Hello again, mr:Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsinclair
If nobody is held accountable for THIS episode of torture, what's to stop future administrations from engaging in it?
Are we a nation of laws? Or do we pick?
excon
|
Hello again, mr:Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsinclair
If nobody is held accountable for THIS episode of torture, what's to stop future administrations from engaging in it?
Are we a nation of laws? Or do we pick?
excon
Now where in my post did I suggest that "Arab Muslims hate America" .Quote:
As far as Arab Muslims Hating Americans that is not the case. I am guessing like Excon you have not resided in another country or been to many native places around the world.
I guess I will surprise you when I tell you that I was in Tehran 1975-76... and that I spent travel time in some European cities and Beirut.
Well yes , I think people do vote for parochrial interests,and think they have a pretty good idea how the person views issues and have expectations based on the candidates expressed views.Quote:
Are your priorities more important than other peoples? If your values impede those of others do you have the right to enforce them? We all have to compromise to get most of what we want in a fair manor.
Are you suggesting I should vote for someone without an understanding of their core values and an understanding on how they would lead ? I tell you that if what you say about the President is true,(and I tend to disagree when you claim he in not doctrinaire ), then there will be a whole lot of buyer's remorse .
Being held responsible is not the same as being prosecuted. We can hold them accountable without prosecution. We are a nation of laws and of reason. We don't pick our laws but we always pic the level of punitive actions. The concept of reason in law shows itself in judges having the discretion on penalties, sentences, judgments and even the validity of the case itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
We as a country have to get passed being angry at the previous administration, many people seem to want to be vindictive and to "PROVE A POINT" and my question is
Prove a point at what cost?
And I have yet to hear a answer to that.
Hello again, mr:Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsinclair
Well, you'll have to ask one who thinks that way. I'm not one of them. I'm simply not a believer in selective prosecution. I have no point to prove, and I'm not vindictive either. If the judge wants to give 'em probation after they've been convicted, I have no problem with that. I have a problem with being lenient by NOT prosecuting them.
excon
I am sorry for misconstruing your comment of: "....the Mullahs have time and again demonstrated to us that they consider the US an enemy...." I don't know if I would say surprised, reading your posts you seem a bit more focused than Excon. However the above referenced statement seems a bit generalized. So I will apologize for the assumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I think it is very important to know were the candidate stands. There core values, well if you mean moral values, that's a bit ambiguous. But wanting a candidate that will "stand for what I believe in" (I being plural) and forsaking others is egocentric. I think people should vote for a candidate that shows he has the ability to make proactive decisions. And of course the only way to evaluate a candidate is to hear what they believe in, how they voted in the past, and where they stand on all issues.
We should ask ourselves will this candidates Ideas help our country as a whole? Will he make impartial decisions?
not
do I agree with his moral values? Will he lower my taxes? Will he help my demographic?
As far as my opinions on Obama, I am pleasantly surprised at his pragmatism, but believed he was voted for for all the wrong reasons.
IDK about buyers remorse. I am not sure yet. I would like to see the Dems & Repubs being mature. But one thing is for sure for better or worse by 2012 our country will have been notably changed.
Oh, I forgot something. Having traveled and living in Tehran and Beirut. You understand why prosecuting the previous administration's officers is a problem. As I stated in my first post I do think we should forgo torture. And utilize medical coercion
If the ADA can decide what crimes are worthy of pursuing why can't the same be here?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, mr:Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsinclair
The ADA doesn't choose between WORTHY crimes and the ones not so worthy. That isn't his call. He chooses between those where he can get a conviction and those where he can't. Let the investigation begin.
excon, the unfocused
This is an interesting position. I think that the hell bent pursuit of government "nanny-state "solutions are flat out wrong and have been leading the country in the wrong direction since the 1930s . Therefore I oppose any candidate who's core values (I did not say moral values ) would make them tend to believe these perscriptions are best for the country . Despite the claim that they are weighing all options making pragmatic decisions based on "facts " ,their natural bias/prejudice/inclination/ideology (whatever) favors taking the country in a direction I think has been harmful .Quote:
As for as voting for someone who will vote on isses that you think are important. Are your priorities more important than other peoples? If your values impede those of others do you have the right to enforce them? We all have to compromise to get most of what we want in a fair manor.
