Democrats: Patriots? You be the judge.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I, for one, usually roll my eyes when the rhetoric from the Bush-rumpswab right label anyone who disagrees with anything they or George Bush stands for as unpatriotic. Normally, this is an unfair tag. If anything, a true patriot always questions their government, demanding much of and asking for little more than a right to freedoms back. A true patriot also supports their armed forces, understanding that their job is difficult and the sacrifices are very, very great, often the greatest.

We have seen much of this rhetoric because of this Iraq debacle. Those who dissent get labeled by those who assent. Again, very unfair.

And then we have high ranked United States Senators Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy. Here are direct quotes from their very pie holes.

Dick Durbin: If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime—Pol Pot or others—that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.


Fathead Kennedy: Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management--U.S. management.

Two excellent examples of real unpatriotic speech. Now I ask you lefties, is this the kind of traitorious talk that you expect of your Senatorial leaders? The most surprising thing is that not one ranking Democrat has come out in either defense of or objecting to the scorching comments by Durbin. Anyone here care to defend the Senator from Illinois? Good luck.

This will certainly be good fodder for the Sunday morning news shows for sure.

[Slider]

Which part don't you understand?

Slider

[TrailBate]

The fact is, the US is holding hundreds of people indefinately without any legal representation or chance to testify to their own innocence. Many americans assume they are guilty, just because they are there, when many reports show that quite a lot of people detained are, in fact, innocent. But then, nobody is allowed to go in and inspect these places.

When Amnesty International comes out against these prisons, Bush and Co. are quick to right them off, even though Amnesty was quoted quite often in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.


Instead of being angry at the people who point these things out, maybe you should be angry that this is actually happening, all in YOUR name. There is nothing more un-american than assumed guilt, indefinate imprisonment, with no ability to defend yourself.

I have nothing against torturing the bejeezes out of any actual terrorists, but you gotta make sure they are actually terrorists, otherwise we are no better than the Iraqi regime we just lost 1,700+ american lives to eliminate.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Ok, let me see if I get this straight. You agree with the traitor Durbin by comparing our American soldiers to Nazis and other murderous regimes? This is not about attacking the so-called messenger. Neither Kennedy nor Durbin have a cogent point. Their intent in to inflame. To recite hyperbole. Torture? We've been over this. We've seen and heard the news reports. We have far different views on what a) the definition of torture is, and b) when coercive measures should be used against enemy combatants who HAVE NO RIGHTS under neither our Constitution nor the Geneva Convention. Fathead Kennedy and those who stand with him cannot seem to understand these simple points.

Yea, so lets be nice to the terrorists. Because they are nice people who only want to blow up the evil Americans because we deserve it. Durbin is a traitor and deserves to be punished as such.

[Rych]

Death Toll:

Gitmo: 0
Ted Kennedy's Buick: 1

Thus Kennedy is more like Hitler.




Source: HC

[CsharpDev]

Ok, let me see if I get this straight. You agree with the traitor Durbin by comparing our American soldiers to Nazis and other murderous regimes? This is not about attacking the so-called messenger. Neither Kennedy nor Durbin have a cogent point. Their intent in to inflame. To recite hyperbole. Torture? We've been over this. We've seen and heard the news reports. We have far different views on what a) the definition of torture is, and b) when coercive measures should be used against enemy combatants who HAVE NO RIGHTS under neither our Constitution nor the Geneva Convention. Fathead Kennedy and those who stand with him cannot seem to understand these simple points.

Yea, so lets be nice to the terrorists. Because they are nice people who only want to blow up the evil Americans because we deserve it. Durbin is a traitor and deserves to be punished as such.


From what I understand these were POW's and the Geneva Convention does have rules for fair treatment of prisoner's. I'm sure many of these people were just solgers in the Iraqi Military possibly blindly following and defending there country (there home)... much the way G. W. Bush expects us to blindly follow him and not ask questions. Well I question Bush's motives, I don't trust him enough to run a convienent store, nevermind our government. I was in favor of blowing the **** out of Afganastan, after all it was binladin who attacked us on 9/11... we found saddam... but where's binladin??? That's a good message to send to the terrorist... if you attack us, we'll attack someone else. I don't quite follow the logic here...

And it is possible to support our troups and not support the man responsible for sending them into combat. But when prison guards are torturing and tourmenting prisoners it's embarressing, and it makes us all look bad... Half the world hates us, so what do we do... we give them another reason to hate us.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I can agree with you on some of those points, CSharp. However, this issue is not about George Bush and whether or not you agree with the Iraqi war. That's a dead horse that has been beaten and rebeaten, so let's leave that issue aside. This is about unpatriotic speech by United States Senators and their not understanding the difference between POW's and captured enemy combatants. It is about them not understanding the nature of our enemies. It is about them not grasping that the geneva convention is not applicable concerning these captured people from whom important information has likely led to saved american lives. It is also about the same Geneva Convention being obsolete in today's world where our Islamic Fundamentalist enemies do not follow the traditional rules of war. And it is about them not understanding the definition of torture.

Remember, many of those prisoners in Guantanamo were captured in Afghanistan and had no part in the Iraqi struggle. Some of those who were released have been recaptured in Al Qaeda training camps, only proving the need to hold them indefinitely. Many of those sympathizers would treat them as if they were American criminals. They are not. Neither are they soldiers. They are terrorists. And yet, our soldiers are the bad guys? Anyone who believes that deserves to have their patriotism questioned.

