Act Now!

A Vote Against Torture

posted by Peter Rothberg on 10/13/2005 @ 11:06am

Last week the US Senate voted overwhelmingly (90-9) to stand solidly against torture. The amendment, introduced by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), calls for prisoners and detainees to be treated according to guidelines established by the Army Field Manual. In short, it outlaws degrading and inhumane treatment of anyone in US military custody. McCain's bill, as The Nation writes this week in the magazine's lead editorial, "stands as a singular legislative attempt to corral Bush into compliance with international law and human rights standards."

Politically, McCain has played this well. The amendment was appended to the massive defense appropriations bill. Consequently, passage of the $440 billion defense budget depends on the adoption of this vital amendment. Nonetheless, President Bush has threatened to veto the entire piece of legislation in order to kill the anti-torture amendment. This despite a recent report by Human Rights Watch documenting US soldiers' accounts of abuses against detainees committed by troops of the 82nd Airborne stationed at Forward Operating Base Mercury (FOB Mercury), near Fallujah. (Click here to read, and circulate, it in full.)

For once, the Senate has done the right thing. Now, a coalition of groups, led by FaithfulAmerica.org, an online community of progressive people of faith, is calling for all Americans to ask their Senators to stand strong against the president's threatened pro-torture veto.

From every angle, this veto would be a disaster: It would hurt US standing in the world, serve to enable the torture of innocent people, and likely fail to produce actionable information even if applied on someone plotting terror attacks. (The counter-productiveness of torture in strategic terms was driven home by the bill's endorsement by more than two dozen retired military officers, including Colin Powell and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili.)

McCain and his colleagues are trying to extricate the government from direct complicity in war crimes. Join them by clicking here to send a letter of support to your Senators on this issue.

Comments (307)

  1. Since Rothberg started a new thread, I am cutting and pasting my response to Todd from the previous Rothberg thread, to ensure Todd sees it:

    I care about what happens to America and Americans. I don't care particularly about Iraqi's, the French or the Germans.

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 10/12/2005 @ 8:12pm

    Then you aren't a very good Christian, or, more accurately, you aren't excelling at being a Christian. You are stumbling along. If being a Christian were a career, you would be at risk of being fired for poor job performance.

    When I was a Christian, I cared passionately about all people, and nationality didn't factor into it one single iota.

    You need to "raise your game," so to speak...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 10/13/2005 @ 5:08pm

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/13/2005 @ 5:19pm

  2. ILP, do you think this discussion point interests the group? Let's focus on serious issues here. Todd will never be convinced.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 10/13/2005 @ 5:26pm

  3. I don't disagree with your point Physics but let's try to stay on-point for at least a few comments!!Though your points do very much apply to the question of torture as well! This American First attitude, reminiscient of historical figures like Father Coughlin and Lindberg and in more modern times, Pat Buchanan, is indeed very anti-Christian--not to mention short-sighted in an increasingly inter-connected, globalized world.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 10/13/2005 @ 5:27pm

  4. Nonsense. There's a long, proud Christian tradition of supporting morally indefensible positions, so long as your other Christians did. We've got the Inquisition, Japanese internment camps, the Holocaust, hey, so long as it wasn't Christians themselves being tortured and killed, it's perfectly all right.

    Wrong. Morality, as much as you like to complain about its relativistic nature, does have some absolutes. From these, comes those wonderful concepts about human rights, and legitimate/illegitimate activities in war. So the people on the other side don't want to play by them? Guess what? You still have to, if you want to fall back upon nationalistic pride. We signed onto these conventions as a Nation. As a Nation, we all suffer when some go against this trend for short-sighted gains. Torture, as has been stated innumerable times here and elsewhere, just doesn't cut the mustard. It enrages our allies, it enrages foreign nations across the board, it enrages a vast section of our own country, and it produces more recruits for our actual enemies than we could ever hope to stop with the information we gain.

    Do you think the Arab world forgets Abu Ghraib? GTMO? Maybe you think that because you have a shortly inconvenient memory, other people do too. But as you innundate yourself with a flood from FoxNews, they get theirs from Al-Jazeera, which is all to happy to remind them that Americans just don't seem to give a crap about their war crimes. My, it seems like so long ago, that Mai Lai incindent. Talk to a Vietnamese immigrant, and it was yesterday.

    We are, each and every one of us, responsible for upholding the moral dimensions of our nationality. When we stray from this for our own selfish reasons, we lose any right to proclaim our objectives as moral and just. Democracy on the march is only going to march when people don't have to walk with crippled legs.

    Posted by Megido at 10/13/2005 @ 5:30pm

  5. MEGIDO, who are you talking to?

    NATTIE, I take your point, but since I spent time writing the post I at least wanted to put it on an recent thread. Feel free to change the topic back to the issue of "A Vote against Torture."

    Peter, sorry for the butchery I've committed against your thread.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/13/2005 @ 5:36pm

  6. PETER ROTHBERG, Now I've read your entire post. I am trying to think of what to write that is on-topic, but condeming torture is hardly a controversial issue! It reminds me of something I read or heard in the '80's. One person says "We should debate important issues, like nuclear war." The other person says "Nuclear war? Personally, I'm against it."

    I hold this truth to be self-evident: No nation that wishes to be the beacon of liberty can condone torture by anyone in its law enforcement or military power structures. There is really nothing to debate.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/13/2005 @ 5:40pm

  7. Even odder that the administration has decided to stand alone in the wilderness on the side of the line that most people will think is the wrong side.

    Odd? It's all this administration has been doing for months, if not years. And the koolaid drinkers with some idea that they are moral, patriotic or Christian will either admit they are wrong (unlikely) or jump on the bandwagon and try to rationalize (very likely).

    Posted by Turk33 at 10/13/2005 @ 6:38pm

  8. The problem with the amendment, and no I do not approve of torture as policy, is that it limits what we can do when we obtain a terrorist who has information of an immenint attack.

    Case in point, a LTC/ battalion commander in the 4th ID took a terrorists prisoner, he took his 9 mm and fired it near his head to corece him to tell where the ambush was, it worked. He gave up the attack positions and saved the lives of his troops. This was in the first 6 months of war. Now, no doubt you will be happy learn that he was relived, demoted and forced to resign. He was a regular Soldier, not SF or CIA, and the terrorists was not a high level operative but did have information that saved the lives of American soldiers. These are undisputed facts. The McCain ammendment would have him in jail.

    McCain ammendment is limiting and constraining, I do not support it and hope that it is vetoed.

    ZERO/Rothberg

    Human Rights watch? CPT Ian Fishbite? A friend of mine went to school with him at West Point, by all accounts she says he is a good man, but a little "self rightous" according to her. Now why ONLY him and 2 sgts? where are the others from his unit? Why would his chain of command risk their careers' many of whom have invested 20 yrs of their life, in light of Abu Grab. He is not the only Soldier with sense of honor, so until the FACTS and investigation are concluded you ought to withold judgement.

    Posted by CPT at 10/13/2005 @ 8:00pm

  9. Geee...why should Dubya care about rules. He's always been a "We don't need no steenking rules" kinda guy. Why should now be any different. Besides...they're terrorists right? It's not like they're actually people or something.... Then too, we know Dubya's "right"...cause he's "...on a mission from God. [geodude.home.mchsi.com]"

    Posted by leftofcenter at 10/13/2005 @ 10:25pm

  10. CPT, yes, the point of this amendment it to limit what we can do when we obtain a terrorist who has information of an imminent attack. Thank you, drive through. Or when we think they have information of an imminent attack and we're mighty tempted to just cut to the chase and shoot our 9 mm NEAR his head. Because that could be misconstrued as torture.

    But bustin' balls aside...If it leans anything towards "Americans may not be perfect and good in everything they do especially while wearing military uniforms" there's going to be debate. When I was a kid and asked my uber-conservative parents what Kent State and the C,S,N&Y song was about, part of the explanation included that there was no way two of those kids were "just walking to class" because the National Guard HAD to have been provoked and threatened with force in order to shoot those kids dead. And even still, the Guard were just kids themselves, how could they know that guns were deadly when fired? And come on, some of those demonstrators were throwing rocks, which could have hurt those poor soldiers if they weren't in riot gear. The more obvious an argument seems, the more tenacious the argument against it will be.

    This administration won't admit, unless scared shitless by someone whipping out a 9 mm and shooting near their heads, that the problem with this amendment isn't losing their freedom to torture or having to admit they live for a war where they condone torture but that their homies in the GOP have changed. They don't want to hang out anymore and are starting to sit at a different table in the cafeteria during lunch period and are telling other kids about how Dubya won't shower in front of other guys in the lockerroom after gym class.

    Posted by DrJamesBarry at 10/13/2005 @ 10:45pm

  11. DR

    Well I guess there is not much to say to that, if you cannot empythazie with the situation some might be placed in, then fine. The bill will be vetoed, thankfully and an arrangement will come from it. I suspect the compromise will be agreeable.

    As far as your other point, you suggest that this disagreement among REP is the start of something bigger. Doubt it, but you can hope. I argue with my ultra-liberal mom, but I am not going to stop calling her because of it.

    Posted by CPT at 10/13/2005 @ 11:04pm

  12. DRJAMES

    Do you think the lives of the Soldiers he saved regret that he used inhumane and "torture" to get the information? for that matter do you think their families regret it?

    Posted by CPT at 10/13/2005 @ 11:16pm

  13. CPT:

    Would you regret it if our soldiers are targeted in retaliation for torture, or treated the same way should they be captured?

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/14/2005 @ 12:03am

  14. Maybe CPT would be willing to suffer the same fate as those he would torture for "just cause". However, It still could only have a short term gain, if any; but, in the long run the cost would be greater. And of course, any Christian sould know some things are more important than life on Earth.

    Posted by zhong at 10/14/2005 @ 02:59am

  15. -should know-

    Posted by zhong at 10/14/2005 @ 03:02am

  16. Well I wonder if people like ZERO will ever understand that "theories are gray but real life is green." Many here do not see any distinction between US Soldiers and terror jihadists, as evidence by comments of HMAN, ZERO, ZHONG. That is why you my position does not make sense to you, I suspect, I could be wrong.

    I simply ask you to put yourself in that LTC's position, you have a terrorist, you know he has information on ambush positions that will attack your troops. Do you allow your men, those you are responsible for, to be attacked? or do you get the information and turn around and capture them and in the process save the lives of those under your command?

    If you cannot put yourself in this place, the forget it, nothing anyone says will change your mind.

    One of things about this war on terror is that sometimes you pick a side.

    To say that"No good can come of totalistic mistreatment" is not entirely true. As evidence by that 4ID battalion commander, sure its a a very base way of looking at it. You know that THOSE soldiers lives were saved. FACT Yes in the larger sense of philosophical thought, a greater tragedy has replaced it.

    No one advocates torture as policy, but hopefully you might see, that there are circumstances were "inhumane" treatment has benefited people. No doubt you will call me a thuggish brute, part of the problem simply narrow minded.

    But consider the flip side of what you argue for on those high minded principles.

    Posted by CPT at 10/14/2005 @ 07:45am

  17. CPT wrote:

    "Many here do not see any distinction between US Soldiers and terror jihadists."

    This is a tough one. We load our guys with the best weaponry we can get them, all they can carry. One soldier can take out a house full of enemy. We routinely destroy small targets from long range, using guided missiles. Our initial operation in the Iraq campaign was advertised, wihtout a trace of irony, as "shock and awe." Is it too much to conceive, from the enemy's perspective, that we also are engaging in terrorism, simply because we use such massive firepower?

    The debate over torture cannot come down to "but see, we're the good guys." That would be the same avoidance of reality that CPT quite legitimately takes issue with.

    The reality of the situation is that, in order to claim our actions are morally correct, we need to take a stand against torture and all the other excesses of war that are implied by that rather convenient catch-all term. Let's not forget, this amendment was authored by a man who was a POW in Vietnam. He knows what he's talking about. President Bush would be an idiot to veto it.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 10/14/2005 @ 09:04am

  18. MYPARA

    McCain was a prisoner of war of a nation state actor, AQ and the jihadists are not nation states; they are not accountable to world opinion. I agree with no torture of legitimate combatants. Terrorists though are harder to define. We should make rules on how to deal with them, but not limit our ability to get vital information. thats is my distinction.

    Posted by CPT at 10/14/2005 @ 09:55am

  19. CPT:

    You say "No one advocates torture as policy," but that is exactly what you are doing. How does anyone truly know when someone has information? What happens when you are wrong - oops, sorry about your broken leg, don't go back and hate us now, you hear? Your problem is your inability to see that we need a bright-line rule in this case.

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/14/2005 @ 10:05am

  20. Assuming there is a basis for the use of torture, it should be noted that torture is hardly a reliable source of obtaining information, as people have a tendency to say anything in order to make excruciating pain stop. The comic Lenny Bruce had a classic routine about how the Russians offered Frances Garry Powers "the "hot lead enema" through the funnel in the guy's ass, and in the end, he was willing to make up secrets if he had to. That's the reality of what torture brings to bear. And if you doubt it, look at the numerous cases which thankfully, have had to be dropped against death row inmates and other life prisoners because it was found they "confessed" under physical duress.

    No, what you torture advocacy idiots- and incidentally, there is no other way to phrase your political reality, civility clearly does not apply in this instance- are doing is offering the state an opportunity to come after you, once you are seen as a threat to national security. And it's only a matter of time before an administration as fucking paranoid and megalomaniacal as this one is decides any criticism is treason, so long as you continue to give this shithead and his friends free reign. I'm not going to get into abstract arguments about fascism here, I'm talking concrete reality. These people are nuts. People who wage war on an unoffending population are nuts.

    Finally, as the son of a family with generations of military service, I resent the easy acceptance of practices which my father, cousins, uncles, grandparents put everything on the line to oppose. If I come on fierce here, it's because you're the ones who are disgracing what this country has the possibility of becoming. I don't agree with a good part of what my progenitors ended up defending, particularly in the case of the Vietnam war. But it is you torture advocates who desecrate the essential sweetness of what they intended, not people who are speaking out against this nonsense, and the war that is deepening its acceptability in your minds.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/14/2005 @ 11:57am

  21. Isn't all of this conditional on....Bush actually vetoing it?

    Not just "threatening to"?

    Frankly, it's got "tempest in teapot" or "filler for an empty 'Bush scandal' slot" written all over it. Rove isn't going to let Bush veto a bill and be painted as "pro-torture" when the polls are bad!

    Posted by Mask at 10/14/2005 @ 12:40pm

  22. Even odder that the administration has decided to stand alone in the wilderness on the side of the line that most people will think is the wrong side.

    Odd? It's all this administration has been doing for months, if not years. And the koolaid drinkers with some idea that they are moral, patriotic or Christian will either admit they are wrong (unlikely) or jump on the bandwagon and try to rationalize (very likely).

    Posted by TURK33 10/13/2005 @ 6:38pm

    one thing I can consistently rely upon is the habit of leftist posters here to misrepresent the facts. The response of the President to this legislation is a great example. In point of fact, the President has stated a position that is very different from that exemplified by Zero and Turk. Just to bring this into perspective, here are the official comments and not the "reliable whitehouse source who wishes to remain anonymous" quote that triggered this outburst.