...
I think it is very important to know were the candidate stands. There core values, well if you mean moral values, that's a bit ambiguous. But wanting a candidate that will "stand for what I believe in" (I being plural) and forsaking others is egocentric. I think people should vote for a candidate that shows he has the ability to make proactive decisions. And of course the only way to evaluate a candidate is to hear what they believe in, how they voted in the past, and where they stand on all issues.
We should ask ourselves will this candidates Ideas help our country as a whole? Will he make impartial decisions?
not
do I agree with his moral values? Will he lower my taxes? Will he help my demographic?
Some historic perspective.
Although the founders paid lip service to pragmatism ;and claimed to despise the forming of self interest parties ;the country did not make it through Washington's 2nd term before political parties were formed based on parochrial interests and basic political philosophical reasons . Our political parties since then have survived or failed based on how they catered to and recruited constituencies into a coalition;not on how open and fair minded they will be.
It can be argued that this catering to interests has served our country pretty well ,although there needs to be reforms to prevent permanent entrenchment of one party or individuals . These can be addressed .
Yes it is indeed a slippery slope .In other postings I called it criminalizing political decisions.Quote:
You understand why prosecuting the previous administration's officers is a problem.
I could easily make a case that Bill Clintoon and Al Gore violated American laws and their oath of office by treasonously selling national secrets to the Chinese for campaign funds. While he was in office I had thought this was the only issue worthy of impeachment ;although I'm sure the Clintonoids will say what they did was perfectly within the powers of the President . I do not ask for either prosecutions or investigations now . I am content to let history be the judge.
For the most part I agreed, However, I am not sure it is fixable. At this point these parties are acting more like clicks in a playground than parties for the masses. Our current system has parties refusing to think outside their "party lines" I believe the two party system has out lived their usefulness. It seems the Dem's for the most part are looking for a nanny state, but he repubs are boarder line fascists. And the moderates on both end are treated as malcontents. This system no longer functions.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again, mr:Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsinclair
I'm sorry. I miss the connection...
In fact, contrary to your assertion, I'm quite traveled and I speak several languages. Having done so, I don't see how being worldly has ANYTHING to do with why we SHOULD or SHOULDN'T punish our lawbreakers...
In fact, having traveled widely, having visited rouge nations, having seen wretched poverty first hand, having seen corruption on a magnitude that we can only imagine, I see a need for nations to adhere to their laws.. Indeed, I do.
But, that's just me.
excon
The Republicans are flawed ;that is true... mostly because they drift from conservative principles . But fascism (national socialism) is a socialist construct mortally opposed to capitalism. Expansion of the state control of the economy is definitely not conservatism but inherently fascist.Quote:
Dem's for the most part are looking for a nanny state, but he repubs are boarder line fascists
How can that be when we are constantly told that the moderates and centrists are the majority ?Quote:
and the moderates on both end are treated as malcontents
You missed it because it was not directed to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, mr:Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsinclair
I missed it because there ain't none. You're an empty suit. You got nothing. Let me know when you want to argue instead of hurl insults...
excon
moderates are not the majority that is only the two parties complaining.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
How do conservative principles help anyone? It is my opinion that conservative principles are very exclusionary and alienate a whole groups of people. And socially penalize any one else who does not fall into the conservative principles.
the liberals say that their party is drifting away from their liberal principles as well.
The liberal values boarder on socialism (I don't think there is anything wrong with socialism, but that is for another time), It seems that they are looking for a government to pacify the populous, as you put it a "nanny-state" . Which in turn promotes ethical bankruptcy (but again for another thread)
How are either productive?