[TrailBate]

It's not a matter of what constitutes torture, or whether or not terrorists deserve it.

The question is, are all of these people terrorists?


The fact is, like I said, these people are locked up indefinately, without a chance to prove their innocence. Comparing this situation to Nazi concentration camps is quite a stretch, but comparing them to Gulags is not.


I believe out of the 200 people who were released after more than 2 years of imprisonment, 5 have been recaptured. That is hardly a good enough statistic to assume everone is guilty and hold them forever.

America also does not classify these people as POWs. Why? So we don't have to obey Geneva conventions. Well, that is until the Supreme court orders the government to release more pictures and videos, in which case Bush is quick to try to use Geneva conventions as an excuse.


btw, the death toll in these american camps is closer to 40, so the reference to Kennedy is simply uneducated.

[MTBME]

Actually what I think you are seeing here is the old finger held up, and not the middle one, to see which way the political wind is blowing. Dick Durbin see Bush's rating in the dumpster and public opinion swinging away from the initial support of the Iraq war. Now he feels that there is less of a political risk to come out with these charges.

Just another spineless politician looking for the latest polls to tell him what to say. And in regards to the Geneva convention, I don't believe many of the provisions in that document apply to the prisioners at Gitmo because of issues like the lack of uniforms on the combatents etc. etc. But putting all that aside, does anybody on this forum really agree with him that we are as bad as pol pot etc.? I think Durbin needs a reality check. Maybe a trip to Bagdad.

[TrailBate]

Just another spineless politician looking for the latest polls to tell him what to say.

oh really? Is there a poll out that says it is more acceptable now to compare the US with Nazis? I missed that one I guess.

[Mr_Cheeze]

btw, the death toll in these american camps is closer to 40, so the reference to Kennedy is simply uneducated.


I hope you mean the reference by Kennedy. That quote was written verbatim and not taken ouit of context. Do you truly find an apt comparison between Guantanimo and Hussien death camps? Or maybe you want a mulligan on that one.

Plus, it does seem odd that you have yet to touch upon the specific issue of Durbin's comments. Do you or do you not agree with him? Or are you guys waiting to take a lead from that new moderate, the reinvented Hillary Clinton?

[TrailBate]

First of all, Durbin read directly from an FBI report, then said "you may think these are descriptions of Nazi camps or Gulags, it is not. It is a description of Gitmo"

Is Gitmo as BAD as Hussein's death camps? No. But we are holding innocent people, and some of them are being beaten, abused and killed

Maybe you should tell us if you think it's okay for America to detain innocent people indefinately with no legal recourse, abuse them and kill them?

let me guess, it's "moot" right? Just like the religion in schools question you never answered.

[TrailBate]

btw, if the main thing that is irking you is the hitler reference, you can rest easy knowing republicans have used it, too. But I geuss they aren't "traitors" or "un-american" for using it, because they are republicans?

[Slider]

Seems to me that the issue is this:

Bush and his fascist cronies are torturing people in various places, while ostensibly advancing democracy. Virtually all of the world sees through this hypocricy, and the prestige and influence of the US has severely diminished as a result. Bush is harming this country immensely, and something needs to be done to stop the process.

Patriotism is loyalty to the core ideals this country represents, not to an administration, or a flag, or an idiotic policy like torturing your enemies, regardless of whatever convoluted logic Cheeze wants to use suggesting otherwise. Durbin and Kennedy are on the right track.

Slider

[kernel crash]

"tell us if you think it's okay for America to detain innocent people indefinately with no legal recourse, abuse them and kill them?"

So everybody at Gitmo is now innocent? Wern't some of these guys enemy combatents? And now were killing them? I must have missed that on CNN.

Funny you guys don't mention the women in Afganistan are voting for the first time since the original big bang. That now thousands of women don't have to walk around with their faces covered in rags. That young women will now have a chance to go to school and get an education.

Meanwhile Momar Khadafi has seen the light. Democratic reforms are sweeping into Egypt. The Syrians have pulled out of Lebanon without one shot being fired. Iraqies are going to the polls, trying to put together a representitive government while the insurgents are making a last ditch effort to maintain the original status quo. But all you guys want to talk about is Gitmo. There's a bigger picture here. So is the glass half empty or half full?

[Slider]

What exactly does any of that have to do with our policy of torture? Let's try it out:

"Some at Gitmo are guilty - let's do some torture!"

"Women in Afghanistan are voting! Couldn't have gotten here without torture!"

"Libya and Syria are cozy with us now! Thank goodness for our torture policy!"

Torture has done absolutely nothing to advance our aims, and done lots to thwart them.

Slider

[MTBME]

What do you think you really know about torture? What's your definition of torture? Do you think Americans were torturing prisoners in Vietnam? The Korean War? How bout WW1 and WW2? You act like this is something new. It's been happening sinse the dawn of man. I'm not saying it right, its just that I get a kick out of people that act so indignent at the thought that we might be applying a little rough pressure to get the information we need to save American lives here and abroad. And I'll bet any one of us would rather be tortured by Americans than by the brand of torture handed out by the dull blade head chopping set.

[BG]

This is why the French hate us.

http://www.studentbmj.com/back_issues/0300/news/55b.html

[kernel crash]

Slider / Trail Bait

Answer this one question for me. If you were in a position to save 10, 100, or 1,000 American lives. And all you had to do was approve the torture of someone to get that information, would you do it? I'm not talking about killing someone, I'm talking about "torture" to get that information. What if the lives on the line were someone in your family. Would that make a difference? Would you do it? Please answer that one question for me.

