn a President for his decisions made at the time on the intelligence available at the time is disingenuous, at best.
Presumably you also oppose the operation in Libya.
I, among many other informed citizens, disagreed strongly with the evidence and reasoning presented at the time. Not just after the fact. Some of us were more or less open to the possibility that there really was more evidence out there of a threat to us, or of WMDs.
No evidence has come to light of WMDs, or of any threat to us from Iraq, or of any association with Al Qaeda or other terrorism directed towards us.
More evidence has surfaced to suggest that there never was any, and that the spurious and sketchy evidence they misrepretended and exaggerated had been known to be unreliable and unsubstantiated before the American people and the Congress were sold in the war. Downing Street Memo, Valerie Plame affair, etc.
I think our arguments and the evidence history stand very clearly at this point. You are engaging in historical revisionism, apparently to whitewash a monstrous error, dishonest actions and words which sold that error to the American people through fear and manipulation, and decisions which damaged and continue to damage our nation, our allies, and Iraq.
Mannahnin wrote:More evidence has surfaced to suggest that there never was any, and that the spurious and sketchy evidence they misrepretended and exaggerated had been known to be unreliable and unsubstantiated before the American people and the Congress were sold in the war. Downing Street Memo, Valerie Plame affair, etc.
You should have mentioned that you consider these reliable stories at the start, we could have avoided the tedium of the last page or so.
biccat wrote:
Which has since been shown to be true. And substantiated with evidence at the time.
Well, yeah, mutual hostility is a form of relationship. But if that's important to this sort of conversation, then we should have spent the duration of the Cold War beating on France and Great Britain for their communist ties.
biccat wrote:
The administration made their case at the time, and the evidence was accepted by Congress and the American people. Sounds like sufficient evidence to me.
The sufficiency of evidence has no bearing on its quality. Enough evidence was presented to convince the public, and Congress in the context of contemporary events. That doesn't mean the evidence was good, it means it was merely enough.
biccat wrote:
The administration made their case at the time, and the evidence was accepted by Congress and the American people. Sounds like sufficient evidence to me.
The sufficiency of evidence has no bearing on its quality. Enough evidence was presented to convince the public, and Congress in the context of contemporary events. That doesn't mean the evidence was good, it means it was merely enough.
If it is sufficient to satisfy the decision makers, then it is objectively "good" evidence. Your (or Mannahnin's) personal standards may not have been met, but 70+ percent of the population supported the war at the time. That's enough for a "mandate," if modern standards are to be applied.
The evidence provided was the best available, subsequent events do not change the standard of evidence that was available at the time.
Also, Mannahnin, you forgot "Loose Change" in your list.
biccat wrote:
If it is sufficient to satisfy the decision makers, then it is objectively "good" evidence.
Well, no, not really. You've already framed the issue as a subjective one when you invoked decision makers.
biccat wrote:
Your (or Mannahnin's) personal standards may not have been met, but 70+ percent of the population supported the war at the time. That's enough for a "mandate," if modern standards are to be applied.
Sure, but arguing that something is good because everyone says so is just an ad popullum fallacy where quality is substituted for truth value.
biccat wrote:
The evidence provided was the best available, subsequent events do not change the standard of evidence that was available at the time.
biccat wrote:
If it is sufficient to satisfy the decision makers, then it is objectively "good" evidence.
Well, no, not really. You've already framed the issue as a subjective one when you invoked decision makers.
The only value of evidence in the current system is its persuasive value in convincing those who make a decision to support you. If the evidence is therefore sufficient to satisfy the decision makers, it is objectively "good," or at least, "good enough."
dogma wrote:Sure, but arguing that something is good because everyone says so is just an ad popullum fallacy where quality is substituted for truth value.
It's not a fallacy where the value of the evidence is its persuasiveness to the people. And in politics, it's all about getting enough people to support your idea.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:The evidence provided was the best available, subsequent events do not change the standard of evidence that was available at the time.
It was the best available, but it was still bad.
Then you're not disputing the validity of the war, you're engaging in a post hoc (see, I can use latin words too, even if they're small ones) analysis to support opposition to the war.
You can oppose the war as it is currently being executed, but unless you opposed the war at the time, then arguing that it was wrong based on evidence available today is not being fair to those who made the decisions.
biccat wrote:
The only value of evidence in the current system is its persuasive value in convincing those who make a decision to support you.
I disagree. Evidence carries intrinsic value relative to any person who might be swayed one way or another. Their importance to a given decision is not relevant.
Additionally, if we are to consider popular assent tacit to the quality of evidence, then we have to further consider whether the evidence in question was actually the compelling force, or if other factors were important; such as popular support, or emotional bias.
biccat wrote:
If the evidence is therefore sufficient to satisfy the decision makers, it is objectively "good," or at least, "good enough."
You'll note that I distinguished between sufficiency and quality earlier.
biccat wrote:
It's not a fallacy where the value of the evidence is its persuasiveness to the people. And in politics, it's all about getting enough people to support your idea.