Oh this is mature. "I am an empty suit", and you claim that I am insulting you. OK, I will continue my treads with "stable" people.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Have a good day
That must mean that the "extremes " are the majorities ?Quote:
moderates are not the majority
Perhaps ;but when there was a conservative who most faithfully articulated ,and governed the best he could ,by conservative principles;that person garnered the biggest coalition the Republicans achieved in my life time.As the Republicans have drifted to the center their support has eroded .Quote:
It is my opinion that conservative principles are very exclusionary and alienate a whole groups of people.
But what of the various minorities that are ostracized by the republican party: Gay, poor, atheists, muslin, women, children, blacks all of the "other" people what of them they are very much Americans and the republican party has consistently objectify and ostracized these people.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I don't agree with the premise . But I can only speak for conservativism not the Republicans. We see people as individuals and not groups .We try to live to the ideals expressed by Martin Luther King ;that all people should be judged by the content of their character .Quote:
But what of the various minorities that are ostracized by the republican party: Gay, poor, atheists, muslin, women, children, blacks all of the "other" people what of them they are very much Americans and the republican party has consistently objectify and ostracized these people.
I would say that the American liberal Democrat ,by playing to identity politics ,have tried to permanently bond groups to the party by appealing to as Kennedy said "what the country can do for you " . Once that dependency exists it is hard to break free of . Such a bondage is a soft tyranny made doubly worse by the cynical belief that the act is done for the interests of the group.
Hello again, mr:Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsinclair
If you wish to have an idle conversation about politics, then start your own thread. THIS thread is about TORTURE!
I will NOT be dismissed by you on my own thread. I'll be doing the dismissing, thank you very much. If you don't wish to engage me, that's fine. But, I'm not going to stop calling you out on your outlandish positions. No way - no how.
You've been asked countless time by me to tell me WHY we shouldn't prosecute past crimes... You don't say. All you say is we shouldn't. I believe that you haven't got a clue why. You just repeat what you hear from the likes of Rush Limprod.
You have intimated that if I was as smart as tom or you, I'd understand why... But, I'm not, so I'm ready for you to explain it to me - if you can.
But, of course, you can't.
Tom, at least, has put forth the premise that we shouldn't criminalize policy, and we've argued about that at length. But, you ain't got nothing!
excon
Since this thread is about torture, you might want to read this.
This is torture...
The prelude to the "response" below, from Colonel Bud Day, Medal
Of Honor recipient - prisoner of war survivor - reads "I didn't expect
to be reminded of my treatment some 36 years ago on this holiday
weekend but our politicians find it worthy to ignore what some have
tried to recount to them, who have actually been there."
************************************************** **************************
I got shot down over N Vietnam in 1967.. a squadron commander.
After I returned in 1973.. I published 2 books that dealt a lot with
"real torture" in Hanoi . Our "make believe president" is branding
Our country as a bunch of torturers when he has no idea what torture is.
As for me.. put through a mock execution because I would not
Respond... pistol whipped on the head... same event.. Couple of days
Later... hung by my feet all day. I escaped and got recaptured a couple
Of weeks later.. I got shot and recaptured. Shot was OK... what
Happened after was not.
They marched me to Vinh.. put me in the rope trick.. almost pulled my
Arms out of the sockets. Beat me on the head with a little wooden rod
Until my eyes were swelled shut, and my unshot, unbroken hand a pulp.
Next day hung me by the arms... rebroke my right wrist... wiped out the
Nerves in my arms that control the hands.. rolled my fingers up into a
Ball. Only left the slightest movement of my L forefinger. So I
Started answering with some incredible lies.
Sent me to Hanoi strapped to a barrel of gas in the back of a truck.
Hanoi.. on my knees.. rope trick again. Beaten by a big fool.
Into leg irons on a bed in Heartbreak Hotel.
Much kneeling--hands up at Zoo.
Really bad beating for refusing to condemn Lyndon Johnson.
Several more kneeling events. I could see my knee bone through kneeling holes.
There was an escape from the annex to the Zoo. I was the Senior
Officer of a large building because of escape.. they started a mass
Torture of all commanders.
I think it was J uly 7, 1969.. they started beating me with a car fan
Belt. In first 2 days I took over 300 strokes.. then stopped counting
Because I never thought I would live through it.