[BG]

Some Germans think weird too.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/tort-j08.shtml

[BG]

Maybe it's time to bring back the good ole HUAC.
That will show the the world what our American values have always been about. They'll love us then, again.

[TrailBate]

So everybody at Gitmo is now innocent? Wern't some of these guys enemy combatents? And now were killing them? I must have missed that on CNN.

How did you go from "some" to "everyone"? Can't you make the distinction that SOME of the people at Gitmo are innocent?

Funny you guys don't mention the women in Afganistan are voting for the first time since the original big bang. That now thousands of women don't have to walk around with their faces covered in rags. That young women will now have a chance to go to school and get an education.

Well, thank God for that! Now that "we" have intruded on a religious practice to let women not walk around covered in rags, it's okay to torture people? Okey dokey. BTW, our "allies", pakistan and saudi arabia, still make their women wear "rags". Does mean we should torture them now too?

Meanwhile Momar Khadafi has seen the light. Democratic reforms are sweeping into Egypt. The Syrians have pulled out of Lebanon without one shot being fired. Iraqies are going to the polls, trying to put together a representitive government while the insurgents are making a last ditch effort to maintain the original status quo. But all you guys want to talk about is Gitmo. There's a bigger picture here. So is the glass half empty or half full?



No, Khadafi has been in negotiations with Europe for many years. The iraq invasion and gitmo had nothing to do with it. Egypt has done nothing to promote democracy. They made a weak declaration that any party could run for government offices. Turns out that only parties approved by the current leadership, could run. Hezbollah, a terrorist organization according to the USA, won some elections in Lebanon. Did the USA do that? the Lebanese has also been working for some time to get Syria out. The assassination of an anti-Syrian Lebanese politician is what brought things to a head there.

And where is this logic that the Iraqi insurgency is in it's "last ditch efforts?" You took that quote directly from Cheney, who is talking out his ass.

Before you start beleiving everything Bush and Co tell you. Do some research.

[TrailBate]

Slider / Trail Bait

Answer this one question for me. If you were in a position to save 10, 100, or 1,000 American lives. And all you had to do was approve the torture of someone to get that information, would you do it? I'm not talking about killing someone, I'm talking about "torture" to get that information. What if the lives on the line were someone in your family. Would that make a difference? Would you do it? Please answer that one question for me.



yes, absolutely.

What you Bushbots fail to understand is that not everyone in Gitmo is guilty. You are assuming they are, just because they are there. How about we arrest you and treat you like this? Tomorrow, Rush, O'reilly, Rumsfeld, etc, will all be calling you a terrorist, or a highjacker, just because you are in Gitmo. This is nothing more than a modern day witch hunt.

Why don't YOU answer the same question I gave Cheeze:

Is it okay to indefinately detain, abuse, and kill innocent people, including Americans?

[kernel crash]

"Can't you make the distinction that SOME of the people at Gitmo are innocent? "

Yes. I believe the odds are that some are definetely innocent. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. So should we open the gates and let them all go until we figure out who the guilty ones are? Remember the Geneva convertion does specify that some of these prisioners can be handled differently than how we would expect to be treated.

By the way, having innocent people in jail is not unique to Gitmo. I'm sure we have innocent Americans in jail these days all over the world and the US. But I don't hear the same concern from you for them. Just the prisioners at Gitmo. Oh that's right. It all comes back to Bush don't it.

[kernel crash]

"Is it okay to indefinately detain, abuse, and kill innocent people, including Americans?"

Well that question is kinda out there with no specific examples showing that this stuff is actually happening. Indefinately detain? Isn't that what the government in Aruba is doing right now with the supects they have? Maybe Bush put in a call to get that done. Abuse? Like cutting off heads with dull knives? Shooting men woman and children in the back while their hands are tied behind their backs? Or putting womens underwear over an Iraqi's head? What abuse are you really talking about? Man that's a tough one isn't it.

[TrailBate]

"Can't you make the distinction that SOME of the people at Gitmo are innocent? "

Yes. I believe the odds are that some are definetely innocent. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. So should we open the gates and let them all go until we figure out who the guilty ones are? Remember the Geneva convertion does specify that some of these prisioners can be handled differently than how we would expect to be treated.

No, it does not. Bush just gave Gitmo detainess a nifty new title so he doesn't have to worry about silly things like the Geneva convention.

By the way, having innocent people in jail is not unique to Gitmo. I'm sure we have innocent Americans in jail these days all over the world and the US. But I don't hear the same concern from you for them. Just the prisioners at Gitmo. Oh that's right. It all comes back to Bush don't it.


Yes, but american prisoners have a chance to defend themselves, and have quite a lot of rights. The Gitmo detainees do not. This isn't about Bush, except that you guys trust him despite all evidence that he cannot be trusted.

[kernel crash]

Actually I don't trust him and I didn't vote for him. But given a choice between him and Osama, I trust him a just a bit more.

[TrailBate]

"Is it okay to indefinately detain, abuse, and kill innocent people, including Americans?"

Well that question is kinda out there with no specific examples showing that this stuff is actually happening. Indefinately detain? Isn't that what the government in Aruba is doing right now with the supects they have? Maybe Bush put in a call to get that done. Abuse? Like cutting off heads with dull knives? Shooting men woman and children in the back while their hands are tied behind their backs? Or putting womens underwear over an Iraqi's head? What abuse are you really talking about? Man that's a tough one isn't it.