    From the October 6, 2005 Press Briefing:

    Q Scott, the Senate voted by a huge margin yesterday to put limits on interrogation -- interrogation techniques. Is the President still going to veto that measure, despite its passing 90 to --

    MR. McCLELLAN: You're referencing a statement of administration policy that was put out, which said his advisors would recommend a veto if it contained language that restricted the President's ability to effectively carry out the war on terrorism. Some of the language that you're referring to we believe is unnecessary and duplicative. The House did not include such language in its appropriations bill for the Department of Defense. So now both chambers have acted on the appropriations bills; it will go to conference. We have worked with members of the Senate to address some of these issues and will continue to work with congressional leaders as they move forward. This is part of the legislative process, and there is more to go.

    Q Okay, so really no change in that SAP then?

    MR. McCLELLAN: Our concerns remain what we have stated previously. And we'll work with members of the United States Congress to address those issues as it moves forward.

    Perhaps that is why this is getting zero press coverage?

    Posted by love liberty at 10/14/2005 @ 12:54pm

  23. CPT;

    You're rational is truly sophamoric. I think your intellectual development ended in the military! Torture can only be rationalized based on the character of the enemy if you are completely amoral. Torture is never acceptable, in any situation. The enemies political affiliation to a state - that may be recognized under Geneva conventions does not change that fact.....

    You've been rendered incaple of making simple philosophical and intellectual deductions by your affiliation with the the military. You see, they don't encourage anyone thinking for themselves. Just look at Ollie North!

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 10/14/2005 @ 1:07pm

  24. You're going to have to interpret McClellan's statements for me, LL. I get nothing out of it except blandness and fluff.

    As to the issue of torture and CPT's remarks, it seems clear that some people cannot distinguish between war and sport. I know the two were linked at one time, but my calendar reads 2005 now. CPT is against torture of people who he believes have violated the rules: 6 fouls and you're out of the game; slashing and that's the penalty box. The problem is not the left's lack of empathy as CPT maintains, but his own. That he can distinguish between this enemy and THAT enemy is a wondrous thing. If you want to understand empathy, then treat "the enemy" as humans fighting (perhaps unjustifiably) for their beliefs every bit as strongly as we fight for ours. Further, if you want empathy for our soldiers, you might want to consider the orders that our troops have received to serve as peacekeepers in a civil war that began, coincidentally, just after our arrival in the country; I think true empathy toward the soldiers might prevent such orders from being given. However, if you believe that the Administration has the soldiers' best interests in mind with their plan for Iraq, I do hope your powers of rationalization continue to be so well-tuned.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/14/2005 @ 1:09pm

  25. Posted by JAYARJUNYAH 10/14/2005 @ 11:57am | ignore this person

    Amen! The only consolation I get from Bush apologists like LL and Mask is the knowledge that they are part of the 28% (CBS Poll) who still think things are going just fine.

    These apologists who would desecrate American values have just put GWB on equal footing with Saddam Hussein when it comes to "moral values." Hey, Wingnuts, is this what Ronnie had in mind when he likened America to "a shinning city on a hill"?

    Posted by seattlescribe at 10/14/2005 @ 1:22pm

  26. The problem with so many of those who have currently posted against my position is that ivory tower. Towers are nice, you can look away from a far distance and make those kind of judgements. You need to get a little closer. am not dismiss your views wholesale, but you guys need to deal with realistic situations. i will get back later.

    HMAN23

    I agree, we do need rules to deal with these types, different rules need to apply to them.

    Posted by CPT at 10/14/2005 @ 1:46pm

  27. Who does Rothberg think he's kidding? Saying no to torture is John McCain's sop to political moderates whose recent anti-torture bill just passed the Senate. After all, he may be trying to set the groundwork for his run at the presidency in 2008.

    The truth is, however, to be seen in Bush's recent nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. The 2004 Supreme Court ruling upheld Bush's authority to arrest, detain and incarcerate whomever he personally and unilaterally decides is an "enemy combatant," including U.S. citizens, but stopped short of allowing Bush to deny those held in jail the right to appeal their case to the U.S. courts and the right to be represented by legal counsel. That was a half loaf.

    Now, with Miers joining Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Kennedy and Scalia, Bush will have the rubber stamp he needs to include this expanded power contained in the USA Patriot Act which is due to be renewed before the end of this year. Torture is a de facto policy now. With the passage of the USA Patriot Act and Bush's expanded authority it will be validated with the imprimatur of the U.S. Supreme Court 5-4 decision of the majority of those I named above. If 5-4 was good enough to select a president, it will be easy enough for this Star Chamber U.S. Supreme Court to endorse Bush's pro-torture policies which will then become the "law of the land."

    Once Bush gets his whole loaf from the highest court in the land it is only a matter of time before he will be able to round up political opponents and send them to his American gulags.

    Posted by richard38 at 10/14/2005 @ 1:59pm

  28. Richard

    King George could appoint any of the dozens more credentialed SCOTUS candidates to acheive that goal and I agree with you that it is a goal. The reason he has chosen close personal friends as his nominees is he knows that he and his administration will be looking for some legal leniancy in the next 5-10 years when congress gets around to investigating the crimes that have been commited by this secretive administration. The likes of Janice Brown would be fine for the rightward shift of the court but would not be sufficiently "friendly" when King George is on the hotseat.

    Posted by colmes at 10/14/2005 @ 2:57pm

  29. You can't fight terror with terror. It's as simple as that, and anybody who can't see the glaringly obvious hypocrisy concerning slaughtering innocents/torturing suspected terrorists and then claiming to be fighting for the cause of democracy and freedom, well, any arguments you make hold little water with me (not that any of you care, but the number of Americans who do care is growing).

    Posted by Turk33 at 10/14/2005 @ 3:37pm

  30. McCain was a prisoner of war of a nation state actor, AQ and the jihadists are not nation states; they are not accountable to world opinion.

    Posted by CPT 10/14/2005 @ 09:55am

    Neither is the US, apparently, as world opinion was about 80% to 90% against the war in Iraq, yet it was carried out anyway. The opposition and protest in '02-'03 was without precedent in world history, yet it was ignored. Millions of people took to the street to march, yet they were unseen by this administration.

    Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan treated POWs abominably. (I am not comparing the USA with those two countries, I am merely citing examples, so don't read too much into it.) Those were nation states.

    Sorry, your argument doesn't hold.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/14/2005 @ 4:18pm

  31. CPT - Your example of justified torture obscures something kind of fundamental. Your LTC/ battalion commander captured a terrorist and tortured him to reveal the specifics of an ambush. Now, let's change the facts around a bit. Imagine that a regular armed forces unit is setting up an ambush. Your hero, knowing or fearing that an ambush is being set by the opposing armed forces, captures an enemy soldier and tortures him into revealing the exact nature of the ambush. Is this OK with you? If not, then it would appear that the torture is justified because of the nature of the combatants - when they're terrorists, however defined, then it's OK to torture them, when they're uniformed soldiers, then it's not OK. Of course, maybe you're going to say it's always OK to torture.

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/14/2005 @ 4:41pm

  32. ILOVE

    Actually world opinion does have an impact, congressional hearings into Abu Grab and Iraqi pre-war intell were conducted. Japan and Germany ignored world opinion over their treatment of POW and paid the price with war crimes trials. Believe it or not, the US is effected by world opinion, though the results may not be to your liking or few here. The fact that we have had the hearings and respond by IG inspections, congressional investigations, internationl inspections and putting people on trial for offenses like the LTC i mentioned above. So you see, it more than holds.

    Tell me, how many inspections have AQ or the jihadists allowed in?

    Posted by CPT at 10/14/2005 @ 5:00pm

  33. CPT - Remember that AQ and the jihadists are the bad guys - you remember that don't you? They do the bad things, the beheadings, burning and hanging corpses. We're the civilized ones, you remember that too, don't you? We don't behead people. We also don't put leashes on prisoners and beat them repeatedly because their screams sound funny. Or do we? At least when we do those things, we investigate, we punish the guilty ones (I hope). What are you suggesting we should do to prison guards that let detainees dangle from their prison ceilings for hours on end? Give them awards for bravery?

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/14/2005 @ 6:15pm

  34. CPT

    We know the terrorists don't "play fair". Is that fact justification for us to do likewise?

    FRANK

    I like that idea....what goes around...

    Posted by leftofcenter at 10/14/2005 @ 6:16pm

  35. hey folks, cpt has been a torture fan all along, he has zero credibility with his murderous brand of "realism" he advocates torture as long it's for a good cause

    so much for not having to discuss this issue.

    the quote of "shining city on the hill" was first used by Winthrop, first governor of the Massachusetts colony. a fine idea which incidentally went sour pretty fast, he wound up disillusioned

    TJ, what about pisschrist?

    don't you think that Bush needs a new liar to replace McLellan, he's real worn out, attacking reporters for not being sufficiently gung ho in the war on terror, that last press conference was a doozy, I'm sure you can find the video.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/14/2005 @ 6:28pm

  36. cpt likes to play semantic games about state actors. the reality is that we are fighting the government of Iraq over there, that they don't wear western uniforms means nothing.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/14/2005 @ 6:35pm

  37. You know, I'm not even going to dignify any of this pro-torture mess with a rebuttal anymore. Bottom line is that those folks who rationalize torture are setting themselves up to become a shark lunch. Because if you don't understand by now that an administration and a congress that backs a war steeped in total falsehood is not worthy of trust, there is no reasoning with you.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/14/2005 @ 8:16pm

  38. LEFTOCENTER

    Well I do agree with HMAN that the Senate should take this up and create some rules to deal with them. All I am trying to point out is that the argument is not so easily dismissed because it violates who we are. But the notion that we systematically torture is untrue. Again "theories are gray, but real life is green"

    Posted by CPT at 10/14/2005 @ 9:23pm

  39. zero, apropos the president's monarchal power, Alexander Hamilton favored president for life

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/14/2005 @ 10:19pm

  40. and where the hell are you TJ, I want to tell you about pisschrist

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/14/2005 @ 10:20pm

  41. JOHANNESROLF, I don't blame you for that comment. Think of it this way though: In the classic movie Blazing Saddles when Hedley Lamarr, looking for qualifications to carry out his deadly plan, asked one of those applying:

    Lamarr: Qualifications? Applicant: Rape, murder, arson, and rape. Lamarr: You said rape twice. Applicant: (gleefully) I like rape. Lamarr: Charming. Sign right here.

    Bush and a lot of people actually do love war, killing and torture. With Bush, he really loves war. We all know that War is Bush's elixir and probably the only thing he's ever done in the nearly five years he's been in office that he knows for sure created his sky-high approval poll numbers.

    Look for round two coming up with Syria, Iran or maybe even North Korea. So, when someone mentions war to Bush you can be sure that's the Pavolivian response he has. He "gets to make the call," then sits back and watches his poll numbers soar -- or at that's what he's dreaming for sometime between now and before he leaves office.

    "Qualifications, Arbusto?" "War, killing and torture and war," answers Bush. "You said war twice." "Yup," says Bush gleefully, "I like War."

    Posted by richard38 at 10/15/2005 @ 12:06am

  42. I simply ask you to put yourself in that LTC's position, you have a terrorist, you know he has information on ambush positions that will attack your troops.

    Posted by CPT 10/14/2005 @ 07:45am

    No, you don't "know." YOU CAN NEVER KNOW WITH CERTAINTY WHAT IS IN THE MIND OF ANOTHER PERSON.

    There is the indisputable logical flaw in your argument, CPT. This forms part of the basis of the principle "innocent until proven guilty." You personally enjoy the protection of this principle in a court of law in this country.

    Rather stingy of you to want to deny it to others.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/15/2005 @ 12:21am

  43. Believe it or not, the US is effected by world opinion, though the results may not be to your liking or few here. The fact that we have had the hearings and respond by IG inspections, congressional investigations, internationl inspections and putting people on trial for offenses like the LTC i mentioned above.

    Posted by CPT 10/14/2005 @ 5:00pm

    Clearly, you are confusing domestic opinion with world opinion. World opinion does not matter to this administration, as was made clear in the debates with Kerry. Remember the phrase "global test"? How much hay was made, while the sun shined, with that comment?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/15/2005 @ 12:27am

  44. that last press conference was a doozy, I'm sure you can find the video.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/14/2005 @ 6:28pm

    Never looked for the video, Johannes. I don't like the game "charades."

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/15/2005 @ 12:29am

  45. But the notion that we systematically torture is untrue. Again "theories are gray, but real life is green"

    Posted by CPT 10/14/2005 @ 9:23pm

    If the torture isn't "systematic," is it OK? Please answer yes or no.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/15/2005 @ 12:32am

  46. Johannes,

    "..,the reality is that we are fighting the government of Iraq over there, that they don't wear western uniforms means nothing."

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/14/

    Do you really think we are fighting the governmemt of Iraq over there? Surely not,Johannes. I don't think a group lead by a Jordanian murderer who advocates civil war against the kurds and Shiites by the 20% Sunnis ,is a government. Weren't the Nazis a minority at one time? Fringe group?(Hell, he wasn't even German) Also, if most of the insurgents are from outside Iraq, then are they not insurgents which make them terroists and that we should fight them, infact the whole world should fight them? Especially what they are espousing?

    Can you imagine the Islamic utopia they would like to establish for all of us?

    Johannes, old sport, how long do you think you would last with the new Iraqi government(of the Jordanian killer) in charge of a pan Islamic nation of 1 billion? With all that oil wealth. Do you think they would ask"Can we all just get along?"

    How long before we would be really fighting the entire Islamic world being called together to fight the infidel? I don't want to watch for an Islamic Hitler. Last time nobody did anything and tyhe whole place almost went up in smoke. After all, Germany didn't bomb us either.

    Soory so long and rambling.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/15/2005 @ 01:42am

  47. JOHN, rambling excused! Thanks for weighing in with your post. Let me just offer some food for thought, since I am up way past my bedtime.

    You wrote: Also, if most of the insurgents are from outside Iraq, then are they not insurgents which make them terroists and that we should fight them, infact the whole world should fight them?

    Well, the French came to this land to help us fight the Brits when we were insurgents. Did that make them terrorists?

    Note that I am comparing circumstances here, not tactics.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/15/2005 @ 02:21am

  48. BTW, "Germany did not bomb us" is sort of correct. They declared war instead. Then they bombed us, when we got in range. (North Africa, Sicily, Italy, Normandy, etc.)

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/15/2005 @ 02:23am

  49. Of course, we bombed back...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/15/2005 @ 02:24am

  50. AQ and the jihadists are not nation states; they are not accountable to world opinion. I agree with no torture of legitimate combatants. Terrorists though are harder to define. We should make rules on how to deal with them, but not limit our ability to get vital information. thats is my distinction.

    Posted by CPT 10/14/2005 @ 09:55am

    Maybe you're saying terrorist don't have the same respect for a life as we do? And maybe you feel really bad when we kill inocent people? Is that our morale superiority? These Terrorist have to be supported by a large population in the region or they couldn't suvive. You can't win against someone who has nothing to lose. Until, of course, you kill them all. As long as we're in the battle, our men and women will be killed. But victory won't come until they are all dead.

    Posted by zhong at 10/15/2005 @ 02:38am

  51. Wars like this go on for decades. Transgenerational There will never be victory at our hands. They will have to do it themselves. This is a religious war to those people CPT, and history has something to say about that.