They continued day-nite torture to get me to confess to a non-existent
Part in the escape. This went on for at least 3 days. On my
Knees.. fan belting.. cut open my scrotum with fan belt stroke.
Opened up both knee holes again. My fanny looked like hamburger..
I could not lie on my back.
They tortured me into admitting that I was in on the escape.. and that
My 2 room-mates knew about it.
The next day I denied the lie.
They commenced torturing me again with 3- 6- or 9 strokes of the fan
Belt every day from about July 11 or 12rh.. to 14 October 1969.. I
Continued to refuse to lie about my roommates again.
Now, the point of this is that our make-believe president has declared
To the world that we ( U.S. ) are a bunch of torturers.. Thus it will
Be OK to torture us next time when they catch us... because that is
What the U.S. does.
Our make-believe president is a know nothing fool who thinks that
Pouring a little water on some one's face, or hanging a pair of women's
Pants over an Arabs head is TORTURE. He is a meathead.
I just talked to MOH holder Leo Thorsness who was also in my sq in
Jail... as was John McCain... and we agree that McCain does not
Speak for the POW group when he claims that Al Gharib was torture..
Or that "water boarding" is torture.
Our president and those fools around him who keep bad mouthing our
Great country are a disgrace to the United States . Please pass this
Info on to Sean Hannity. He is free to use it to point out the
Stupidity of the claims that water boarding.. which has no after
Effect... is torture. If it got the Arab to cough up the story about
How he planned the attack on the twin towers in NYC... hurrah for the
Guy who poured the water.
BUD DAY, MOH
George Everett "Bud" Day (born February 24, 1925) is a retired U.S.
Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot who served during the Vietnam War.
He is often cited as being the most decorated U.S. service member
Since General Douglas MacArthur, having received some seventy
Decorations, a majority for actions in combat. Day is a recipient of
The Medal of Honor.
I would not blow off water boarding as a form of torture. And what is described above is also torture. Neither of them is acceptable. But I do agree that the way this subject is being tossed around is insulting to all of those who have gone and go through violent and extreme forms of torture.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Questioning policies that our country has is not disgracing our country, one of the many things that are great about he country is the ability and right of dissention.
Although we may not agree on this and possibly many other issues. You make solid arguments and I enjoy the thread. I would like to know your opinions on the other subjects, I hope to see other threads.: abortion, Gay marriage, Health care, Immigration.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Especially considering you are a conservative (I hope that is an accurate assumption)
Hello gal:Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
I respect his service and his medals, but it don't take no genius to win medals. If he'd bothered to discuss the facts about what we did, instead of minimizing it, like Sean Hannity does, he'd have a lot more credibility with me. Plus, he appears to be saying that it can only be torture if it rises to the level of what he experienced.
That's ridiculous on its face. Indeed, even the writers of the torture memos themselves, declare 40 seconds of waterboarding to be torture.
He's the meathead.
excon
This is a significant observation.
Now, the point of this is that our make-believe president has declared
To the world that we ( U.S. ) are a bunch of torturers.. Thus it will
Be OK to torture us next time when they catch us... because that is
What the U.S. does.
By calling what was done at Gitmo torture, our pres has surrendered any right to complain about other countries engaging in torture against our people. Not good.
Nero fiddled while Rome burned, excon. You want us to do the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
What use is it to follow the laws of a nation if doing so DESTROYS that nation? You have not answered this fundamental question. You have said that it is better to to risk the destruction of the nation than to disobey it's laws.
Except when it comes to drug laws, of course. Then you suddenly are interested in breaking the laws that are inconvenient to your desires. "It's the law" is only an important argument for you at certain times, and not at others. But we'll leave that to another thread.
But leaving that little exception aside, what if it is your child or wife that dies because the government didn't do EVERYTHING in its power to stop a terrorist attack? Will you STILL argue that it is better to obey the law unquestioningly, without exception, than it is to protect the nation.