If you would do a simple search on "detainee abuse", you'd find all the evidence you need. Stuff like car batteries, dogs, 14 year old detainees, and dead detainees will likely come up.

And are you saying because other countries torture people, it's okay if we do it? One more reason we should NOT have invaded Iraq then, huh?

[TrailBate]

Actually I don't trust him and I didn't vote for him. But given a choice between him and Osama, I trust him a just a bit more.


huh? so because Osama is a terrorist, all detainees in Cuba are terrorists? That is highly illogical, Captain.

You still haven't answered my question.

[kernel crash]

"and dead detainees will likely come up. "

Funny, I just heard this morning that no prisioners at Gitmo have died there. None.

"because Osama is a terrorist, all detainees in Cuba are terrorists? That is highly illogical, Captain."

I didn't say that and I don't feel that way at all. I'm just making the point, that in a world where we have Osama's doing the things that they do, I can justify giving the president a little more slack in trying to neutralize that threat.

[stich]

Detainees? What detainees?
Keep moving nothing to see here, please keep moving...

[Slider]

Arguing about whether torture is good or bad seems so fundamentally stupid to me that I don't even care to defend my position that it is absolutely wrong, from any conceivable perspective, political, moral, or practical.

If you think otherwise, move your ass to any of many other countries on this planet where it is routinely practiced. This country once stood for a different approach, whether or not there were instances where things were done not according to official policy. Bush is trashing our ideals, and our heritage.

Slider

[BG]

Started long before Mr B. Maybe somewhere inbetween the 23 countries America has bombed the **** out of since WW11. What a heritage of ideals.

BG

[kernel crash]

"Bush is trashing our ideals, and our heritage."

Our Heritage?
Like Clinton bombing Bosnia
Like Bush 1 bombing Iraq
Like Reagan bombing some desert island in the ocean (can't remember the name)
Like Carter bombing our economy
Kennedy - Vietnam, and on and on it goes.

My point is there is nothing new going on here and to pretend that Bush somehow created all of this is missing the point I think.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Of course he misses the point, which is why he glosses over it and falls back on the same old anti-Bush rhetoric. Typical liberal illogic. It is easier for them to believe that these age old practices come directly from the top, giving them credence to spew forth more unproductive bombast. Nevermind that one could hardly call what was in the FBI report on Gitmo abuses as actual torture. To liberals, anything beyond not treating prisoners like hotel guests counts as torture. What I really like is how he chooses to talk of heritage when practically every other issue that liberals squawk over has to do with ignoring that very heritage and invoking "progressive" ideals to counter what they view as obsolete constitutional issues.

But hey, we're just a bunch of bigoted jingoists. I guess we shouldn't care about taking a proactive stance towards fighting terrorism. Let's just let them all go and see what happens. What the hell. They're not likely to bomb where I live.

[TrailBate]

So Cheeze,
I'll sell you to the Chinese, call you a "terrorist" and collect my reward. The Chinese haul you away, put you in prison, attach you to car batteries, have you bitten by dogs, beaten, left to lie in your own feces. Then in 2 years, they will release you. You come home, complain about how they treated you, and the Chinese will respond "hey, we let him eat chicken! He's just a terrorist who was taught to say these things about us!" Human rights groups will complain about your treatment, along with intelligence sources, the "leftist" media, but nobody will listen, because after all, you are only a terrorist.

[PutAwayWet]

Slider / Trail Bait

Answer this one question for me. If you were in a position to save 10, 100, or 1,000 American lives. And all you had to do was approve the torture of someone to get that information, would you do it? I'm not talking about killing someone, I'm talking about "torture" to get that information. What if the lives on the line were someone in your family. Would that make a difference? Would you do it? Please answer that one question for me.



What if you were in a position to save 100,000+ Iraqi civilian lives? How many American lives would you trade for that? What makes you so privileged that you get to choose who lives and who dies? Is god speaking to you, too?

[kernel crash]

"What if you were in a position to save 100,000+ Iraqi civilian lives? How many American lives would you trade for that?"

Your right. We are in a position to save Iraqi lives. Actually removing Sadam and his sons from power will probably save that many lives and more over time. In Iraq and elsewhere.

"What makes you so privileged that you get to choose who lives and who dies?"

I'm not sure where your coming from with that statement. My analogy to torture to save lives comes from the basic self preservation that all people from all countries possess. You don't have to be an American to share those feelings. My comments came from the previous statements that torture for any reason is unexceptable in a modern society. Tell that to the Americans in Iraq wondering when and where the next IED wil be going off. See what they think about it.

"Is god speaking to you, too? "

No. After 8 years of Catholic school, god doesn't talk to me anymore. I tend to be less of an idealist and more of a realist these days.

[PutAwayWet]

"Your right. We are in a position to save Iraqi lives. Actually removing Sadam and his sons from power will probably save that many lives and more over time. In Iraq and elsewhere."

Well, that may be so but what about the fact that we gave Saddam his power in the first place? Are we not then responsible for his murders as well as the murders we've committed to oust him?

With my second statement, I was wondering why Americans choose who dies. Saddam was gassing Kurds, but to save the Kurds (which I in no way imply was our goal) Americans kill 100,000+ other Iraqi civilians. We get to say who dies and who lives?