    Posted by zhong at 10/15/2005 @ 02:46am

  52. we hear a lot from cpt and his ilk about how the jihadists are different from soldiers because they kill civilians, even target civilians, and that's why it's ok to torture them, even to exterminate them.

    this strikes me as rather strange coming from a, self proclaimed, member of the military of the country that has used and is using the technique of saturation bombing.

    what a nice mild word. well saturation bombing targets civilians, like Hiroshima, and Tokio, and Dresden and Schweinfurt

    the logic is clear, kill dozens of civilians very bad, kill 100,000 civilians, that's war. it is they, the right wing warmongers, who are apologists for targeting and killing millions of civilians. so we need to look at even 9/11 in the context of Hiroshima and Dresden.

    when it comes to killing civilians, the jihadists are pikers compared to the US and england.

    ah but that was a "good" war, now we have permanent war, if our military establishment is to be believed.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/15/2005 @ 08:40am

  53. Maascg, yes we are fighting the government of Iraq over there. it is generally accepted by our military that the baathist remnants of Saddaam are the majority of the insurgency, with foreign fighters masking up a small number.

    well the bathists have been the government of Iraq for decades.

    you refuse to think logically and are estranged from facts. the whole tone of your posts always suggests that we are fighting for OUR freedom in Iraq, we are doing nothing of the sort, we are fighting for Shia freedom, as evidenced by the fact that both the US and Iran support the sham constitution that Iraqis are voting on

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/15/2005 @ 08:57am

  54. one more point Maasch, one salient fact about the arabs is that they have never been a united front and are not one now. numerous united arab countries were attempted all resulted in failure. the religious and cultural divisions which are very deep.see the sectarion war we have unleashed in Iraq

    also that Hitler was not German is a ridiculus point, he was german in all but the temporary political sense.

    once more for Maasch, stop asserting that the majority of fighters in Iraq are foreign ones, it's just not true and all your repetitionds will not make it so. the US are the major foreign fighters in Iraq, 156,000 at last count

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/15/2005 @ 09:03am

  55. Hi Johannes,

    I didn't think anyone would go back to that thread and read my mention of Serrano's work...but I think I've actually found a way to bring it up in this discussion in a somewhat not off the topic form.

    So much of the problem about torture is the issue of dehumanization. Heck, I do this every weekend when my college plays another school or my home NFL team is in action: I can choose, with shocking ease, to turn the opponent into an evil enemy, unfit to be on the same field as my gridiron freedom fighters. I don't want to know why they have chosen to attend that awful school or why anyone would choose to live in that city--I just know that their decisions were foolish and that they should suffer because of it.

    As a side note, folks like CPT should read the book reviews in the 10/17 issue of The Nation, which focus on German suffering during WWII and the issue of determining when others' suffering is justified.

    Then, to Serrano's Piss Christ (And at this point, anyone having read to this point may feel free to move down to the next post). It is a work of art. In fact it is a beautiful work of art, which, though simple in form, is multivaried in concept. I found this text online from Sen. D'Amato's speech in 1989 (you can literally feel the spit coming out of his mouth) against the work and the NEA:

    "They will say, 'This is free speech.' Well, if you want free speech, you want to draw dirty pictures, you want to do anything you want, that is your business, but not with taxpayers' money. This is an outrage, and our people's tax dollars should not support this trash, and we should not be giving it the dignity. And after this piece of trash and this artist received this award, to make matters worse, the Awards in Visual Arts, this wonderful publication was put together; and who was it financed by, partially? By none other than the National Endowment for the Arts. What a disgrace. They not only see this garbage, they can say we did not know he engaged in this kind of filth, but then they see fit to distribute it through the Nation and brag about it and allow their names to be used, instead of calling and saying, you get our name out of that. . ."

    The letter issued to the NEA by the senate, and signed by noted art critics including our beloved John McCain, Harry Reid, and wannabe librul Bob Kerrey, is an extension of the "trash" argument. It reads like an "I hate you" letter written by a 6th grader.

    Unable to argue against something on its proper terms, those who want to denigrate something have to reduce it to something less than it is. Those in US third-world prisons, those we ship to countries who support torture, and those our troops continue to battle in Iraq and Afghanistan are not human and therefore not deserving of humane treatment, they argue.

    And thus it is with art. Unable to explain in grown-up words why they don't likey something, they simply call it trash, filth, garbage. We know how to deal with trash, just how we know what to do with terrorists.

    I promise never to post anything this long again. My apologies.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/15/2005 @ 09:52am

  56. great post TJ, you had left the impression that Mapplethorpe had done pisschrist, but I see now that there is no need to enlighten you in this regard.

    on the subject of verboten art, my favorite works are "falling woman" by Eric Fischl, I believe, a beautiful, touching work, which was censured because it would hurt the feelings of 9/11 victim's families.

    the other great piece I like is "the pope felled by meteorite", I know I mangled the title, but you may know what I'm talking about.

    also I don't know which part of the country you reside in, but the new Dia museum in Beacon, NY, on the beautiful Hudson river, is fantastic. the Richard Serras are especially noteworthy. I had not been a great fan of his but these pieces have made a convert out of me, now my judgement is that he is the greatest of the monumental minimalists. pounce, if you can.

    nice post on your part, as usual

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/15/2005 @ 10:19am

  57. in relation to the censoring of political art to protect vicctim's families feelings, I guess Goya must have faced that too.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/15/2005 @ 10:25am

  58. I visited Dia:Beacon last month with people who are not necessarily art-inclined. The Serras led many of them to the museum store for a Serra book and to the inclination to take a welding class. They are great lessons in what art can do to affect you intellectually, emotionally, and physically.

    To few people, as witnessed by Colmes's post on Katrina's current blog, are willing to allow art in any form affect them emotionally (other than the rather infantile anger so eloquently expressed by Helms and D'Amato back in the day). Fischl's work is a great example. It literally takes my breath away, going quickly from the horror of her fate to the reminder of my own.

    The Ninth Hour by Cattelan.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/15/2005 @ 10:30am

  59. I meant to write "Too few people" rather than "To few people".

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/15/2005 @ 10:38am

  60. thank you TJ, I guess we're on the same page here. what I like about the Serras is that he treats 4" thick steel plates as if they were plywood. also the colors of the steel are just beautiful.

    my critcism of Serra was that awful piece he installed in the plaza down by the courts, and was forced to remove. also that a oerson died while installing one of his pieces. I have since revised my objections in that regard, when we build a bridge or some other big work, workers too die frequently, a sad fact.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/15/2005 @ 10:48am

  61. CPT

    But the notion that we systematically torture is untrue.

    Don't believe I said anything of the kind....although FOIA documents being circulated widely indicate is is condoned. Again go back upthread and read my post. Rather than being the "better man" we seem to be able to justify stopping to the same level and saying its ok to do so.

    You know what they say, if it looks like crap, and smells like crap. Guess what...it's probably crap.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 10/15/2005 @ 12:35pm

  62. ooops..."stooping" not stopping (doh!)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 10/15/2005 @ 12:55pm

  63. ILOVE

    As a point of fact the specific example I mentioned with the LTC did have specific evidence. The jihadists they captured had detonator caps in his possesion and his hands had gun powder residue, plus the Ak-47 they found in his possession. call it probable cause, thankfully the Commander did not allow technicalites to to prevent him from doing what was RIGHT. The battlefield is not the place to instiutue American Miranda rights.

    World opinion does matter to this adminsitration despite what it says, we have allowed International Red Cross, and UN inspectors and election officials in Afghn/Iraq. It simply is not a overriding influence, thankfully, but it does have some influence.

    Isolated torture, not systematic, surely is wrong, but its situational dependent, as that battalion commander found himself in, sucks doesnt it, but so is war. It is not a yes or no type of answer

    JOHANNE

    You are a great revisionist historian, the morale of the Germans and Japanese sustained the war, they were targeted, rightfully so because it was the Germans and Japanese that began bombing civilian centers. It was effective, Germany and Japan have not since engaged in any war. Their will had been broken.

    ZHONG

    These terrorists are NOT supported by a majority of the population the elections confirm that, if that were true they could have eliminated us from IRAQ a long time ago. They target and kill their own people. It does not take alot to kill civilians, like any gang in any American city, easy to operate when all you want to do is kill people.

    Posted by CPT at 10/15/2005 @ 1:01pm

  64. CPT, it's interesting that you have begun to define any element of resistance as "terrorist". Surely it's occurred to you that any occupied country is going to mount a resistance to being occupied, unless, of course, you're assuming that the Iraqi people are too stupid to do so, and that the great white hope needs to relieve them. I think that is what you are arguing, I mean, after all, that's why your fucking government is over there to begin with. But you're wrong, and you're going to continue to be wrong, and the blood of tens of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of your own countrymen is on your hands. Fifty years ago in the Soviet Union, you'd have had a job in the bureaucracy defending reasons of state, and imprisoning your opposition. I'm no mystic, but the bittersweet irony of the right is that they prove the Buddhist maxim that what you most hate, you become. And here you all are, a bunch of totalitarian nutbags. I don't know why I waste the time of day talking to you.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/15/2005 @ 1:18pm

  65. CPT

    It seems like you are advocating torturing any and all fighters who oppose the US occupation of Iraq? You say, "hey, they're trying to kill us, we know it, and we have to defend ourselves, so torture should be legitimate." Is that right? I know you like to call anybody who opposes torture an "ivory-tower intellectual." Is there any principle of civilized society we should not sacrifice for our safety?

    When we let the terrorists force us to sacrifice our own morality, we may win the battle but lose the war.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 10/15/2005 @ 2:22pm

  66. NATTIEBUMPO:

    Don't you know that moral relativism and moral hypocrisy are the hallmarks of the neo-conservative movement? "Don't do as I do, do as I say do" is the maxim by which they live, and by which they expect everyone else to live as well.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/15/2005 @ 3:17pm

  67. Nattie & Jay

    Why waste time indeed. Go take a peek at Pollingreport.com and take their "State of the Union" poll. I dunno exactly how scientific their studies are, but they seem to jibe with the "big polls"...and the indication is that Dems & Independents are nearly aligned and in diametric opposiotn to GOP folks on MANY issues. Not surprising I guess, but some of the areas shown, one would *think* there'd be more overlappollin

    Posted by leftofcenter at 10/15/2005 @ 3:23pm

  68. The terrorists methods are not support by the majority in Iraq...let alone in the world.

    The message that they convey is, though.

    It's an isolationist, religionist POV.

    Nothing different from Israel.

    Posted by simplefolk at 10/15/2005 @ 4:35pm

  69. cpt, it is not I that is a revisionist. not in their wildest dreams did Hitler and Tojo kill 100,000 in one night. but that too is not the point.

    the point was that the US targeted civilians, which you do not actually dispute, the jihadists are therfore not so different when they too target civilians. that the other guy did it first is not a moral excuse, but that seems to be the entire basis of your logic.

    the enemy acts beastly so we must too. there was atime when the united states had a higher standard, when Japanese tortured our prisoners we did not turn around to torture them. and that is what the argumnet is all abouut

    also the saturation bombing of germany was not effective, as it did not break the will of the german people , same with Japan, the US had run out of targets in Japan with "conventional" bombing, and even the nuclear bombing did not result in peace right away. it took the entry of the soviets and the concession in regards to the emperor to accomplish that.

    you are ignorant of history and your accusing me of revisionism is without basis

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/15/2005 @ 5:13pm

  70. NATTIEBUMPO:

    Don't you know that moral relativism and moral hypocrisy are the hallmarks of the neo-conservative movement? "Don't do as I do, do as I say do" is the maxim by which they live, and by which they expect everyone else to live as well.

    Posted by JORCHEIM 10/15/2005 @ 3:17pm

    Jorcheim,

    You can't have it both ways regarding conservatives. You and the other libs here are constantly haranguing conservatives for having Christian moral absolutes. So, which is it, are we relativists or absolutists?

    Posted by love liberty at 10/15/2005 @ 5:58pm

  71. Jayar and Johanne,

    Both of you present as an argument that the terrorists are not really terrorists because they are merely defending against an occupier (the US). Your argument might have some merit if it weren't for the fact that the primary target of the terrorists are the Iraqi citizens. The Iraqis are not suffering due to collateral damage during attacks on US and Coalition troops. They are the focus of the terrorists. So, even if this is mostly Baathists trying to regain control, they merit all out war and death since they have no regard for human life and are willing to kill most of the citizenry to regain power. It is power and not nation that drives them. The other faction is of course the jihadists. For them, it is a religious war against even those who will not rise up against the US. They also deserve no mercy.

    Posted by love liberty at 10/15/2005 @ 6:05pm

  72. Actually we applaud a number of moral absolutes that Christians mistakenly claim as their contributions to civilizations: a few that come to mind are killing bad, torture bad, lying bad, greed bad. The problem is when Christians' fingers are too inflexible to curl around and point at themselves.

    And you miss the point that Johannes and every one else has made over and over and over. Whatever legitimacy the insurgency has among the Iraqi people would not exist without our presence their as either the real or the symbolic oppressors. And part of their legitimacy among the Iraqis comes from the mistakes and missteps on the part of the military, including the torture of Iraq prisoners.

    And the whole "no mercy" thing is just so WWJD, isn't it? Go to bed early tonight, get up early tomorrow and spend the whole day for your Savior's forgiveness.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/15/2005 @ 7:25pm

  73. forgot the word "begging" in my last line. I will spend tomorrow begging the forgiveness of Mrs. Gowman, my deceased third grade teacher who is now my Goddess of Good Grammar and Careful Editing.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/15/2005 @ 7:27pm

  74. LOVE LIBERTY:

    It is not me who is having it both ways. If you had actually read my post, you would have understood what I am saying. Let me break it down to brass tacks for you.

    You live in a world of moral absolutes when it deals with everyone else.

    When it deals with you and your neo-con politicians/crooks, your moral outrage evaporates, and the only thing left is moral relativism. "Well at least he didn't get his cock sucked in the Oval Office." "Well at least he doesn't like killing BABIES." "Well at least he doesn't mind taking a stand, even if he may be wrong."

    Get my drift?

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/15/2005 @ 7:41pm

  75. exactly

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/15/2005 @ 8:05pm

  76. The big mistake in Iraq was thinking the problem was just this one man, Saddam. We hear from our conservative friends that he murdered hundreds of thousands. All by himself? Impossible. But the only recognition of the obviously extensive support he enjoyed is the occasional reference to "Baathists trying to regain control" (from LOVE LIBERTY above).

    Imagine an alternate reality where the "no mercy" crowd - naming names, LOVE LIBERTY/CPT/OKSPORTSGUY et al - are in the Iraqi socieconomic power structure in 2002. They are patriots. They do not love Saddam but they do what is needed to preserve the integrity of their homeland.

    What actions would they take in the current environment? How would they react to this artificial rush to determine the future of their nation while under foreign occupation? Would they perhaps become what we are now describing as terrorists?

    Posted by MyParadigm at 10/15/2005 @ 8:21pm

  77. LOVE LIBERTY:

    Furthermore, I am a Christian. And it relly angers me for you to sit there and essentially twist the words and message of the Bible to suit your ends. It goes back to my comments on the Beatitudes vs. the Ten Commandments.

    I always find it interesting that fundamentalist "Christians" are ever so willing to use the Ten Commandments and the Old Testament teachings as your touchstone and rallying point, and never even mention the Beatitudes or ANY of Christ's life and actions. I find it extremely hypocritical, ignorant, and essentially very self-serving. Christ went into the temple and threw the charlatans, moneychangers, and crooks out... were he here, he'd do the same to you.