And yes, I am personalizing this argument... because the terrorists created 3000 PERSONAL stories of terrorist victims. It isn't an abstract question the way it was before 9/11/01. It IS a personal question that needs to be answered on a personal level.
WRONG!! You ARE what this is about. So is everyone else on this board.Quote:
It also looks like you're talking about ME again. You've made pronouncements about me, and I haven't objected, except to say that YOU and I AREN'T what this is about.
It was easy to argue that it isn't personal before 9/11 came around. But My dad was in 1 Liberty Plaza (right across the street from the Towers), my brother in law was in Tower 1 when Tower two was hit (he got out fine), and about 60 or 70 people that I had met from a company named Cantor Fitzgerald that I had done some work with. For every one of the victims, for every New Yorker, the question of how to protect the USA is no longer an abstract question. For every family of the victims on those 4 planes it is no longer an abstract question. For the families of the victims who died in the Pentagon, it is not an abstract question. For the soldiers and the families of soldiers of the US military, it is not an abstract question. And for AMERICA it is no longer an abstract question, because it is our reality.
Ooooohhhh. Looks like this newcomer, Mrsinclare is getting under your collar, ex. He has pointed out some very PRACTICAL and PRAGMATIC reasons not to prosecute the Bush policies regarding POWs, including the EITs, and you can't seem to get past that fact. Guy's got some skills. I haven't seen you this fired up since the last time I did it to you...Quote:
I don't care what you think about ME. If I did, I probably would have selected a different name.
I care about the argument. Get to it, or get lost.
Excon
Elliot
Questioning those policies INTERNALLY is fine, and even to be encouraged.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsinclair
Questioning those policies to foreign leaders and media while abroad is just plain wrong.
Politics ends at the shoreline, Mrsinclare. We do not go to foreign countries and question our leaders (past or present). Or that's the way it used to be anyway.
Every time Obama "apologizes" for the actions of the USA to foreign countries, he is giving the radicals of those countries an excuse to do evil things. They do those evil things in our name or in revenge for what the President has "admitted" that we did... whether it happened or not, whether it was wrong or not.
So I have to disagree, at least in part, with you on this point. Internal, domestic criticism, is fine. Criticism of US policy in a foreign venue by our President is just wrong and just fans the flames of hatred.
You don't air your dirty laundry to strangers. It's rude and personal.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
No, let's take care of this little bit of business NOW, because if we don't, you'll bring it us again...
I used marijuana under the supervision of my doctor with a LEGAL prescription. I DO NOT BREAK THE LAW!
But, even if I did, you apparently think that disqualifies me from pointing my fingers at other lawbreakers... It doesn't. I have refrained from mentioning it before in the hopes that you would keep your arguments above board. But, as you said, it's personal, so I guess that means you can get down and dirty. I'm not going to roll in the mud with you.
excon
I do not think Obama is right to constantly apologize in international forums for the "torture" committed by the us. Addressing the fact that our country needs to have an internationally sensitive administration is appropriate. If our practices are brought up by the international community than it should be diplomatically addressed. I personally don't agree with degree to which he is prostrating himself. However I do not believe that makes him a "pretend", "fake" or "foolish" president.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
His actions seem to be disarming the anti American sentiment (so far). It is possible that extremest can use our concession to torture as a reason for retaliation. The other argument is that his prostration is placating extremest; removing the fuel from the fire.
I am unsure as to which it will be, but I am under the belief: "walk softly and carry a big stick". (Sorry if I had a "Bush moment" I do not recall the exact verbiage of the phrase)
I do think that if he is going to continue to make this domestic issue international knowledge if/when it blows up in his face he/we will have to be willing to be aggressive on retaliatory action by extremest including utilizing military action. And in my opinion (let me emphasize my opinion, we would not want excon to start flipping out) even covert neutralizing actions.
Oh and this new guy happens to be the new girl ;)
Hello gal:Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
As usual, you have exactly backwards...