To answer your remark about the IED vs. american soldier: yes, it is very scary for american soldiers over there right now. Seems to me the best way to minimize risk to american soldiers is to not put them within the Iraqi border, no? Are you familiar with the term "Arms Race"? The notion that as one side of a conflict uses more force, the other side will respond with equal and increasing force? Well, intelligence dictates that the way to stop the death and destruction is to reduce force and pursue other means of 'negotiation'. The more we blow them up, the more they want to blow us up. What part of that is so hard for people to understand?

[TrailBate]

from an Iraqi blogger in baghdad

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#111931026591 153031





Detentions and assassinations, along with intermittent electricity, have also been contributing to sleepless nights. We’re hearing about raids in many areas in the Karkh half of Baghdad in particular. On the television the talk about ‘terrorists’ being arrested, but there are dozens of people being rounded up for no particular reason. Almost every Iraqi family can give the name of a friend or relative who is in one of the many American prisons for no particular reason. They aren’t allowed to see lawyers or have visitors and stories of torture have become commonplace. Both Sunni and Shia clerics who are in opposition to the occupation are particularly prone to attacks by “Liwa il Theeb” or the special Iraqi forces Wolf Brigade. They are often tortured during interrogation and some of them are found dead.

There were also several explosions and road blocks today. It took the cousin an hour to get to work, which was only twenty minutes away before the war. Now, he has to navigate between closed streets, check points, and those delightful concrete barriers rising up everywhere. It is especially difficult to be caught in traffic and that happens a lot lately. Baghdad has been cut up into sections and several of them may be found to be off limits immediately after an explosion or before a Puppet meeting. The least pleasant situation is to be caught in mid-day traffic, on a crowded road, in the heat- waiting for the next bomb to go off.


What people find particularly frustrating is the fact that while Baghdad seems to be falling apart in so many ways with roads broken and pitted, buildings blasted and burnt out and residential areas often swimming in sewage, the Green Zone is flourishing. The walls surrounding restricted areas housing Americans and Puppets have gotten higher- as if vying with the tallest of date palms for height. The concrete reinforcements and road blocks designed to slow and impede traffic are now a part of everyday scenery- the road, the trees, the shops, the earth, the sky… and the ugly concrete slabs sometimes wound insidiously with barbed wire.

The price of building materials has gone up unbelievably, in spite of the fact that major reconstruction has not yet begun. I assumed it was because so much of the concrete and other building materials was going to reinforce the restricted areas. A friend who recently got involved working with an Iraqi subcontractor who takes projects inside of the Green Zone explained that it was more than that. The Green Zone, he told us, is a city in itself. He came back awed, and more than a little bit upset. He talked of designs and plans being made for everything from the future US Embassy and the housing complex that will surround it, to restaurants, shops, fitness centers, gasoline stations, constant electricity and water- a virtual country inside of a country with its own rules, regulations and government. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Republic of the Green Zone, also known as the Green Republic.

“The Americans won’t be out in less than ten years.” Is how the argument often begins with the friend who has entered the Green Republic. “How can you say that?” Is usually my answer- and I begin to throw around numbers- 2007, 2008 maximum… Could they possibly want to be here longer? Can they afford to be here longer? At this, T. shakes his head- if you could see the bases they are planning to build- if you could see what already has been built- you’d know that they are going to be here for quite a while.

The Green Zone is a source of consternation and aggravation for the typical Iraqi. It makes us anxious because it symbolises the heart of the occupation and if fortifications and barricades are any indicator- the occupation is going to be here for a long time. It is a provocation because no matter how anyone tries to explain or justify it, it is like a slap in the face. It tells us that while we are citizens in our own country, our comings and goings are restricted because portions of the country no longer belong to its people. They belong to the people living in the Green Republic.

[BG]

So with all this ********, am i to think that if what was supposed to happen actually did and "we" went into Iraq found some "credible" (in a bi-partisan fashion of course, what ever that means now a days) amounts of WMD, lost the predicted 10,000-15,000 worth of young soldiers (cause Saddam was supposed to fight back) caused 100 times more damage than we have to date killed 100 times more innocents by virtue of collateral damage (oh well that's war) ect ect. BUT DIDN"T "TORTURE" ANYONE, then we could all dance in the streets and revel in our success and spread of democracy, patting each other on the backs and LOVING our recently elected President who led us through these hardest of all times?
The premise of WMD was ******** that virtually our entire congress fell for and the majority of our citizens.
It was just Americanism at it best. Now were left with egg on our faces AGAIN. Us with our sweet ideals and long lived "heritage".
Who the hell made "US" God?

BG

BG

[kernel crash]

"what about the fact that we gave Saddam his power in the first place?"

That's a black mark against us and is one of the many ironies that history will be left to sort out.

"I was wondering why Americans choose who dies."

Tell me, how is that much different than what happen during WWII when we went on foreign soil to fight the Germans, Italians and Japanese? You could make your same point about that couldn't you?

Seems to me the "arms race" is what broke the back of the old Soviet Union. Negotiations rarely solve problems with the likes of a Saddam. Maybe we should try negoiating with Osama? Think that will work?

[Slider]

Started long before Mr B. Maybe somewhere inbetween the 23 countries America has bombed the **** out of since WW11. What a heritage of ideals.

BG


Nope. Never had the future Attorney General write a justification for torture beforehand. Never made torture official policy before, and we definitely never saw the issue of our treatment of prisoners blow up in our face before. We did, ostensibly at least, honor the parameters of the Geneva Convention previously. We did NOT look to redefine the enemy to make them somehow less than human, so we can do what we want to them.