    You sit here, spouting holier-than-thou words about how worthy your cause is, and how the Bible tells you to do this, or do that. And yet when it comes down to it, you are apologists for PRECISELY the types of people whom Christ would have found wanting. The people you support, be they Democrats, Republicans, corporate fat cats, etc. lack humility, the precise human attribute Christ ALWAYS showed, even though if ANYONE didn't need to, he didn't. It is the lack of humility which is an abomination. The lack of humility which is a crime against humainty, against the world. And you are guilty. You are supporting a regime which has lost all sense of what is good, just, and moral in this world in return for making more money, and gglomerating more power... regardless of the cost, both financially, but more importantly, spiritually. And for you to support him is not an outrage... it is a heresy. Do you think Christ would have cared which country he was from? Do you honestly think nationalism, patriotism, or any other -ism would have been his rallying cry? No. It wasn't, and isn't. Humility... and moral outrage at TRUE inhumanity... like torture. Or poverty. Or bombing (suicide bombing and carpet bombing alike). Or untrammeled greed. And to support what this, or ANY other administration is doing with regards to such activity is not only wrong, it is against what Christ TOLD you he wanted.

    Bush claims he speaks with God, and God speaks to him. I suspect the only god he speaks with is a very Dark one... a fat, bloated, waste, named Mammon. All kneel at the altar of greed.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/15/2005 @ 8:33pm

  78. Leftofcenter, well said: "Why waste time indeed. Go take a peek at Pollingreport.com and take their "State of the Union" poll. I dunno exactly how scientific their studies are, but they seem to jibe with the "big polls"...and the indication is that Dems & Independents are nearly aligned and in diametric opposiotn to GOP folks on MANY issues. Not surprising I guess, but some of the areas shown, one would *think* there'd be more overlappollin"

    My comment to that is that power, unfortunately, is totally in the hands of the Republicans. Now, Bush is close to sealing up his quest for unanimous, no debate, rulings, one of which is the renewal of the USA Patriot Act at the end of this year. Also, any bills or amendments proposed by Democrats seldom get out of the Republican chaired committees. So, they have no power to do anything. There's one more chance in November 2006 to take at least one of the two legislative houses back but that won't happen if all the K Street lobbyists, all Republican-friendly camorras working their owned and bought for congressmen, continue the trend we've seen in the last ten years. The alarming statistic is this: 95% of incumbents are returned to office. The only ones who don't are the ones who refuse to play ball with these powerful lobbyists who own our country.

    Posted by richard38 at 10/15/2005 @ 9:06pm

  79. Richard38, I believe that ultimately the power is in the hands of those that vote, with some glaring exceptions, such as the 2000 election, and maybe the 2004 election in Ohio, and...

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/15/2005 @ 9:35pm

  80. JOHANNE

    Hiroshima and Nagisaki were not the reason Japan capitulated? the Russian entry into the war made them give up? Well the historical record does not prove that to be true, the emperor gave up after Nagasaki....he and apparently the Japanese, since no guerilla movement spawned, had had enough. That bombing did work, and ultimately saved millions of lives that would have been lost in the invasion. The German people did not resist the occupation either, why? Their will had been broken as well, they had had enough death and destruction. It was a huge factor, wars are ugly

    Grant and later MacArthur said it best, Once you have set out to engage in war, you must commit totally, make it unbearable for the enemy so that he never again wants to make war. It sucks doesnt it. The US South never rose again, the Germans, Japanese, never rose again either.

    JAY

    We are wrong, try keeping up with current events, the election in IRAQ today, millions voting, with their families, walking 10-15 miles to get to a polling place! Braving the TERRORISTS! To vote!! Yes, I know, we FORCED our democarcy on them, right? over 8-10 million voters, even Sunnis! now you can say they are turning out to vote no, but they are voting!

    Buddists maxim, and where is that spiritual leader the Dali Lama? from, Tibet? right? And what happened to his country? The Chinese surely respected his high minded ideals, he showed them! Dali Lama once said "Mao is a good man, we can reason together" Well at least the DALI got his Nobel, and the Chinese got his country. Now personal I admire the Dali Lama as a man, but as leader of nation, he sucked. You ar right though, he surely stuck to his principles, no one was going to change the Dali's mind, he took the high road, and the Chinese the rest of his country.

    NATTIE

    I do not accuse everyone who opposes torture, of being an ivory tower intellectual. I merely want some here to think of the entire issue and not merely see it in the black and white mentality. There are always two sides, think of those who might be put in precarious positions and faced with the SAME situation that battalion commander found himself, he was in the middle of an operation, he did the RIGHT thing. Dont tie our hands and call us mindless torturers. You know many here accuse me and my fellow conservatives of being simpletons, "unable to think intelligently due to my military occupation" Yet it is many here who REFUSE to even consider the alternate side of coin. I am not advocating torture.

    It comes down to this, do you do follow the letter of the law, or do you do the right thing relative to the circumstances at the time? Now who decides what situations deserve an exemption to the rule? You can debate that.

    Posted by CPT at 10/15/2005 @ 10:07pm

  81. CPT:

    Oh boy... you had to go and post more wrongheaded poppycock, didn't you?

    You said:

    Hiroshima and Nagisaki were not the reason Japan capitulated? the Russian entry into the war made them give up? Well the historical record does not prove that to be true, the emperor gave up after Nagasaki....he and apparently the Japanese, since no guerilla movement spawned, had had enough.That bombing did work, and ultimately saved millions of lives that would have been lost in the invasion.

    My response:

    Apparently, you have never read Marshall's or Truman's own memoirs. Both said that dropping the bomb was unnecessary in order to win the war. Truman's decision to drop the bomb was a pre-emptive maneuver to show the Russians who had the "biggest dick". Truman's own words. He knew there was going to be an ideological struggle after the war, because there were many in this country (the Dulles brothers spring instantly to mind) who were ideologically opposed to the idea of Communism being extant in the world, and they were willing to pit the US against them, even though it was wholly unnecessary. Another hole in your argument is this. Prior to the dropping of the bombs, the Japanese ambassador put forth an offer of capitulation to the US government with their sole request being the continued existence of the Chrysanthmum throne, i.e. the offce of the emperor. The US balked at that, and after the dropping of the bombs, quickly agreed to those SAME EXACT TERMS. Go read about it. It's true.

    So, ultimately, the bombing was simply a pretext to the Cold War, and was absolutely of no value in the winning of WWII.

    You said:

    The German people did not resist the occupation either, why? Their will had been broken as well, they had had enough death and destruction. It was a huge factor, wars are ugly

    My response:

    Obviously, you have never been to Germany, nor have you studied any real German history. I, on the other hand, have lived there. Johannes is German born. I bet he will agree with me when I say this. The Germans fought tooth and nail to prevent the occupation of their nation-state. You can still see the remnants of the fighting on the Siegeseule or the now-rebuilt Reichstag/Bundestag. Once the Fuehrer killed himself, the will of the people died with him. Simple as that. It was his intransigence and iron grip on the levers of power in Germany which forced Germany to fight til the bitter end. It was NOT the dropping of the nukes, nor was it the occupation of the country which broke their will.

    You said:

    Now personal I admire the Dali Lama as a man, but as leader of nation, he sucked. You ar right though, he surely stuck to his principles, no one was going to change the Dali's mind, he took the high road, and the Chinese the rest of his country.

    My response:

    It is easy to pay lip service to someone who does what you cannot, to admire them from afar... which is exactly what the US has done since the occupation of Tibet. Not once have we seriously attempted to rectify the problem. Sure, we have allowed the Lama to go on speaking tours, to find succor in our country's bosom. Never have we brought serious trade sanctions on China, like those we have placed on Cuba. I wonder why? While even I may disagree with the path the Lama took to free his country, it falls upon us as "leaders of the free world" and "purveyors of democracy worldwide" to assist those who are less fortunate. Isn't that the whole point of us remaining in Iraq? Oh wait... Tibet has no oil... Now I get it.

    You said:

    I do not accuse everyone who opposes torture, of being an ivory tower intellectual. I merely want some here to think of the entire issue and not merely see it in the black and white mentality. There are always two sides, think of those who might be put in precarious positions and faced with the SAME situation that battalion commander found himself, he was in the middle of an operation, he did the RIGHT thing. Dont tie our hands and call us mindless torturers. You know many here accuse me and my fellow conservatives of being simpletons, "unable to think intelligently due to my military occupation" Yet it is many here who REFUSE to even consider the alternate side of coin. I am not advocating torture.

    It comes down to this, do you do follow the letter of the law, or do you do the right thing relative to the circumstances at the time? Now who decides what situations deserve an exemption to the rule? You can debate that.

    My response:

    PLEASE don't try to tell me that there are two sides to the coin of torture morality. We operate under the Geneva Conventions, or at least we did until Gonzalez, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. decided to pick and choose by which conventions we as a country will abide. As Telford Taylor, the chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg trials noted, if we hold ourselves up to the same standards that we held Nazi Germany and Imperial Germany, the US would be found guilty of war crimes in Viet Nam. I will go further and say that it holds true of the Iraq War in which we presently find ourselves.

    This comes from Article 6 of the Nuremberg decision:

    The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

    (a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; (b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; (c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,14 or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated. Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.

    We are guilty of all three in Iraq. Plain and simple. And if we are not willing to hold ourselves to a higher standard than our "enemies", how are we any different from them? The simple answer is, we aren't. Not as long as we "become a demon to smite the Devil."

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/15/2005 @ 10:47pm

  82. I apologize for the length of the post.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/15/2005 @ 10:48pm

  83. The problem with so many of those who have currently posted against my position is that ivory tower. Towers are nice, you can look away from a far distance and make those kind of judgements. You need to get a little closer.

    Posted by CPT 10/14/2005 @ 1:46pm

    Please do not get so close that you cannot see the forrest for the trees!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/15/2005 @ 10:52pm

  84. I promise never to post anything this long again. My apologies.

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 10/15/2005 @ 09:52am

    As your punishment, nothing but bottom-shelf liquor for you! Black Velvet whiskey, for starters. With a Jaegermeister chaser..

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/15/2005 @ 10:58pm

  85. ILOVEPHYSICS:

    Watch it... I like Jaegermeister... when you come visit, that's all you get to drink! HAHAHA

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/15/2005 @ 11:01pm

  86. also I don't know which part of the country you reside in, but the new Dia museum in Beacon, NY, on the beautiful Hudson river, is fantastic. the Richard Serras are especially noteworthy. I had not been a great fan of his but these pieces have made a convert out of me, now my judgement is that he is the greatest of the monumental minimalists. pounce, if you can.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/15/2005 @ 10:19am

    I cannot pounce, not at least until I get back to the Hudson River Valley and see the exhibit. Maybe even then I will not be able to "pounce", but I'm looking forward to the experience...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/15/2005 @ 11:02pm

  87. As a point of fact the specific example I mentioned with the LTC did have specific evidence. The jihadists they captured had detonator caps in his possesion and his hands had gun powder residue, plus the Ak-47 they found in his possession. call it probable cause,

    At least you're not claiming LTC was a mindreader! You're more reasonable than I thought.

    thankfully the Commander did not allow technicalites to to prevent him from doing what was RIGHT. The battlefield is not the place to instiutue American Miranda rights.

    Yes, we wouldn't want to export any of our freedoms to other countries...

    World opinion does matter to this adminsitration despite what it says, we have allowed International Red Cross, and UN inspectors and election officials in Afghn/Iraq.

    Posted by CPT 10/15/2005 @ 1:01pm

    I thought we did that because it was the right thing to do. Sorry for expecting to much out of the Bush administration. I promise it won't happen again...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/15/2005 @ 11:09pm

  88. Fifty years ago in the Soviet Union, you'd have had a job in the bureaucracy defending reasons of state, and imprisoning your opposition. I'm no mystic, but the bittersweet irony of the right is that they prove the Buddhist maxim that what you most hate, you become. And here you all are, a bunch of totalitarian nutbags. I don't know why I waste the time of day talking to you.

    Posted by JAYARJUNYAH 10/15/2005 @ 1:18pm

    Well, one reason could be for my satisfaction! Couldn't have said it better myself...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/15/2005 @ 11:12pm

  89. cpt, revisionism rampant, the Japanese surrendered just as I stated, you haven't kept up with history scholarship.

    the fire bombing of Tokyo produced even more casualties that Hiroshima, the only difference being that Hiroshima was one bomb instead of thousands. that germany and Japan did not resist occupation cannot be attributed to saturation bombing, what were the americans gonna do in the face of resistance, start bombing again, you are ridiculouus.

    why would Mcarthur have made that concession about the emperor if the will had been broken. no, your understanding of history is limited by your ignorance. the germans had been bombed for years, yet only when soviet troops, who incidentally did not use saturation bombing to great extent, were in Berlin did they surrender.

    saturation bombings of civilian populations harden the resistance of the population. but enough about WW2,

    we are in a war now and we are losing, Iraqis voting means little, they voted under Saddam too, he got 99% of the vote. this is an election under the guns of 156,000 foreign troops, who shut the country down.

    and the Dalai Lama is just what his name says , a lama, a spiritual leader, he was never the political leader of his country, wow, are you ignorant.

    you've been advocating, apologizing, and rationalising torture for weeks, so don't give us that. and like Frank I do not believe you are who you try to pass yourself off as being, but we'll never know will we. when Frank is convinced I'll think about it again.

    at this point I will exit stage right as far as you're concerned. it is simply not worth my time to argue with an ignoramus with a corrupt agenda. Ta ta

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/15/2005 @ 11:13pm

  90. I guess cpt is like the irritant that produces the pearl, of wisdom in this case, great posts all around, no not you cpt

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/15/2005 @ 11:18pm

  91. JOHANNESROLF:

    no not you cpt

    ROTFLMAO

    You are too much...

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/15/2005 @ 11:21pm

  92. say what, jorchy?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/15/2005 @ 11:24pm

  93. You crack me up, dude.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/15/2005 @ 11:30pm

  94. Just the whole "everyone posted good comments... oh, no you cpt..." made me chuckle... :D

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/15/2005 @ 11:31pm

  95. ILOVEPHYSICS:

    Watch it... I like Jaegermeister... when you come visit, that's all you get to drink! HAHAHA

    Posted by JORCHEIM 10/15/2005 @ 11:01pm

    When in Rome...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/15/2005 @ 11:34pm

  96. or Pittsburgh... :D

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/15/2005 @ 11:39pm

  97. Physics, allow me to briefly describe the new Dia museum.

    it is in a huge factory building, huge,filled with natural light, the building itself is an exhibit. and it's filled with the kind of art that is not actually produced by the artist's own hand, with exceptions I will elaborate on.

    it is often a kind of conceptual machine art. the names may not be familiar to one who hasn't been following the modern art scene, Judd, Serra, Smithson, LeWitt, Flavin, Beuys.etc.

    one who's work is definitely done by her own hand is a woman artist named Agnes Martin, whose paintings consist of tiny finely drawn colored horizontal lines, which when seen from a distance create luminous effects.

    and here's the wonderful thing, absolutely no photography permitted, none. I can't tell you what a difference that makes, and that's coming from a photographer of sorts.

    obviously I can't do it justice, and certainly not in this thumbnail sketch, all those who do live within easy distance of this museum owe it to themselves to make the pleasant journey, not to be missed.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/15/2005 @ 11:40pm

  98. Good description of Dia, Johannes. And when in that area, it is also worth a trip to Storm King in Mountainville.

    And ILP, I'll drink whatever you guys don't want to stoop for--I'm happy just to be at the party.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/15/2005 @ 11:50pm

  99. Jorcheim, I think you have explained the bigger meaning if we are to rise above those who commit atrocities and torture. "And if we are not willing to hold ourselves to a higher standard than our "enemies", how are we any different from them?"

