Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07294/826876-35.stm

Question: What do these three men have in common?

• 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.

When you say things like this:

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.

-Yad

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.

biccat 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.

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.

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.

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahninp wrote:

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.

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:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

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.

biccat wrote:

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.

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.

Three strikes. You are everything you accuse others of being.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/content-detail.html

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 wrote:

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.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/content-detail.html

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.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07294/826876-35.stm#ixzz1Lyg3nJ3E

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.

biccat wrote:

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.

Backpeddaling here.

And strong polling evidence here.

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.

Kanluwen wrote:

Karon wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

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.

Your ball.

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.

Backpeddaling here.

And strong polling evidence here.

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.