Would I toture someone if it meant I could, say, save my wife? Absolutely. But I am not a country that is making a great show of spreading democracy. If that is our expressed aim, there is no place for torture. ****, if we want to influence ANYONE, there is no place for torture.

As for whether it is effective, NFW. The people we are chasing are attaching bombs to themselves. You think torture would get something out of them that any other method would not get? Get real. Any info that is retrieved would have to be so suspect as to be worthless, anway.

Torture is yet another simplistic respone to abysmal intelligence policy. That is the problem with conservativism. It holds that the world is black and white, good and evil, easily defined and might makes right. All 100% wrong. The diplomatic arts have developed over centuries. They are very refined. Diplomacy works, but it takes time, and at least some semblance that you are not talking out your ass. All we have is a gaping ass, and we are yelling through it.

Slider

[TrailBate]

"what about the fact that we gave Saddam his power in the first place?"

That's a black mark against us and is one of the many ironies that history will be left to sort out.

"I was wondering why Americans choose who dies."

Tell me, how is that much different than what happen during WWII when we went on foreign soil to fight the Germans, Italians and Japanese? You could make your same point about that couldn't you?

Seems to me the "arms race" is what broke the back of the old Soviet Union. Negotiations rarely solve problems with the likes of a Saddam. Maybe we should try negoiating with Osama? Think that will work?



Uh, the Japanese and Germans attacked us, smart guy.

And the arms race is part of why the USSR failed. If you want to say the arms race did it, as in spending money they didn't have, looks like the US is doing the same thing right now.

[PutAwayWet]

"what about the fact that we gave Saddam his power in the first place?"

That's a black mark against us and is one of the many ironies that history will be left to sort out.

And just like the history you learned in school, it will be written to give a false sense of pride and justice to future generations of the ruling class/society. Yet you advocate not focusing on it - in essence, forgetting all about it so that we still will not learn from our mistakes?

"I was wondering why Americans choose who dies."

Tell me, how is that much different than what happen during WWII when we went on foreign soil to fight the Germans, Italians and Japanese? You could make your same point about that couldn't you?

Like I said above: When will we learn from history, instead of hiding and rewriting it to gain temporary political advantage?

Seems to me the "arms race" is what broke the back of the old Soviet Union. Negotiations rarely solve problems with the likes of a Saddam. Maybe we should try negoiating with Osama? Think that will work?

The Soviet Union broke down from inside. Their propaganda machine was not as successful as the western model. In point, when the Soviets preached economic equality and still had an elite class, their people got more pissed than when the american ruling class preaches the 'potential' to reach that elite class yet continues to make that potential harder to realize. In other words, the Soviets held the carrot too far in front of the mule to keep it going.

Saddam was a man who was not easily negotiated with, we all know that. So why did we put him in power? I believe Bin Laden has set forth his terms for peace many times. They involve nothing that would harm american soil or citizens - but they run contrary to the need of the american elite for globalization and control of world markets and assets. All Bin Laden wants is some slack for his religious beliefs and for the US to stop blowing **** up they don't agree with. I'm not saying what he is doing is in any way shape or form right, or even respectable - just that it's clearly obvious what motivates him. Perhaps we need to stop hiding behind F15s and really get to know the world outside of us before making rash judgements based on the fear-mongering of the corporate media.

[kernel crash]

You know Slider, strangely enough, I really can't disagree with a lot of what you have to say regarding torture. But I think it happened more often in the past than we like to believe. But things and the press were a lot different in those days.

[kernel crash]

"I believe Bin Laden has set forth his terms for peace many times. "

Yes I believe he wants us out of Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, hell the whole middle east for that matter. And to end our support for Israel. Don't forget that. Is that something that's in our best interest? Let the whole middle east go radical islamic. What do you think will happen to the cost of oil? How do you think it would affect our economy? Do we have interest worth protecting there? Or should we take a page out of Pat Buchanans playbook, bring all our troops home from all foreign bases, lock down our borders and hunker down for the long haul.

[Slider]

You know Slider, strangely enough, I really can't disagree with a lot of what you have to say regarding torture. But I think it happened more often in the past than we like to believe. But things and the press were a lot different in those days.


Perception is a big part of effective foreign policy, a fact that Bush is missing, entirely due to arrogance.

Slider

[BG]

"Perception is a big part of effective foreign policy, a fact that Bush is missing, entirely due to arrogance."

Pretty much a global dilema. But arrogance is what we're good at, ask any country.

BG

[Kilroy]

First off, coming from a family with multiple members having served in all branches. The remarks by these two sorry excuses for senators and your reprehensible attempts to change the subject, are what is wrong with the party I used to call my own.

Second here is some of the torture in the FBI report, turning the AC on high, long exposure in the presence of a female, continuous playing of rap and pop music (for me the rap music would send me over the edge).

Please show me where you get any documentation for your claim that 40 people have died..other than WWW.leftwingloony.com

These two senators and apparently several people here, are letting their uncontrollable hatred for Bush drive them to disparage all the men and women in service to our country.

Me myself, I am not a huge fan of Bush. I am deeply disappointed that people, not politicians, cant just stand up and call like it is.
I dont expect anything useful said on these issues from Congress, but to hear you guys make these claims.
To me it sounds basically your logic is this, Our government and military = bad and liars, all other governments and leaders..including Saddam apparently ..good and honest.