By TORTURING, and not just calling it that, we gave up the moral high ground. That was the dufus and vice who did that.
excon
Hello new girl:Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsinclair
It's true. We're never going to get along as long as you continue to mis-state my positions. NOBODY here is clearer than I am. NOBODY can articulate their positions better than me. I don't lie. I'm consistent. ANYBODY who bothered to take a minute to read what I've said here over the years, would know where I stand on the issues. I'm not ambiguous.
I've never had a problem with your opinions. But you opine about ME and not the issues. THAT ain't working. As long as you make ME the point of your post, you're going to hear about it.
excon
Hello again, mr:
Yes, I have more to say. The guys who are making nice with you now know who I am, and what positions I take. They know too, that I'm the best one to argue with here because I understand and can articulate a position. They also know that I don't make it personal.
Interestingly, as much as we disagree, we have remained friends over the years. Our arguments have been for the most part quite respectful, although Elliot seems to have gone off the deep end lately.
So, don't be fooled by them. They'll tire of you soon.
excon
You have proven to childish and a bit unstable, insulting and then accusing people of insulting you. I have refrained from dignifying you with exchange but I will make an exception for this small point.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You shortened my screen name to MR which is fine, however my screen name is not galsinclair. So I you would find the self control to continue to stick to the screen name please.
Unless I am in a dive bar with a bunch of rednecks I do not believe I have ever been a gal.
At least attempt to grow up.
Hello again, mr:
Gal is galveston. Please try to focus.
excon
Thank you for the clarification.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
So Elliot your argument is that since the battle is now being waged on US soil (since 9/11) it is OK to torture?
Because now, its personal?
That would sound really cool if the Governor of California said it. :)
No, that is just one of many things he has apologized for in the foreign media and to foreign leaders.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsinclair
No, it isn't.Quote:
Addressing the fact that our country needs to have an internationally sensitive administration is appropriate. If our practices are brought up by the international community than it should be diplomatically addressed.
When the Russians invaded Georgia in December 2008, the issue was seen as a very aggressive move by the Russians, and was CERTAINLY an issue brought up in the international community, and an issue for which Russia was soundly criticized. Have either Putin or Medvedev commented on the issue in the international media, much less apologized for it? Even if they are willing to admit that what they did was wrong (and I believe that to a certain extent even Putin acknowledges that to be true from a military, political and economic point of view, even if he defends the decision) he's certainly not going to comment on the issue in the international media or to the foreign press. That's because you don't take your errors to the foreign public.
He's not pretend or fake. He is the legally constituted President of the United States of America. But he is most certainly foolish. By deliberately emasculating himself in the foreign community, he is decreasing the political power he has in the foreign community. Foreign leaders will cease to take him seriously if he continues to do it. The foreign press already refuses to take him seriously.Quote:
I personally don't agree with degree to which he is prostrating himself. However I do not believe that makes him a "pretend", "fake" or "foolish" president.
Or did you find it to be a coincidence that North Korea is rattling its sabre with nuclear materials on its ships, missile tests and deliberately ignoring international sanctions as soon into this President's administration as it is? They tried rattling sabres at Bush, but Bush was having none of it. He may not have handled N Korea in the optimal fashion, but he handled them AND EVERTY OTHER INTERNATIONAL OPPONENT with STRENGTH, and they backed down (whether you agree with those policies or not, that was the result of those policies). But Obama is placating, prostrating, and self-emasculating... he is showing weakness and the foreign powers are getting the impression that he will not take any action against them.
And that is why he is foolish. A President who DELIBERATELY weakens his position in the international community unnecessarily is a fool. Bush may have been DESPISED by the international community (though I question whether that was really the case), but he was seen as STRONG not weak. He was hated and FEARED, not ridiculed as weak.
Really? Have Al Qaeda and the Taliban shown any inclination to end their Jihad against the Great Satan? Have Iranian leaders suddenly decided to stop trying to obtain nuclear weapons? Has North Korea become less militaristic? Has the Muslim Joe (or Yusef) in the street in Saudi Arabia or Jordan or Egypt suddenly become a fan of the USA because of Obama's apologies?Quote:
His actions seem to be disarming the anti American sentiment (so far).