    The biggest danger is Bush's preemptive strike mentality and his same refusal to respect both the International Court and the Geneva Convention Accords. He is in a sense, positioning our military as being invincible, therefore, he feels justified in carrying out threats and brutality in the name of God, much like the al Qaeda who carry out their atrocities in the divine name of Allah. In Bush's narrow, dogmatic mind, it is all justified with his belief that God is on his side.

    Unfortunately, by abandoning and rejecting the time-honored laws and principles which have historically separated civilized people from barbarians, there is the reality that our own soldiers may someday be captured by much more powerful and formidable enemies than Iraq is or ever was.

    Take, for example, a monolithic Islamic state, Iran, whose government may let loose with both nuclear (if they have them) and conventional missiles that can easily reach Israel and practically all of our known bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is unlikely that Bush can put massive numbers of "boots on the ground" in Iran to the extent that he has been able to get away with in Iraq. After all, during Bush's preemptive invasion Iraq had no navy, didn't launch a single aircraft or missile and their ragtag remnants of an underequipped, undermanned, undisciplined army simply retreated into the civilian population once Bush launched his "shock and awe" laser guided missiles and bombs against Saddam Hussein's regime. Iran, on the other hand, is a country with almost three times the population and twice as big area-wise as Iraq and has a formidable modernized and well-trained army.

    Bush has weakened our military and exposed the limitations of carrying out a long-term occupation of a country that has been broken for over fourteen years, twelve of which were under a severe US-British No-Fly zone restriction and twelve years of UN-imposed economic sanctions. Not so with Iran where the best Bush can do now is bomb the daylights out of them and hope for his poll numbers to go up. In the meantime, if some of our troops are captured by Irani military they may well suffer atrocities and torture far greater than the US ever used at Abu Ghraib's prison.

    That's Bush's legacy and the price our country will pay, all because of Bush's dictatorial, world-destabilizing policies. A legacy which neither respects nor honors any rules except his own, preemptive strikes against anyone he chooses, and to hell with international laws, treaties and civilized rules of conduct. Preemptive war will have a price to pay.

    But as long as ignorant, petty tyrants like the tunnel-visioned Bush think they can wage war without consequences or torture others with impunity such as the clandestine rendering technique of sending captured insurgents to other countries to be tortured, it is not Bush who will suffer because he doesn't give a damn. It will be our stretched thin all-volunteer military and those who will inevitably be conscripted to have their lives thrown away as nothing more than cannon fodder and the price we will pay for Bush's failed, disastrous fantasy to democratize the entire Middle East at the end of a gun barrel.

    Posted by richard38 at 10/15/2005 @ 11:50pm

  100. Except you forgot Bourgeois's spider among the highlights!

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/15/2005 @ 11:51pm

  101. certainly Tj, and surely I left out more. the Bourgeois rooms are certainly great. you people continue to pleasantly surprise me, and I mean that in admiration.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/15/2005 @ 11:57pm

  102. true enough, Richard. for the neocons the 21st century has not started, they live in a pre 1914 world, where wars were pleasant little diversions, or so it seemed to them, they all thought they'd be home by christmas

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/16/2005 @ 12:00am

  103. ZHONG

    These terrorists are NOT supported by a majority of the population the elections confirm that, if that were true they could have eliminated us from IRAQ a long time ago. They target and kill their own people. It does not take alot to kill civilians, like any gang in any American city, easy to operate when all you want to do is kill people.

    Posted by CPT 10/15/2005 @ 1:01pm

    They may not be supported by the majority of the populous, but enough to evade our military and increase in numbers. Bush was trying to create a "spider's web" in Iraq and he got it, but we are getting stuck in our own web. The Baathist were the ruling party under SH, we got rid of him but those whom benefitted from his control remain and now they are terrorist. Do you think for a minute a another country could come here and occupy the US? When would you give-up and submit? They would have to kill you. Is that what we are going to do, Kill all who oppose us? Also, if the majority could eliminate us, couldn't they eliminate the terrorist as well? Why don't they want to eliminate them if the terrorists are so despised by the Iraqi's? Will our stature increase in their eyes of the Iraqis with each atrocity of war we commit? You can have a war without atrocities.

    As for your example of firing a pistol close to the prisoner's head to get information in battle: coersion? torture? I'm not sure; but, I ask you this. What if he had not answered, would you have then killed the prisoner?

    Like a good soldier your focused on winning the battles, but you have little concern for after the fighting is over. Or is the fighting never to finish?

    Posted by zhong at 10/16/2005 @ 03:37am

  104. JOHANNE

    You twisted view of history does not make it correct. Marshall and Truman, when did they say that? I have read both, they do not say anything of the kind. You like to make things up as you go huh? Well I suppose that is better than having to deal with mainstream thoughts. Your right the Dali was no political leader. He was the leader of a nation and his actions or inactions caused himd ot lose his country, if you do not recognize that, then you are even more deluded than I thought.

    FRANKGITS? You base you opinion on what he allows you to beleive? Now that is laughable.

    JORCIEM

    Geneva Conventions? Are the terrorists part of a nation state? do they were uniforms? No, hence illegal combatants. And we still treat them better than they would us. I know you love to beleive we are the bad guys, but its true.

    The Numberg trials? Oh yes, let me ask you, one could argue that those were illegal trials. There were no Crimes against humantiy law before? Is it legal to make an ex post facto law and then charge some one with that crime? Now I have no doubt the Nurmberg trials were the RIGHT thing to do, but not the most legally correct thing to do. Thanks for helping me to make that point.

    The Bottomline, it comes down to the fact that you think american policy is solely used to cause evil and destruction, you guys look through a prism that says everything America does is bad and evil, I love coming and punching holes in you deluded views, I know oyu think yourselves as high minded intellects, but you are really just fringe radical thinkers confined to the outer realm of the mainstream, but America well always allow you express your TRUELY misguided philo. America certainly is not perfect, but for you guys not to even consider that are current goals in ME are to help empower those people is disgusting. go ahead and laugh it off. I feel sorry for many of you though, being confined to the fringe cannot be comfortable.

    Posted by CPT at 10/16/2005 @ 11:28am

  105. ZHONG

    No, I would have not have killed him, I personally, would have made go with us through the area I suspected of having the ambush positions. and I probably would have strapped him to the hood of my lead vehicle. But in order to understand this you have to put yourself in that position and look at your men, many young, and ask yourself who is more important? The men I am responsible for? or the terrorists prisoner, which by doctrine I am required to speed to the rear as soon as possible? what do you do? And that is what I am asking you to consider.

    Posted by CPT at 10/16/2005 @ 11:35am

  106. cpt, a parting shot. whatta phony, the closest you've come to combat was playing with your little tin soldiers. basta

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/16/2005 @ 11:55am

  107. CPT, what a pathetically wrong-headed and ill-informed person you are if you can't read or understand that Bush's Iraq War is the disaster, not the MAJORITY of American people who oppose it. I emphasize majority because you clearly have missed the news, and more specifically, the mainstream news which belies your statement, "but you are really just fringe radical thinkers confined to the outer realm of the mainstream..."

    Bush now is at his lowest approval on every single issue ever in the eyes of the majority of Americans as the Wall Street Journal (not exactly a bastion of liberal ideas) NBC poll taken last week and CBS poll the week earlier reveal. That's not exactly the "fringe" as you call it.

    If anyone is the "fringe" or "outer realm" it is the entire lockstep, die-hard Bush Bootlickers who still refuse to acknowledge or account to anyone, least of all the American people, for this disastrous Iraq War which was launched on a pack of lies and deceit to begin with.

    Posted by richard38 at 10/16/2005 @ 12:00pm

  108. Half the time I can't even understand what CPT is writing. Perhaps his knowledge of the language is more advanced than mine, hence my problem. But I think not. His inability to communicate in English is, I think, part of his inability to understand history; "torture" for him, it would appear, would be to hand him a rigorous study of American history with a demand that he produce a clearly argued and worded analysis. Torture for us would be the demand to read his attempt at such an analysis.

    I'm not going to hit the ignore button since his posts might be part of someone else's ongoing discussion. But this will be my last post that in any way references his shoddy, thoughtless writing.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/16/2005 @ 12:10pm

  109. CPT is an idiot. He okays torture, and then denies the brute reality of what it has induced at Abu Ghraib and Guatanamo. If he had character, he'd stand up for the rights of the jackass Lyndie England, and call for accountability from an administration that gave her leeway to behave like an animal. Loose talk of torture generates more and more Abu Ghraibs. It's your fault, CPT. You, and the people with politics like yours, who bear no ethical difference from those who rationalized torture in Germany, or in Russia during the show trials. You're an idiot. A dangerous idiot, maybe a well read idiot, but an idiot all the same. There is no reasoning with you.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/16/2005 @ 1:52pm

  110. Jaya, I agree with most of your assessment of CPT with the exception that, though CPT reads, he doesn't absorb anything other than the filtrated news that keeps being spouted by the Bush propaganda machine. Which, of course explains why and how such brainwashing and indoctrination work so well.

    Few have any doubt at all that some people simply like to torture, maim and kill others. We read about it all the time and see it on the evening news where someone rapes and murders a young child, couples locking their children up in cages for years and abusive behavior which makes the Marquis de Sade seem like an angel. So, yes, people do like to torture and that's just what makes them tick.

    Years ago I stood on the deck of a ship anchored at Cam Ranh Bay, South Vietnam where soldiers who were "winding down" from combat duty before being sent back to the States were often assigned to patrol and guard the ships unloading cargo. Below, on the pier were South Vietnamese nationals working for the U.S. Army, driving the fork lifts and trucks. I talked to one of those troops holding an M-16 rifle and I heard him say as looked down at those Vietnamese on the unloading pier, "I'd like to kill every damn one of those motherf_ _ _ ers!"

    I sure as hell believed him and I sure believe there are plenty like him in Iraq who see the same Iraqi people who are being trained as policemen and security forces lobbing IEDs and setting roadside bombs to kill Americans at every chance.

    The fault is, our troops were never trained nor expected to have to be nation-builders and reconstruction experts. They were trained to seek out and kill and vaporize enemy forces. And if the commanding generals and senior officers look the other way when these kids, many of them barely out of high school, torture and kill in the midst of an adrenaline rush or in the heat of a firefight, don't blame the troops. Blame incompetent, ignorant people like Bush and Rumsfeld who contemptuously sneer, "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had" and "Bring them on!"

    But that is the role they have been assigned to do -- be peacekeepers in a country roiled by ethnic and sectarian divisions that go back centuries and nothing will end this violence until they come to terms with each other -- which may be decades.

    And you're right, that Lyndie England is simply the outgrowth of the entire attitude by those running this war which is, punish the lower-ranking, untrained and unprepared, many reservists and National Guard grunts, for failed policies, mental lapses and poor judgment by the senior ranks who see this war mainly as a ladder to garner quick promotions and lavish lifetime retirement benefits, all courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers.

    The Lyndie Englands end up demoted, incarcerated and shamed, while equally culpable top generals become the talking heads and experts on Fox News Network to parse all the "good" things we're doing in Iraq. All hail Caesar!

    Posted by richard38 at 10/16/2005 @ 2:54pm

  111. hey Richard38, great post, I wish I had said that

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/16/2005 @ 3:23pm

  112. CPT:

    I am not sure why I waste my time responding to your muddled arguments, but I guess I'm just bored.

    You said:

    Geneva Conventions? Are the terrorists part of a nation state? do they were uniforms? No, hence illegal combatants. And we still treat them better than they would us. I know you love to beleive we are the bad guys, but its true.

    My response:

    First off, the people in Iraq are fighting against an occupying force... us. We invaded an essentially defenseless country. We did so to take their commodified resources, not because of presumed WMDs or human rights violations, or democracy. And yes, that makes us the bad guys. I call a spade a spade. I'm not one of these mindless morons who says "My country, right or wrong." That is precisely what many Nazis said to justify their behavior. There is NO EXCUSE for our behavior, both in going to war, and in acting in war. So while they are not wearing uniforms, they are essentially partisans. And they are covered under the Geneva Convention. Al Qaeda is MAYBE a different situation... but I will remind you that we MADE them. Al Qaeda is a direct result of US political and military decisions and policies. Hence, we are simply dealing with the repercussions of policies that have ALWAYS been wrong. Why is your sense of history so disconnected from continuity?

    You said:

    The Numberg trials? Oh yes, let me ask you, one could argue that those were illegal trials. There were no Crimes against humantiy law before? Is it legal to make an ex post facto law and then charge some one with that crime? Now I have no doubt the Nurmberg trials were the RIGHT thing to do, but not the most legally correct thing to do. Thanks for helping me to make that point.

    My response:

    First off, you misspelled Nuremberg. Not even close. Second, when you are dealing with a crime of such monumental proportions as the Holocaust, sometimes it is absolutely necessary to issue laws and decisions ex post facto. So your argument that the Nuremberg trial could be construed as illegal is about as stupid as I have ever heard. Only an apologist for war crimes and crimes against humanity would make such an inane argument... oh wait, that's you.

    You said:

    The Bottomline, it comes down to the fact that you think american policy is solely used to cause evil and destruction, you guys look through a prism that says everything America does is bad and evil, I love coming and punching holes in you deluded views, I know oyu think yourselves as high minded intellects, but you are really just fringe radical thinkers confined to the outer realm of the mainstream, but America well always allow you express your TRUELY misguided philo. America certainly is not perfect, but for you guys not to even consider that are current goals in ME are to help empower those people is disgusting. go ahead and laugh it off. I feel sorry for many of you though, being confined to the fringe cannot be comfortable.

    My response:

    You don't even pretend to understand my point of view, so I will spoon-feed it to you like a child.

    I don't believe that American policy is designed to, as you say, create evil and destruction. That would be arbitrary. There is absolutely NOTHING arbitrary about the actions of the US government, the Bush administration, or the military. Our actions are for the sole stated purpose of stealing, creating, and protecting wealth from the weakest members of the family of nations, all for a small coterie of Wall Street bankers, Corporate American fat cats, and chickenhawkish girly-men who opted out of fighting for the country (but who have no problem sending others out to die for their profits and glory).

    The only holes you have punched in anything are perhaps the holes you punched in your talking points notebook you got from some wingnut right-wing neo-con website that is funded by the Scaife Foundation or the Heritage Foundation. Learn to think for yourself, son. If it is a radical idea to think that we should actually live up to our potential as a nation, and to live by the rules and rhetoric we set down as sacrosanct, AND to fulfill our obligations to the world as its leader, instead of being a homicidal, murderous, brutish regime, then brand me a radical.

    You're right about one thing, though. America is not perfect... far from it. Unlike you, though, I don't believe we should use that as an excuse to suborn the basic fundamental principles of true civilization, or to NOT try to do better. That is lazy, it is dishonest, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

    And if how I feel is on the fringe, I stand there in good company. I count among my brothers Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who said:

    "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

    Today he is rolling over in his grave.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/16/2005 @ 3:44pm

  113. You are being unfair to CPT. He is a recruiter in the military part of the Military – Industrial complex. Of the minority of people who still believe "Bushshit," it is important that CPT remain in that camp. As human beings, we must have compassion for someone in his precarious position. Can you imagine the tremendous psychological damage that would befall that human being if he suddenly awoke to see the sham he participates in? How would any of us feel if we recruited young people into the military who were subsequently killed only to learn later that we were duped by a president who came into office with a hidden agenda?