Kilroy

[TrailBate]

Don't forget getting hooked up to car batteries, bitten by dogs, beaten, left to lie in your own feces, and killed!

If you do a simple search on detainee abuse, you'd come up with, not only leftwingloony.com, but also liberal commie sources like abc, cbs, nbc, cnn, msnbc, amnesty, etc. Do a simple search would ya? here's a link to the first one that popped up for me

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7297209/

I don't hate Bush because it's fun. I hate him because he is ruining this country, and part of the planet. Pay attention.

[Kilroy]

So first as I said..First...where is your word on him calling members of our military Nazi's?

Second Cuba is @$@ long way away from Gitmo, which is what this whole BS was about ....So as the irishman said in Braveheart, "Answer the damn question!"

I of course left the more vulgar part out as I am trying to not make this too personal

[Mr_Cheeze]

"I believe Bin Laden has set forth his terms for peace many times. "

Yes I believe he wants us out of Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, hell the whole middle east for that matter. And to end our support for Israel. Don't forget that.

Lets not forget the age old wish of Muslims for a complete destruction of the Jewish state... um, and the Jews to boot.

Or should we take a page out of Pat Buchanans playbook, bring all our troops home from all foreign bases, lock down our borders and hunker down for the long haul.


Yes. Man, I wish Buchanon would run for President again. This guy really gets it.

[kernel crash]

You got to say this about Buchanon. He takes a stand, explains his position precisely, doesn't back down and get intimidated, makes a lot of sense, says things that most people agree with... Naaa. He doesn't stand a chance ???

[TrailBate]

So first as I said..First...where is your word on him calling members of our military Nazi's?

Second Cuba is @$@ long way away from Gitmo, which is what this whole BS was about ....So as the irishman said in Braveheart, "Answer the damn question!"

I of course left the more vulgar part out as I am trying to not make this too personal



Uh, Gitmo is IN Cuba, smart guy.

And people from all parties have been called Nazi's. It's nothing new. It's stupid, but not new. So if you want to start hating everyone that calls anyone a nazi, start by hating every political party.

[Kilroy]

Last I checked the article you referenced was about deaths in IRAN AND AFGHANISTAN....but I am only going by what you posted as "PROOF".

More importantly our military is not a political party, I dont care for either one of our political parties...Nazi is a word thrown around quite a bit by both and it does a great disservice to the horror and the atrocities committed from 1936-1945

So go ahead, change the subject again, rant your hatred for Bush ( I dont care its your right) and go right ahead and tell me how much you "support our troops".

Kilroy

[TrailBate]

Last I checked the article you referenced was about deaths in IRAN AND AFGHANISTAN....but I am only going by what you posted as "PROOF".

More importantly our military is not a political party, I dont care for either one of our political parties...Nazi is a word thrown around quite a bit by both and it does a great disservice to the horror and the atrocities committed from 1936-1945

So go ahead, change the subject again, rant your hatred for Bush ( I dont care its your right) and go right ahead and tell me how much you "support our troops".

Kilroy




1. yes, "proof" that we are torturing people. You asked for proof, I gave you an example. Do you need me to post all the results from a simple search, or aren't you capable?

2. You said Gitmo was a long way from Cuba. You were wrong.

3. who changed the subject?

4. Liberals seem to be the only ones who care that Americans are dying for no reason. The rightys get angry if you even mention americans dying. let alone reveal their names or show pictures. I want them to come home so they stop dying.
What are YOU doing to support them? Got a cute little magnetic sticker on your car?

[PutAwayWet]

"I believe Bin Laden has set forth his terms for peace many times. "

Yes I believe he wants us out of Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, hell the whole middle east for that matter. And to end our support for Israel. Don't forget that. Is that something that's in our best interest?
How is our support of Isreal so important? Other than giving us an 'ally' from which to facilitate our agenda in the middle east? Don't be fooled - the only reason the west supported the creation of and continues to support Isreal is to guarantee us a presence in a resource rich area of the world. George Bush worships Jesus, and I think Jews have a slightly different opinion on good ol' Jesus.
Let the whole middle east go radical islamic.
Sure, why not? We've already let half the US go radical christian. What's the difference? Car bombs in the middle east or abortion clinic bombings in the south?
What do you think will happen to the cost of oil? How do you think it would affect our economy? Do we have interest worth protecting there? Or should we take a page out of Pat Buchanans playbook, bring all our troops home from all foreign bases, lock down our borders and hunker down for the long haul.

Well, funny you should ask. Of course the price of oil would go up. And that's a bad thing? Brazil, during the last big oil crisis of the 1970s, started a major energy initiative to move away from foreign oil. At the time, they were almost wholly dependant on foreign oil (sound familiar?). Now, they expect to be wholly self sufficient within a few years. Imagine not depending on tumultuous regions of the world for our security... Why won't the US do something like this? Oops, our leaders make their money off of oil!

So if the price of oil goes up, our economy will tank and we'll all be left living only five times better than the world average, right? Oops again, more shortsighted parroting of corporate media.
http://www.rmi.org/store/p12details4772.php?x=1&pagePath=00000000,00000069, 00000070,00000385 (http://www.rmi.org/store/p12details4772.php?x=1&pagePath=00000000,00000069, 00000070,00000385)
That's a link to a publication put out by the Rocky Mountain Institute - a world leader on energy, economics, and sustainability - on a study funded by the Pentagon. Yes, our own government is funding this stuff...they just don't want us to hear about it. Our support for the war might not be so solid, then. See, this report is essentially a blueprint for the future. It shows how, with no new advances in technology, the US can be energy independent of the world in 50 years...at a profit!!! See? We can get rid of these phony pretenses for war and people can still afford cheaply constructed McMansions! It's a win/win situation (for everyone except the suckers that buy those oversized overpriced pieces of plastic sh*thouses)!