Where, exactly, do you see a secrease in Anti-American sentiment? Is it among the French who were never really a threat to us anyway? That's Sarkosy's doing more than Obama's... and the French were never planning on attacking us anyway.
The problem is that the fire already has its own oxidizing agents within it. It is self-fueling from withion the radical elements of their own religion. We don't need to fuel the fire for them to hate us, they hated us BEFORE we went to Iraq or Afghanistan. 9/11 proved that. Apologizing only gives the fire a larger opening... the Arabic mentality is that weakness is to be exploited, strength to be feared. Apology is a sign of weakness. This isn't a Muslim thing, it is a DESERT CULTURE thing and is true of every desert culture in existence, regardless of religious background. The weak are to be exploited, their assets used to feed the strong. That is how you survive in a desert. Obama's apology indicates weakness, and that weakness is to be exploited. The fire will continue regardless of whether fuel is added to it or not by our actions... but the fire is held at bay by our strength, not our weakness. That is the mistake that Obama makes, and that is the error in your argument.Quote:
It is possible that extremest can use our concession to torture as a reason for retaliation. The other argument is that his prostration is placating extremest; removing the fuel from the fire.
The phrase is by Teddy Roosevelt and it goes like this: "I have always been fond of the West African proverb: "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far[/I]."" I happen to agree with that proverb in concept.Quote:
I am unsure as to which it will be, but I am under the belief: "walk softly and carry a big stick". (Sorry if I had a "Bush moment" I do not recall the exact verbiage of the phrase)
The problem is that Obama is giving no indication of carrying a big stick. The only areas in which he has decided to CUT spending are in National Security and Military spending.
Nor is he speaking softly. He's apologizing as loudly and as often as he can for every perceived or imagined injustice that the USA has ever been a part of, without giving a single bit of acknowledgment for any good we have done.
Are you aware of the fact that in the past several decades, the single largest body of disaster recovery workers around the world has been the US military? The US military has dug out more trapped people, handed out more food and water, built more temporary shelters and handed out more blankets than any other organization in the entire world? Apparently Obama doesn't know that because in his condemnations of US military actions throughout the world, he has never once mentioned that fact. Nor does he mention the 50 million Iraqis and Afghanis freed from tyrannical regimes --- regardless of whether you agreed with the wars or not, those are the real results of those wars. But again, no mention of those facts. He is only interested in apologizing for America, as loudly and as often as possible.
Obama is NOT following the proverb of Teddy Roosevelt.
On this we agree in full.Quote:
I do think that if he is going to continue to make this domestic issue international knowledge if/when it blows up in his face he/we will have to be willing to be aggressive on retaliatory action by extremest including utilizing military action. And in my opinion (let me emphasize my opinion, we would not want excon to start flipping out) even covert neutralizing actions.
Funny, your avatar doesn't look female... Not that there's anything WRONG with that... :DQuote:
oh and this new guy happens to be the new girl ;)
Seriously, sorry if I offended. I was just using the generalized term "guy".
Glad to meet you.
Elliot
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsinclair
Hello again, mr,Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsinclair
So, you're post op.
excon
Hello again,
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/member...36-torture.jpg
Speaking of torture, let's talk again, about the torture photos that Obama is refusing to release, and how they relate to THIS debate.
You DID notice the picture of Neda posted by tom. Compelling, isn't it? I suppose he posted it, because a photo is worth a 1,000 words. You can talk about brutality, but seeing it is eyeopening. The one above is another...
Why is it good to show THEIR brutality, but not our own? If the message is that brutality is abhorrent, then is it any less abhorrent when we engage in it?
If we truly want it to stop, and we truly want to never do it again, then we'd be happy to release the photos. But, we DON'T want it to stop. Fully 50% of us support some form of torture. That's sad.
excon
Is this another Abu Ghraib photo ? We do not dispute that prisoners in Iraq were abused. Prosectutions have already happened in those cases. But unless you are saying that this photo is the result of some approved enhanced interrogation technique and not just abusive behavior by prison guards then you are arguing apples and oranges.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:47 AM. |