    Posted by seattlescribe at 10/16/2005 @ 3:47pm

  114. Wait a tick... CPT is a military recruiter? Seriously? If true, I DEFINITELY have no respect for him now.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/16/2005 @ 4:09pm

  115. reading over the recent posts I must say that the level of discourse has been high ,many posters have not only well thought out, nuanced positions, but are also skilled writers in expressing these ideas.

    it is that kind of erudition I too aspire to. my sincere compliments

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/16/2005 @ 7:50pm

  116. JOHANNESROLF:

    Should I presume you were not referring to CPT of LOVE LIBERTY?

    :D

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/16/2005 @ 8:15pm

  117. I'll leave it to each reader to decide for himself, or herself, who these compliments were addressed to

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/16/2005 @ 8:48pm

  118. Jo,according to articles in Times,Nation and Wash.Post Valerie Plames job in CIA was to moniter proliferation of WMD.(you questioned that on another post)Now I have a question for you or anyone who will answer it for me.What is instant run-off voting?Supposedly passing laws for this would put some spine back into the Dems.

    Posted by BusyHands at 10/17/2005 @ 01:12am

  119. Busyhands - what state do you live in?

    Posted by seattlescribe at 10/17/2005 @ 01:57am

  120. Peter and ILP,

    "This American First attitude, reminiscent of historical figures like Father Coughlin and Lindberg and in more modern times, Pat Buchanan, is indeed very anti-Christian--not to mention short-sighted in an increasingly inter-connected, globalized world."

    America first attitude.. reminiscent of Father Coughlin, and Lindberg..

    What did George Washington have to say on the subject?

    From G. Washington's farewell address…

    "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy over a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government".

    and again later in the address..

    ...."It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world...There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard."

    Why do we not heed advice from such a great patriot as G. Washington. Are you Peter Rothberg under some delusion that I heed your words over those of G. Washington's?

    It's amazing to see how efficient the world has been with brainwashing American citizens to accept what's good for the rest of the world as being what is good for America.

    Do you really believe that the rest of the world is looking out for everyone's best interest? No, the world is looking out for what's best for THEM, and everyone who buy's into this flawed logic is having the preverbal wool pulled over their eyes.

    No thank you.. not me…

    For me it's America and Americans first.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/17/2005 @ 12:18pm

  121. OKSportsguy said For me it's America and Americans first.

    Just so long as you can choose which Americans are first (e.g., not gays with AIDS).

    By the way, did you ever hear the concept of enlightened self-interest? Will hiding inside our own Maginot line, looking out for our short-term interests only, siding again and again with the enemy of our enemies, etc. work for us in the long run?

    Does being the world's only super power imply any responsibility at all to the global community? to the global ecosystem?

    Yes, we have to protect our own interests, but we shouldn't sell our souls as part of a narrow-minded short-sighted focus on taking care of #1. Charity begins at home, yes - but our view must be much broader than that or we risk facing a world filled with a mix of uneasy luke-warm allies and bitter hate-filled enemies.

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/17/2005 @ 12:39pm

  122. You know, arguing with guys like Todd is exhausting and a waste of time. He doesn't even understand the gospel he preaches, but that's not his fault, the churches everywhere are run by a pack of lying dogs, and have been since the Roman empire co-opted Christianity back in the day. So in the words of Will Rogers, it's not the thinks Todd doesn't know that bothers me, it's the things he knows for certain that just ain't so. But I'm not making it my problem anymore.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/17/2005 @ 2:32pm

  123. how does america first jibe with the war in Iraq, with its enormous expense in lives and treasure? no slogans please

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/17/2005 @ 2:36pm

  124. Damn, Johannesrolf, you've got to ask? And then you ask for no slogans? What are you trying to do, short circuit him?

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/17/2005 @ 3:30pm

  125. "how does america first jibe with the war in Iraq, with its enormous expense in lives and treasure? no slogans please"

    Oil...

    They have it, we need it, and Saddam wasn't ever going to trade with us fairly for it.

    Therefore by taking him out under the guise of "WMD's" and the argument that he was an "evil tyrant" (which he certainly was), worked well for persuading the American public to go to war there.

    And now we have an opportunity to put in place a U.S. friendly puppet democratic government that will be much more willing to trade on the open market with us, particularly for their oil.

    Makes perfect sense to me...

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/17/2005 @ 3:34pm

  126. Shit, at least Todd comes right out and says it.

    Tens of thousands dead, a country destroyed, $200B+ tab, diminished respect from our allies, a rise in anti-American sentiment in the Arab world, increased potential for terrorist attacks against the U.S. Sounds like a great trade-off for cheap oil, huh Todd? Mighty Christian of you.

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/17/2005 @ 4:28pm

  127. Hman23,

    "Shit, at least Todd comes right out and says it."

    Yes, and I would have had a ton more respect for the President had he just come out and said what he wanted to do and the real reasoning behind it.

    Why are so many people worried about being "politically correct"?

    I'm sure as hell not.

    "Sounds like a great trade-off for cheap oil, huh Todd?"

    Yes...

    Any other questions?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/17/2005 @ 4:54pm

  128. friendly puppet in Iraq? don't make me larf . what we have inherited is a civil war that will fester for a long while. tell me again what a wonderful boon it is, compared to the cost say, rebuilding the gulf coast.

    the folks unhappy enough about this arrangement will blow themselves and others up, including sabotaging the pipe line.how long will it take to kill all the insurgents, and aren't they replenished faster than we kill them?

    and when you add the cost of the war into the price of oil it becomes very dear indeed. again you have shown yourself incapable of moving beyond easy slogans and shills for the present policy. the reason?

    this is not good for america, so far ot hasn't been too good for Iraq.

    we accuse Saddam of having started the war against Iran and against Kuwait. So what does the US do, same damn thing, start a war, a war they thought would be "mission accomplished" easy. and it's not is it.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/17/2005 @ 5:09pm

  129. OKSPORTSGUY:

    Essentially what you are saying is, you want a return to the state of nature, where the strongest survive. Tell you what... you and I fight it out, and when I beat your ass, I take all your stuff.

    Right... makes PERFECT sense to me...

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/17/2005 @ 5:21pm

  130. Todd,

    No more questions. You have revealed enough.

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/17/2005 @ 5:35pm

  131. Jorcheim,

    " Tell you what... you and I fight it out, and when I beat your ass, I take all your stuff."

    Aren't you guys the one's that are always clamoring about nature, evolution..

    Evolution IS survival of the fitest. Or have you convienently forgotten that?

    So if you are so right about evolution, you should know that the strong will always prevail.

    Yes, if you or anyone else for that matter where after my wife, children or oil in my car, I would fight to the death to defend them. And if, and that's a big if, as most liberals are panzies when it comes to violence, you killed me, then and only then would you take my stuff.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/17/2005 @ 5:54pm

  132. OKSPORTSGUY:

    #1: I'm not a liberal.

    #2: I'm not a pansy.

    #3: Since you're the one who thinks our military should be a machine of conquest, yet you are too much of a wimp to join up, you are definitely not only a pansy, but a hypocrite. And probably a major wimp as well, much like all the other chickenhawks I have ever met.

    #4: On a more erudite note, it comes down to this. The rule of law (and adherance to that law) is precisely the ONLY thing that separates us from the wild kingdom. I like the fact that we don't live in a "survival of the fittest" world, because when I have kids, I don't have to worry (as much) about something horrible happening to them.

    Your views are not only dangerous to everyone else, they're dangerous to you, your family, and everything you hold dear. No matter how hard you may fight, in a world where only the strong survive, the weak suffer. Oh, and guess what? That's not very Christian. At all. In the words of Hobbes, a world without rule of law is "nasty, brutish, and short."

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/17/2005 @ 6:09pm

  133. OKSG - Survival of the fittest is one thing. Surviving by exterminating everyone else is another. Surviving doesn't have to mean hogging all the resources of the world, burning up every drop of oil and every chunk of coal as fast as we can, mutilating the environment as we do it. And making enemies of all of our competitors for resources. It doesn't have to be a win/lose proposition, though that's the only way you can see it. If we grab all the oil we can without any concern over geo-political consequences, what happens when the oil runs out? What happens to our relationships with the folks we trampled on while we sucked down their oil?

    Your protectionist tribalism doesn't work too well in a global economy, particularly as the brain power stops immigrating to the US but rather stays in India, China, Brazil, wherever. If we start to lose the innovation and entrepeneurial edge that has kept us on top for so long, wouldn't it be better to be a welcomed member of a global community, and not a hated and feared despot?

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/17/2005 @ 6:20pm

  134. Jorcheim,

    "Your views are not only dangerous to everyone else, they're dangerous to you, your family, and everything you hold dear. No matter how hard you may fight, in a world where only the strong survive, the weak suffer. Oh, and guess what? That's not very Christian. At all. In the words of Hobbes, a world without rule of law is "nasty, brutish, and short."

    blah blah blah...

    If what you say is so "right"...

    Why are we at war right now in Iraq?

    Why are violent rebelions taking place all over the world in places like Chechnia, South Africa, and others?

    "The weak suffer"

    yes you are absolutely right! But not in the way you are thinking.

    Which is why is why during the time period of the 700's to 1050's while the Vikings were sailing up and down the European coast line, the only people that suffered were the people who met the Viking war lord's with act's of kindness and words such as "we are a peaceful people, please don't attack us".

    The Vikings weren't stupid, those "weak" people were the one's the Vikings attacked because they knew they wouldn't defend themselves.

    As the Vikings moved up and down the coastline, it was the people that picked up an axe or sword and came to the village's defense, that were spared. The Vikings, seeing that these people were going to fight to defend their people and property, simply put their swords away and moved on down to the coast line until they found people not willing to fight.

    America will not be those poor stupid people shouting "have mercy on us, we mean not malice or harm to you terrorists" like the stupid people the Vikings ravaged.

    We will stand up to terrorism, and take their oil in the process.

    Either learn to live with it, or stop allowing conservative republican pro Israeli, anti terrorist presidents like Bush from becoming elected.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/17/2005 @ 6:27pm

  135. Fish,

    "What happens to our relationships with the folks we trampled on while we sucked down their oil?"

    Scroll up and read my post regarding what G. Washington had to say about being concerned with other nations regarding the U.S. foreign policy.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/17/2005 @ 6:30pm

  136. OKSPORTSGUY:

    First off... you're a moron.

    Second... The Vikings were predatory. As are we. But just as the Vikings lost power, the Spanish, the British, the French, etc. etc., so shall we. Your views are myopic, and again, dangerous to everything you hold dear.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/17/2005 @ 6:48pm

  137. OKSG has even seen fit to carefully parse the farewell speech of George Washington. Here's some parts he chose not to quote:

    Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

    Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate

    A key point of the address was that we can't have liberty without union. Here's another quote:

    Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

    This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

    The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

    Washington urged neutrality - this is far different from America and Americans first. OKSG has twisted this speech to serve his own point of view, kind of typical of neo-cons.

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/17/2005 @ 9:19pm

  138. OKSG - George Washington did not say we shouldn't be concerned about our policies and other countries. He said we should be neutral, not play favorites and avoid alliances. How does the following quote from the speech fit your argument:

    Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/17/2005 @ 9:23pm

  139. FISHBITE:

    Very good post.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/17/2005 @ 9:25pm

  140. I'm beginning to wonder about whether or not to hit the 'ignore' button on good old OKSG. Should I resist? He appears to have stopped processing information and keeps spouting the same inanities. Any advice re 'ignoring' Todd?

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/17/2005 @ 9:26pm

  141. FISHBITE:

    I refuse to hit ignore on anyone. I believe everyone has a right to speak their mind on here. However, that does not mean that he shouldn't be lambasted as a narrow-minded fascist.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/17/2005 @ 9:31pm

  142. Jorcheim,

    "First off... you're a moron."

    Your opinion is your opinion, I can assure you I have my opinions of you as well.

    Your opinion of me however, doesn't change the fact, that President Bush whom you despise, still is in power, we are still at war in Iraq, and prisoners continue to be held at Gitmo and other similar places...

    Continue to call conservatives morons all day long, I could care less, it almost seems that the more progressives vilify conservatives, the stronger the grip conservatives have on America, particularly in the area of foreign policy.

    So... criticize away my friend!

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/17/2005 @ 10:08pm

  143. "Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all"

    He would probably say, to show justice to all nations like the U.S. and Britain with regard to suicide bombers, we must show that justice is done by bringing those that caused those acts to justice such as in a criminal court proceding, similar to what will happen to those people held at Gitmo and other places.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/17/2005 @ 10:12pm

  144. OKSPORTSGUY:

    First off, I'm not your friend. Fascists have no place in my life.

    Second, while you are correct about everything you said regarding who is in power RIGHT NOW, you're wrong to think that the grip of fascists in this country is either absolute or expanding. Just look at the news, which is almost always loathe to cover illegalities of the administration. The wind is changing. It may turn bloody before it's over.

    Third, I don't call all conservatives morons... just fascists. And those who have little capacity for reason and humanity.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/17/2005 @ 10:12pm

  145. "I'm beginning to wonder about whether or not to hit the 'ignore' button on good old OKSG. Should I resist? He appears to have stopped processing information and keeps spouting the same inanities. Any advice re 'ignoring' Todd?"

    Please go ahead, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. This is a free country bro, just like you, and Cindy Sheehan have your right of free speech, no matter how offensive, I can assure you, I have the same right.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/17/2005 @ 10:13pm

  146. "just fascists. And those who have little capacity for reason and humanity."

    On a side note here..

    Oh.. I have reason...

    I reason that, as soon as all of the terrorists that strap bombs on their bodies and blow up civilians are killed, then there will be no more terrorists straping bombs on their bodies blowing up civilians.

    It's very reasonable.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/17/2005 @ 10:29pm

  147. OKSPORTSGUY:

    How about terrorists who drop bombs on civilian targets from 40,000 feet?

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/17/2005 @ 10:31pm

  148. Or terrorists who invade defenseless countries?

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/17/2005 @ 10:31pm

  149. Or terrorists who sanction torture?

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/17/2005 @ 10:31pm

  150. Again, you are showing an enormous capacity for moral relativism. "My country, right or wrong" is the stupidest ideology the world has ever seen.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/17/2005 @ 10:32pm

  151. OKSG - I can take heat just fine, in the kitchen or anywhere else. What I can't take is the putrid smell of something going bad - that would be your world view, "friend". You certainly have a free speech right, as does Ms Coulter. I however am not forced to listen to her bullshit or yours.

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/17/2005 @ 10:33pm

  152. To all:

    "...As we forgive those who trespass against us. And, lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil..." and the evangelic faith that carries darkness and fear into the nations of men. Amen.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/18/2005 @ 12:50am

  153. "Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all"

    He would probably say, to show justice to all nations like the U.S. and Britain with regard to suicide bombers, we must show that justice is done by bringing those that caused those acts to justice such as in a criminal court proceding, similar to what will happen to those people held at Gitmo and other places.

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 10/17/2005 @ 10:12pm

    Todd, are you channeling the spirit of GW? Isn't that divination? So sorry, but we must stone you...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/18/2005 @ 01:09am

  154. Todd, Your Viking analogy only works if the agressor is analogous to the Vikings! In this case, that would be the Bush administration.

    What were you telling me about those critical thinking courses you took?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/18/2005 @ 01:11am

  155. ILOVEPHYSICS:

    That was exactly my point, regarding the Vikings.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/18/2005 @ 01:22am

  156. JORCHEIM

    You talk of moral relativism all the time, but you are the biggest hypocrite on this subject! Its amazing really, although most liberals have this already, you display it brazenly.