I'd love to see the price of oil go up. Maybe then some of our jobs would come back from overseas. We'd have no choice but to invest in energy production here on our home soil, and to do that takes American investment and American labor. Would you be pissed if a whole new job sector was created here? Would you be upset if everytime you flipped the light switch you knew you were sending that money to some hard working americans down at the local renewable energy station, instead of sending it to wealthy foreign oil ministers?

I will never understand why people are so afraid of change. Sure, things will be slightly different during the transition away from oil. But this is a positive change! Cleaner air, one less false pretense for war, a self sufficient America! What makes people so pessimistic?

[kernel crash]

I thought this country had a rich tradition of supporting Democracies around the world. That includes Israel. I do understand why we support them and how its a two way relationship. And I also wouldn't compare the car bombings you mention as an example of "us and them". I think that's a stretch.

This country should have moved away from oil after the oil crisis of the 70's. The writing was on the wall. Meanwhile Detroit keeps putting out bigger and bigger cars and trucks. Well now their employees are paying the price. I don't understand that thinking. I say more nuclear power but the Democrats don't seem to want that.

Also why do I get the feeling listening to you that you are almost apologizng for the wealth and status this country has built up over the last 200 years or so? That somehow the good old U S of A should lower our standard of living to get more in line with the rest of the world. I say lets help the rest of the world try to achieve our standard of living.

[PutAwayWet]

I thought this country had a rich tradition of supporting Democracies around the world. That includes Israel. I do understand why we support them and how its a two way relationship. And I also wouldn't compare the car bombings you mention as an example of "us and them". I think that's a stretch.

Our 'rich tradition of supporting democracy' is slightly less rich than the powers that be would like us to think it is. Please don't take this as any sort of slight, but I used to think of things almost exactly as you do. There are three sides to every story - one side's version, the other side's version, and the truth. Most Americans only hear the version given to them by the media (which is nothing but a large corporation seeking to gain wealth by attracting an audience to view advertisements). The media (corporations) are regulated by goverment policy. As such, the media and government are in a 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' type of relationship. In a nutshell, those with sway over media regulations reward the media corporations for shedding positive light on their agendas and actions. Yes, I know it sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory, but in the past couple of years I've done some reading that has opened my eyes. Nothing I've read I take as absolute truth - rather, hearing both sides of the story enables us to form a more educated opinion on complex matters like Amercian Foreign Policy. A great place to start hearing the other side would be to read some stuff by Noam Chomsky. Yes, it is considered ultra liberal. I'm not saying you have to believe it. I'm just saying that you will be exposed to a point of reference not often seen in mainstream american journalism. Chomsky is religious about citing sources and records - his remarks are not off the cuff or based on passion - they are simply explainations of fact that allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. One of the things Chomsky talks about is our relentless pursuit of democracy around the world - most notably the contrast between actual events (in Central America, Indochina, others) and the way those events were hidden and/or spun to be presented to the American public. Another great source would be Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present. True history, told from the points of view not taught in public school.

This country should have moved away from oil after the oil crisis of the 70's. The writing was on the wall. Meanwhile Detroit keeps putting out bigger and bigger cars and trucks. Well now their employees are paying the price. I don't understand that thinking. I say more nuclear power but the Democrats don't seem to want that.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, except for the nuclear part. There are cleaner ways to get the same power. The Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org (http://www.rmi.org)) has some great articles on this sort of thing.

Also why do I get the feeling listening to you that you are almost apologizng for the wealth and status this country has built up over the last 200 years or so? That somehow the good old U S of A should lower our standard of living to get more in line with the rest of the world. I say lets help the rest of the world try to achieve our standard of living.

I mostly agree with this, too. We should not feel bad about working towards a higher standard of living - heck, I want a better standard of living as much as the next guy. The difference is that I don't want my higher standard of living to result in a lower standard of living for the other guy. H2s and McMansions, Walmarts and HMO's do just that. The earth is a finite place - we cannot continue infinitely expanding our material standard of living. Someone else is going to pay, if not us. Another book that might be helpful in seeing just how our current pattern of growth and exuberance cannot be sustained is Limits To Growth: The 30 Year Update by Dennis Meadows, Donella Meadows, and Jorgen Randers.

I'm neither liberal nor conservative. I believe in conserving what we have - traditions, resources, etc - while liberally sharing and helping the entire global community grow with us. The selfishness and close mindedness that seems to permeate much of American society these days is what really burns me.

[TrailBate]

can't we go back to the name calling? This debate is turning into a tea party.



anyway. energy. yeah.

Bio-diesel. Windfarms. Unfortunately, moronic people don't want windfarms near them, and politicians make too much money from oil companies to care much about really pursuing alternative fuels.

[PutAwayWet]

Bio-diesel. Windfarms. Unfortunately, moronic people don't want windfarms near them, and politicians make too much money from oil companies to care much about really pursuing alternative fuels.

That's where you as the consumer come in. Vote with your wallet, eat lots of onions and let your voice be heard!