You're deflecting. The argument here is that the evidence was bad because it was of poor quality. You originally contended that it was good, and that your position was vitiated by popular approval. This is an ad populum fallacy no matter how you slice it.
biccat wrote:
Then you're not disputing the validity of the war, you're engaging in a post hoc (see, I can use latin words too, even if they're small ones) analysis to support opposition to the war.
No, nothing of the sort. The evidence which was presented publicly was bad (again, there may have been better classified data), it did not support the argument which the Administration made, and was quickly shown as such by the press. I'll have to look around for it, but I recall some news agency or another doing a point-by-point breakdown of the Powell Presentation within a year or two of the invasion; showing it to be complete nonsense.
biccat wrote:
You can oppose the war as it is currently being executed, but unless you opposed the war at the time, then arguing that it was wrong based on evidence available today is not being fair to those who made the decisions.
I did oppose the war at the time. I also opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, as I expected its costs to be far in excess of the value of 3300 lives. In general I thought the Bush Administration's approach to foreign policy was obnoxiously stupid, and reflective of a terrible theoretical school (democratic peace theory) and poor appraisals of America's relative military capacity.
If I haven't said it before, I'll say it now: Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz are incompetent, though not for the reasons often given by the left.
dogma wrote:If I haven't said it before, I'll say it now: Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz are incompetent, though not for the reasons often given by the left.
Now this is just a silly comment. If you accuse the Bush administration of having a democratic peace theory of governance (which presumably is the rationale for military actions), then you can't call Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz incompetent.
While I have (and had at the time) some misgivings about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they aren't based on the idea that Bush Lied or any such nonsense. But I accept the fact that we live in a democratic republic and the elected representatives are authorized to make decisions on behalf of the people, even when I don't fully agree with those decisions.
I have similar issues with the operation in Libya, although in that case, the interest of the United States in the operation are even more tenuous than those argued by the left re: Afghanistan and Iraq.
biccat wrote:
Now this is just a silly comment. If you accuse the Bush administration of having a democratic peace theory of governance (which presumably is the rationale for military actions), then you can't call Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz incompetent.
Why? Because they behaved in consistence with their espoused beliefs?
I don't think they're incompetent because they failed to promulgate an international policy which is consistent with democratic peace theory, I think they're incompetent because they bought into democratic peace theory; and particularly the sort of democratic peace theory which leans on a variant of the domino effect.
biccat wrote:
While I have (and had at the time) some misgivings about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they aren't based on the idea that Bush Lied or any such nonsense. But I accept the fact that we live in a democratic republic and the elected representatives are authorized to make decisions on behalf of the people, even when I don't fully agree with those decisions.
Sure, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with their decisions, consider them worthwhile, or refrain from calling the decision makers idiots.
biccat wrote:
I have similar issues with the operation in Libya, although in that case, the interest of the United States in the operation are even more tenuous than those argued by the left re: Afghanistan and Iraq.
The left argued for a set of US interests in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Its interesting. They say generals and admirals try to refight the last war. It looks like others do as well.
Meanwhile back at the Hall of Justice:
*We're in ANOTHER war (am I the only one who learned anything?)
*Economy is still super mega crap
*Our supposed ally (HAH!) won't give our helicopter back and is letting China look at it.
*Wildfires the size of the Northeast in Texas (but no disaster declaration-thanks bunches)
*Inversely mass flooding in the Mississippi Delta
*Energy prices rising (and GOM still not open, thanks again)
*There is a civil war just over the border, which is a sieve.
*And I couldn't get the satellite TV to work this morning.
Frazzled wrote:
*Our supposed ally (HAH!) won't give our helicopter back and is letting China look at it.
That's what happens when violate their sovereignty every day.
Also, since when do allies always do things you like?
You live in a very strange world, evidently. One seemingly dominated by the sort of idealism which makes me think your apparent bitterness is entirely a fabrication of your skewed worldview.
I don't blame them for being hacked off. The US has taken a LOT of liberties with regards to what they've been done within Pakistans borders, to the extent where I would honestly not be surprised if they simply told NATO to hop it and sealed the border.
Ketara wrote:I don't blame them for being hacked off. The US has taken a LOT of liberties with regards to what they've been done within Pakistans borders, to the extent where I would honestly not be surprised if they simply told NATO to hop it and sealed the border.
Mmm. didn't another country in the region try to block us from the terrorists? Aren't they currently in the hills trying to regain the country with Pakistan support? Who was that again...
Obviously one of the discussions at the time was about Bin Laden. Apparently a number of points were raised about what happened and also torture was mentioned. Some ultra con was banging on about that it was right to use it, when Paddy Ashdown proceeded to cut him down and point out torture was a generally a waste of time. Having been through all that type of stuff during his time in the 
p
Agreed. Your statement really hits the nail on the head.