    You say my country right or wrong is the stupidest ideaology I have ever seen, though no one is advocating that. You claim that my example of the Nazi war crimes trials, were an exception to the rule of law, because their crimes were so great, I agree with that part. But to not even recognize that there were NO crimes against humanity statued in effect and that they were prosecuted retro actively by laws that were enacted after they committed the crimes is moral relativism, and that is fine, just admit, you are a moral relativist. It was the right thing to do, even if it was not the most legally correct thing to do. The same with certain cases of "torture" not all, but certain ones.

    Now go ahead and spin this into whatever you wish.

    By the way you and Johannes' fourth grade attempts to try and bait me are laughable, but continue to do so, it shows you true colors.

    Posted by CPT at 10/18/2005 @ 07:47am

  157. Jorcheim,

    "How about terrorists who drop bombs on civilian targets from 40,000 feet?"

    ah... the victim mentality argument.

    Progresives love to go to this one.

    Very similar to lumping all of societies problem with the poor as due to the evil "white man" keeping them down, and never questioning people's work ethic, determination or personal responsibility choices in life.

    The only people that believe that the American military is a terrorism organization Jorcheim, are progressives like you.

    We do not fly 747's into public buildings, we do not have our military people strap on bombs and blow them selves up in public places such as pizza parlors in Israel, train stations in London, or road sides in Iraq.

    We do not INTENTIONALLY target civilians in Iraq, or any other civilians for that matter.

    No my friend, we are not terrorists, terrorists are terrorists, and the majority of them are Islamic and come from Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the middle east.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/18/2005 @ 07:50am

  158. Fishbite,

    Then hit the ignore button.

    It won't offend me a bit...

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/18/2005 @ 07:51am

  159. "Todd, Your Viking analogy only works if the agressor is analogous to the Vikings! In this case, that would be the Bush administration."

    No, the analogy goes the other way.

    If we give in to terrorism and try to negotiate with terrorists, try to "understand" why our foreign policy has caused these people to feel like their only recourse in life is to kill them selves to make a political statement, then we are becoming the stupid European civilizations that cried "please don't attack us, we are peaceful, we beg for your mercy!"

    And they will only continue to bomb, kill, and use planes as missles.

    Terrorism must be attacked head on, directly, with no mercy.

    When all of the terrorists are killed or imprisoned, terrorism will cease. Until then, terrorists will continue to do what they do.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/18/2005 @ 07:54am

  160. OK, they're not killing themselves to make a statement, unlike the buddhist monks that burned themselves in protest in Vietnam in the 60s. I suggest you stop with the long tedious posts and just write in KILL, KILL, KILL once in a while as your contribution.maybe throw in NO MERCY too, you rabid armchair warrior

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/18/2005 @ 08:14am

  161. stolen elections in Iraq? I guess they're getting the hang of Bush style freedom and democracy

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/18/2005 @ 09:06am

  162. JOHANNE

    Admit it, Iraqi elections were a big success, you were wrong, and Bush was right. Stop trying to spin it, admit it and move on. People walked miles to a polling station, took their families with them in many cases and risked the "freedom fighters" attacks to vote. By voting, they said no to the terrorists "freedom fighters."

    Posted by CPT at 10/18/2005 @ 11:04am

  163. the vote means nothing, violence will continue to rise, the occupying forces shut the country down, if they could keep it shut down, the violence would decrease, trouble is there would be no "country" just a large prison. you know nothing, understand even less.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/18/2005 @ 11:32am

  164. .

    Comments Against "A Vote Against Torture"

    Torture is the perfect Peter Rothberg topic. Here that moral leviathan levitates not just on the warm updraft of the typical Nation editorial, he climbs up on McCain's shoulders and on the milk crates of Human Rights Watch, the US Senate and of generals and FaithfulAmerica etc. He piles one on top of the other and from the peak of that moral skyscraper the upstanding Rothberg inveighs against torture. He is in the company of all the saints in heaven and earth, not to mention Iran, Hamas, al-Qaeda and every one of the Arab despotisms.

    Who is the lone standout against the righteous indignation of the world? Who has a good word to say for the rack? Who insists on equivocating on this issue? Well, of course: the Bush administration.

    What is the issue? That torture is cruel and abhorrent? That it is inhumane? That it goes against the American grain? That it is wrong for Americans to torture POW? That almost no politician who knows his business and isn't drunk will vote against an anti-torture amendment?

    No. The problem is not a shortage of US law against torture. Not at all. The US has lots of such laws. American policemen have been and are being prosecuted and jailed under criminal statutes against mistreating prisoners across this Republic. Torture is also illegal and punishable under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. The US signed the 1907 Hague Convention and the 1929 Geneva Convention, both of which required the humane treatment of prisoners. The Army Field Manual 27-10 insists on it. There is also the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1949 Geneva Convention and the 1984 Convention against Torture, all make the mistreatment of prisoners illegal, under US law.

    In short, there is no shortage of law on this matter. Nobody thinks torture is legal. What we are short of is honesty and perspective.

    At this moment thousands of men are beating their wives, their girlfriends, their children. It is illegal, but it happens. Police are bullying prisoners, schoolboys are tormenting classmates, convicts are raping one another. It is against the law. It should not happen. But it happens. Brutality is a staple in army barracks the world over. And it goes on in boy scout bivouacs, in fraternity houses and church choirs; not occasionally, routinely. The urge to be a lord, even if only over flies, is everlasting. Few English public school alumni can't relate stories of systematic cruelty. It happens not because anyone thinks bullying and violence are right, and there aren't plenty of rules and laws against that. It happens because when young and vigorous people cut off from home, are left to their own devices that is where human inclinations lead them. (From that perspective, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are probably among the safest places in the world.)

    We forget that during WWII Canadians machine gunned their Germany captives. At Dachau GIs hacked to death with entrenching tools Germans who had neatly stacked their rifles and raised their arms in surrender. In the bitter cold first winter after that war thousands of German POWs died of malnutrition and exposure, especially in the camps for SS. Allied prisoners in Germany suffered a 4% death rate. In Japanese hands the death toll was 25 - 35%. About 45% of German POWs held by the Soviets died, as did 60 - 80% of Soviet prisoners. Over 40% of Americans captured in Korea did not survive. In Vietnam 14% of Americans in the Hanoi Hilton or in jungle prisons in the South died in captivity.

    Of the 660 detainees held In Guantanamo since 2001, none have died. The inmates get better medical care there than the average American.

    We forget that Senator McCain (whom I supported in 2000 and hope to vote for yet) endured torture and saw his friends murdered through five and a half years as a POW, two of them shackled in solitary confinement. He was cut down in two attempts to hang himself. That did not happen because the US lacked laws against inhumane treatment. . . (There is such a thing as sitting too close to the stage.)

    We are short of imagination. We did not conceive of fanatics clamoring to explode our crowded skyscrapers. We yet refuse to recognize that they look at our population centers and dream of vast slaughter. Against such jihadists in civilian dress flourishing no flag, our conventional defenses are impotent. We must know who they are, where they come from, how they think. That makes the men in Guantanamo invaluable. That is why they are subject to intense interrogation. They are not beetles in a bottle whose legs we pull out. But they are our one window into the enemy camp.

    Making ourselves secure against that enemy is a difficult task. It is not achieved by posturing, which is what adding to the laws against cruel and stupid acts by reckless soldiers amounts to.

    Posted by nacl at 10/18/2005 @ 12:34pm

  165. .

    PETER ROTHBERG 10/11 @1:01pm

    NACL--You really would do well to read Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel.

    Have you read that book? Give your specific reason for recommending it to me!

    Posted by nacl at 10/18/2005 @ 12:38pm

  166. You people who support this state and its use of torture may say whatever you want. Your argument, in a nutshell, is that however deep the corruptions of this order, it may use whatever means at its disposal to ensure its own survival. Never is the state held accountable for its most blatant crimes, always does the "lesser evil"- our state terrorism versus their chaotic terrorism- stand as the moral beacon to the world. If you actually see yourselves as democrats, it must be said that you are the stalinists of now, defending whatever actions the state takes in its own defense, because, come what may, anything you do is democracy, right? Stalin said anything he did was socialism. You are birds of a feather, whether you like it or not. If I seem angry, if I seem cruel, I've got to say that in the very worst moments of my life, I have never rationalized the release of the savagery you say is neccesary to "protect" our people, regardless of the character of the people you claim wish to protect us. You pro-torture people are stalinists. You may be stalinists with a human face, but you are of that camp.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/18/2005 @ 1:04pm

  167. NACL - Thanks for pointing out the obvious, that things are tough all over and that people do brutal, evil things. I'm going to guess that everyone is aware of that. The fact that people do these horrible things does not mean that it's acceptable or that it's normal behavior. And yes, there are many laws regarding the use of force, torture, etc. However, this administration has worked very hard to make distinctions (e.g. between captured enemy troops and terrorists) such that these laws conveniently don't apply. Hence, a public, clear statement in the form of legislation from the US saying in essence that we won't use torture - this would have an impact.

    You clearly believe that torture is necessary in order to make ourselves secure against our enemies. The ends justify the means. Following this policy, when do we lose the ability to distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys?

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/18/2005 @ 1:38pm

  168. Fish,

    "when do we lose the ability to distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys?"

    simple...

    the good guys don't strap on bombs and blow themselves up in crowded pizza parlor's full of civilians, the bad guys do.

    Why can't you see that?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/18/2005 @ 1:44pm

  169. You lefties amaze me. CPT presented an argument different than yours, and what is your first reaction? Why, of course, you call him names. Always your first line of defense. Especially that jarjar fellow. CPT presented you with a great real-life example of where grayness exists when it comes to torture. The only problem with his example was that the actions of that officer saved soldiers' lives, which, in most of your eyes, are the same as terrorists. So let me present you with two different examples, and see where you stand on whether torture is ever acceptable.

    1) That same officer learns of a plot to blow up a mosque and kill hundreds of innocent Iraqi civilians. A terrorist that is known to be part of the plot is captured. Would you resort to torture to find out the specifics of the plot so you can prevent it, or do you let the bombing happen in the name of humanity?

    2) You are about to ride the subway, the same subway that other members of your family are sure to be on. You overhear 3 guys talking about how they are going to blow up the subway. You say something, and 2 of them run away, you grab hold of the third guy. You now have a chance to save innocent people, and members of your family, if you can get this guy to reveal the specifics of their plot. Would you torture him if you had to in order to find out, and save your family? Of course you would, and you would not feel bad for one second doing it.

    CPT made an important distinction between the torture of soldiers vs. the torture of terrorists. I am not in favor of torturing soldiers, but if torturing terrorists gets you the info you need, then go for it. We are talking about people who purposely kill innocent people. They are not subject to, nor deserving of, the Geneva Conventions.

    Posted by lburwell at 10/18/2005 @ 1:44pm

  170. "They are not subject to, nor deserving of, the Geneva Conventions."

    I second that motion Lburwell.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/18/2005 @ 1:50pm

  171. Uh huh. Good guys and bad guys, bad guys who openly speak about blowing up the subways. Who's writing these posts, Stan Lee? Oh well. Face front, true believers. Excelsior.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/18/2005 @ 1:55pm

  172. .

    Posted by FISHBITE 10/18 @ 1:38pm

    You could not empty a boot filled with water even if the instructions were written on the heel.

    Posted by nacl at 10/18/2005 @ 2:05pm

  173. LBURWELL - So the distinction is whether or not you kill civilians on purpose. If it's on purpose, you're a terrorist. What if you kill soldiers? Then you're not a terrorist? But what if you cut the head off a soldier - then you are a terrorist? If you kill captured soldiers, that's OK... or not? It gets kind of tricky. Let's say you blow up a government building, thinking it's empty, but kill a night watchman. Well, you didn't intentionally kill him, so you're not a terrorist. Dang, this gets even trickier. But we don't torture soldiers, unless they intentionally kill civilians, because then they become terrorists. See any problem here? Who gets to make the calls and how do we make sure that our enemies aren't making calls the wrong way when they catch our guys?

    Basically, a terrorist is anything we say. Once we agree that the rules don't apply to terrorists, they can be tortured, beaten, starved, fingernails extracted, genitals mutilated, etc. Is that what you are advocating?

    A distinction you fail to make is between a personal action and a government action. Acting on my own behalf, yes, I may commit a crime and assault the one guy I caught on the subway platform, trying to beat information out of him. This guy is not my prisoner, he is a personal enemy of me and my family. I would likely have to face charges but this would not deter me, given your scenario.

    When a representative of the government, of the armed services does this however, that's a far different thing. Then the government is supporting these criminal activities. I've read that the value of information derived from torture has proven to be suspect - don't know if this is true. Much more importantly however, is the dehumanizing impact of allowing the torture of captives, the loss of humanity impacts everyone involved including the public that condones it.

    If we torture someone and get information that prevents the mosque from blowing up, how many new enemies have we created? As it becomes clear that we torture our captives, how many new folks will be drawn to commit their own terrorist acts to strike a blow against torturing hypocrits that espouse democracy while behaving like brutes?

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/18/2005 @ 2:14pm

  174. OKSG - Yeah the good guys have better technology, they can fly away from the bomb sites and put out press releases about how many "insurgents" they killed.

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/18/2005 @ 2:15pm

  175. jarjar - so you don't think terrorists plan their attacks? Do they just coordinate with each other using ESP? Instead of criticizing my examples, why not answer the question: would you condone torture in either of my examples?

    Posted by lburwell at 10/18/2005 @ 2:15pm

  176. NACL - Thanks for your insightful response to my post. I am in awe at your mental prowess. You wrote: You could not empty a boot filled with water even if the instructions were written on the heel. Hey, if your boots were filled with water, just how do you expect to read the instructions written on the heel? You must be one of those very flexible types - you get that way from all that spinning. Spin, spin, spin, oh happy neocon!

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/18/2005 @ 2:18pm

  177. Fish,

    "As it becomes clear that we torture our captives, how many new folks will be drawn to commit their own terrorist acts to strike a blow against torturing hypocrits that espouse democracy while behaving like brutes?"

    right...

    So again, we are back to.. it's all OUR fault that terrorists exist. If we didn't have such a bad foreign policy, particularly with respect to always backing and siding with Israel, we wouldn't have so many terrorists (who happen to be Muslims) that dislike us.

    Let me fill you in on something Fish. Regardless of what the rest of the collective "world" thinks of our foreign policy, in terms of whether it offends them or not, our foreign policy is OUR foreign policy, and we will not change our foreign policy because the "world" wants us to, or because the world is inconvenienced by our current foreign policy.

    We will always stand by Israel, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks, and regardless of whether your claim is accurate or not that our foreign policy is helping create terrorists.

    Right is right, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.

    The sooner you realize this, the sooner you will understand the conservative movement.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/18/2005 @ 2:24pm

  178. FISHBITE So the distinction is whether or not you kill civilians on purpose. Answer: yes. That is my definition of a terrorist. If you only attack soldiers, then you are a soldier. Not very tricky in my book.

    If we torture someone and get information that prevents the mosque from blowing up, how many new enemies have we created? A few maybe, but look at how many friends we made, you know, all those people who are now alive instead of dead because of our actions.

    I have also heard people say torture doesn't get good info, and this came from people whose opinion I would respect in this matter, but I have also heard of examples where just the threat of torture, especially with terrorists, worked wonders. One example was a guy they tricked into believing they were transferring him to Saudi Arabia to be questioned, a place where they have no problem torturing people. They got him to a room, where he was met by a supposed Saudi interrogator, and he gladly gave up any and all information he had. The terrorists, the jihadists, are taught to believe we are weak, and part of this thinking is that we are too weak to torture people (I know it is weird logic, but they are weird people). Someone on here made the comment that you can't fight terror with terror, I believe just the opposite is true, and that is because of the difference between a soldier and a terrorist. A soldier fights for national pride, a terrorist fights for hate. Torturing a soldier will most likely not do much good, because he will feel he has let his nation down if he gives away information. A terrorist is a coward, hiding behind hate, and torture will work differently on him (in my humble opinion). I think the ones who say torture does not do any good are basing this on the torturing of soldiers, not on terrorists.

    Posted by lburwell at 10/18/2005 @ 2:53pm

  179. Tonight, Frontline is broadcasting a special called "The Torture Question". Many of these issues will be addressed from the value of information gathered through torture through specific ways in which Al Qaida members are trained to work with or against interrogators.

    And stop calling terrorists cowards. They are certainly awful people, but cowardly they are not. It's just another way to dehumanize them so that we can treat them however we want without either our consciences being harmed or our Almighty Salvation being risked.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/18/2005 @ 3:56pm

  180. CPT:

    Yes the Iraqi vote on the constitution was a stunning success in democracy. I especially like the part where 39,000 people voted yes in Diyala, which has 36,000 registered voters. I was not aware that Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell helped tally the votes.

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/18/2005 @ 4:03pm

  181. You had to know that there was a government contract available for Diebold.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/18/2005 @ 4:11pm

  182. CPT:

    Morality and legality are often very different issues.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/18/2005 @ 4:13pm

  183. OKSPORTSGUY:

    To claim that the US doesn't target civilians is to ignore documented history throughout the existence of the US. We have gone over this issue many, many times. I won't waste my time trying to spoon-feed it to you. The truth, apparently, disagrees with your palate.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/18/2005 @ 4:16pm

  184. TJB - I call terrorists cowards because they are cowards. They attack unarmed people that they know cannot defend themselves. That is cowardly.

    hman23 - you are so funny, what a knee slapper! The Iraqi election was a huge success, the people who voted in Iraq have never participated in a true election before, and yet, they have gotten the chance to freely vote twice now. But to you it's all just a big joke. Unbelievable.

    Posted by lburwell at 10/18/2005 @ 4:24pm

  185. JORCHEIM - the US does not target civilians.

    Posted by lburwell at 10/18/2005 @ 4:25pm

  186. LBURWELL:

    You are wrong. The US has targetted civilians on numerous occasions throughout its history. Obviously you don't read.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/18/2005 @ 4:41pm

  187. Here's a short list of instances of the US targeting civilians:

    Civil War (Sherman's march)

    Philippine Insurrection (post-Spanish-American War)

    WWII: Dresden, Tokyo

    WWII: Hiroshima, Nagasaki

    Viet Nam: Operation Phoenix, napalming of hamlets, etc.

    Iraq, Part 1: Targeting of domestic civilian infrastructure, targeting of hospitals, etc.

    Iraq, Part 2: Gunning down of civilians at checkpoints, targeting of civilian non-embedded journalists, etc.

    These are all well-documented. There are many more where this came from. This list is simply off the top of my head, in a couple of minutes of typing. You are wrong.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/18/2005 @ 4:47pm

  188. Oh where to start, this is such a target rich environment.

    OKSG - Thanks for filling me in on your world view. Looks like we don't need the State Dept anymore (bunch of pinkos anyway) what with diplomacy being irrelevant. So much simpler when we don't care what the world thinks anyway - we do it our way because after all, right is right. The conservative movement stands for screw the world, we do what we want.

    Our support for Israel is unquestionably a key rationale for Muslim hatred of the US. Our unquenchable thirst for oil is another. Our presence (as unbelievers) on their holy ground is another. Our support for Saudi Arabia is another. Torturing alleged terrorists is truthfully not likely to be all that significant a recruiting stimulus as compared with these other factors. But why would we choose to provide yet another reason to hate us.

    LBURWELL - Would you call firing a cruise missile or dropping a bomb at a target that has no defenses against these weapons the actions of a coward? It's an attack on people who can't protect themselves. In your words "That is cowardly".

    I am kind of disgusted by the matter of fact way you are distinguishing between the torturing of soldiers and of terrorists. And just share with us won't you the cowardice displayed when folks strap on bombs and detonate them or carry out a complicated hijacking/suicide mission. Terrible, brutish, subhuman behavior yes - cowardly? Not at least in a dictionary sense as in the opposite of bravery.

    Also, re your comments on the election, I thought you were making a joke about folks who've gotten the chance to freely vote twice now - and that was just in the last referendum!

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/18/2005 @ 6:11pm

  189. HMAN23

    Give them break, after all they do not have alot of practice at counting votes with more than one choice do they?

    Isnt that akin to saying "my cat isnt very good at playing chess because I beat him 3 games out of 5"?

    Posted by CPT at 10/18/2005 @ 8:41pm

  190. FISHBITE

    Point of fact, its been widely reported that many jihadists in Iraq have tried recruiting mentally ill and young people to carry out these missions. And attacking those who are not capable of fighting back, is COWARDLY! As are most of their TARGETS are, civilians. It is pretty straight forward.

    Posted by CPT at 10/18/2005 @ 8:49pm

  191. FISHBITE

    Understanable Muslim hatred?

    Lets see, we supported Arab Iraq over Persian Iran

    We threw out Saddam when he invaded Kuwait and Saudi arabia and in the process saved thousands of Muslims.

    We (Bush) openly supported an established Palestinian state, and Clinton did as well.

    We intervened in Kosovo and Bosnia on behalf of Muslims and saved them from ethnic cleansing.

    We tacitly sided with Eygpt when they seized the Suez canal over UK and France.

    And we assisted Afghans when the Soviets invaded in 1980.

    And the through OUR dollars many Arab countries have essentially been lifted out of the third world.

    And post WWII we supported the right of self-determination for many Arab countries.

    Of course not all of that was a smooth transition, but they have a right ot hate us? right? for the way that they run their own countries and societies? BS, at some point you take responsibility for your own house and stop blaming a country 10,000 miles away for something it did or didnt do 40-50 yrs ago.

    Posted by CPT at 10/18/2005 @ 9:07pm

  192. CPT - Well, we're trying to recruit young people here in the US, so what's your point? And what's with the "widely reported" - give me a reputable source and spare me the google time looking for references to insane asylums being emptied by terrorist recruiters.

    One more time, when we drop bombs on folks who have no way to fight back, is that cowardly? Also, if terrorists aren't soldiers, are they civilians and if so, aren't we targeting civilians? Oh, I forgot, terrorists are this special case, not soldiers and not civilians, so it's OK to torture them. Sorry, my bad.

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/18/2005 @ 9:11pm

  193. I have never heard that Saddam invaded Saudi Arabia, any one else or is that a figment of your imagination, Cpt?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/18/2005 @ 9:18pm

  194. CPT - boy those Muslims sure are ungrateful. Here we've been doing everything for them, and they just sit around sulking. Try reading through your list with a little care and see if you see any problems. Let's start with supporting Arab Iraq against Persian Iran - gosh and I thought we were talking about Muslims here. Iran is something like 99% Muslim. Whoops! We threw out Saddam... darn if he wasn't another Muslim. Now what's that you're arguing about support for a Palestinian state? How much money does the US give to the Palestinians vs Israel. Hmmm, strike another one off the list. Yes, eventually we did something in Bosnia, after significant numbers of Muslims had been killed. And so on. I laughed to see that you put assisting Afghans on the list since we came back (appropriately) to kick their asses after 9/11.

    If anything our record gives Muslims plenty of reasons for hating us. I think our current adventure in Iraq tops the list however. Please note that I am not justifying the terrorism, just trying to explain it.

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/18/2005 @ 9:23pm

  195. CPT - Could this be what you were referring to : (from BBC News 3/25/04) The case of a 14-year-old Palestinian boy captured wearing a vest packed with explosives at a West Bank checkpoint makes the headlines in Israel's media and prompts condemnation of the people who sent him out to die. Viewers saw footage of what Israeli television called a "mentally challenged" boy stopped at a checkpoint south of Nablus.

    Not clear that this represents a trend in terrorist recruiting. But at least there's a data point of one - does this qualify as widely reported?

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/18/2005 @ 9:30pm

  196. JOHANNE

    Gee, the Battle of Kafji was fought in Saudi Arabia, one of SADDAMS Brigades crossed the border, maybe you dont remember.

    FISHBITE

    Dropping bombs from 40,000 ft? Yeah, you know, SADDAM had the option of shooting them down, he didnt or couldnt. And how many times do you want to hear it, we do NOT target civilians.

    There is a difference between involuntary manslaughter and 1st degree murder. Get it.

    Goto Defenselink.mil more often, but they are stories beyond the headlines. But it is reported and verified.

    I do note that I said the list was not perfect, but again blaming a country 10,000 miles away for the way they run their own country doesnt hold water anymore. They only ones that they should hate are themselves. They have no one else to blame for the state of their own societies and disenfranchisement but themsleves.

    You can ignore and dismiss the reasons all you like, its the way you view things. And the Afghan example, well thats nation state poltics, we seem to have given "uncle Joe" Stalin more weapons than any other dictator, but later turned to oppose him and a later time, rightfully so. Does not change the FACT that without our material support Russia would have fallen to the Germans in 42

    Posted by CPT at 10/18/2005 @ 10:07pm

  197. Fishbite, Hman and others,

    It's apparent we don't really have much, ok... we don't appear to have ANY common ground on this subject.

    You guys continue to believe that we (the U.S.) is at fault for why terrorists, who are primarily Muslim, hate us so much, and continue to try to reason with them and find out why they hate us so much.

    While you guys are doing that..

    We (conservatives) will continue to stand by Israel and kill terrorists that try to blow up civilians.

    This way we will all be happy... well all except the civilians that are killed before we imprison or kill all the terrorists.. and the terrorists themselves.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/18/2005 @ 10:11pm

  198. FISHBITE

    Terrorists, by the reasons you state are in fact wearing civilain clothing and by DEFINITION of the GENEVA covention, are illegal combatants. Thereby not entitled to its protections. OOPS my bad! Bad things happen to terrorists who kill civilians.

    Posted by CPT at 10/18/2005 @ 10:13pm

  199. CPT:

    Oh for the love of God... ok... this is going to take a while, folks, so bear with me...

    You said:

    Lets see, we supported Arab Iraq over Persian Iran

    My response:

    You do realize that Iran is over 90% Shia Muslim, right?

    You said:

    We threw out Saddam when he invaded Kuwait and Saudi arabia and in the process saved thousands of Muslims.

    My response:

    He never invaded Saudi Arabia. Period. And he invaded Kuwait because the Kuwaitis were slant-drilling into Iraqi oil-beds. Not to mention, we provided him the tacit OK to invade.

    You said:

    We (Bush) openly supported an established Palestinian state, and Clinton did as well.

    My response:

    We may have supported the establishment of a Palestinian state, but if you go back and read the plan, the state was supposed to be a protectorate of Israel. Not exactly what the Palestinians had in mind.

    You said:

    We intervened in Kosovo and Bosnia on behalf of Muslims and saved them from ethnic cleansing.

    My response:

    No, we intervened in Bosnia so as to protect investments by Wall Street. The ethnic cleansing just happened to get in the way. If we were in the habit of ending ethnic cleansing, East Timor and Rwanda would not be such cesspits of despair.

    You said:

    And we assisted Afghans when the Soviets invaded in 1980.

    My response:

    True, but then we left them to fend for themselves against the same warlords we helped create... like the Taliban.

    You said:

    And the through OUR dollars many Arab countries have essentially been lifted out of the third world.

    My response:

    Uh, no... they are still quite third world. I don't know if you actually understand the meaning of third world, but it is originally a reference to which block a country belonged. The so-called first world was made up of western powers, generally "free-market". The so-called second world was made up of "communist" countries and their buffer states. The third world was essentially everyone else... mostly southern states in Africa and South America. There is also an economic and financial component. It generally deals with wealth distribution... and as anyone can tell you, wealth distribution in the Middle Eastern countries is appalling. The only reason we gave them money was so that we wouldn't be completely outright stealing from Middle Eastern countries. But the way we did it wasn't much different that stealing.

    You said:

    And post WWII we supported the right of self-determination for many Arab countries.

    My response:

    No I KNOW you are smoking something. You obviously know nothing about our activities in the Middle East. We overthrew Mohammed Mossedegh (Kermit Roosevelt, esteemed CIA agent, and grandson to TR) and installed the shah. We helped the B'aathists come to power. We shored up the Saudi royal family against popular dissent. We have supported a militant and confrontational Israel, and aside from giving them $4Bil a year in military aid, we back them in the UN all the time.

    You said:

    Of course not all of that was a smooth transition, but they have a right ot hate us? right? for the way that they run their own countries and societies? BS, at some point you take responsibility for your own house and stop blaming a country 10,000 miles away for something it did or didnt do 40-50 yrs ago.

    My response:

    I don't know if you realize this or not, but past transgressions, especially when not made good, are ample reason to dislike another group of people, a nation, etc. We have never made a single attempt to make good on our meddling over there. They do have every right to be pissed, just as the Irish have every right to be pissed with the Brits, the Indians have every right to be pissed with the Brits (ok, most everyone does), etc etc. You are making excuses, and not realizing that these people have genuine grievances which have never, not once, been truly and honestly addressed. Since they keep getting ignored, shat upon, etc, many have decided to start doing things which can't be ignored. While I think what they are doing is an abomination, a sin, and bad policy, I certainly understand the feelings of anger and desire for vengeance these people feel. Go back to the days post-911. I'm sure you can remember those feelings just as vividly today as the day you felt them. Now, multiply those 3000 deaths by a few hundred thousand, and you get an idea of their anger.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/18/2005 @ 10:22pm

  200. Heh Jorcheim,

    regarding your responses to CPT.

    We actually agree on something = )

    You pretty much tore CPT's arguments up.

    I love you CPT, but the reality of the situation is thus...

    The U.S. has ALWAYS, and WILL ALWAYS stand by, support, and choose to side with Israel, primarily because the citizens (not the U.S. government, however the people that want to get elected into government know they will have to somewhat follow the will of the people, how else would states like mine here in Oklahoma get passed into law biased laws like changing our state constitution to discriminate against gays that want to marry? rhetorical question: because if the elected officials didn't, and knowing that over 78% of the people were FOR the change in our state constitution, the officials knew they would NEVER get re-elected if they didn't go along with it) are primarily Christians who believe the Jews are God's chosen people.

    Yes... Clinton had his peace accord talks... yes... we have thrown the proverbial bone to the Palestinians from time to time, but as Jorcheim pointed out with his response, in reality we still were giving Israel a much larger slice of the pie in that deal.

    The difference between CPT and me, is that he is trying to justify our actions, where I don't. I know the U.S. is biased towards Israel and thank God we are.

    This is one of the biggest factors in why terrorists (again the majority of which are Muslim, which by their nature and upbringing hate the Jews and any nation that stands by Israel) hate America.

    Anyway... they need to get over it.

    We "ain't" changing our foreign policy, nor are we going to all of a sudden dump Israel and start towing the Palestinian line.

    Don't we all feel better? We just received our conservative foreign policy lesson for the day.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/18/2005 @ 10:38pm

  201. OKSPORTSGUY:

    At least you're honest about being a misanthropic fascist. And as you can tell, I don't need a lesson on so-called "conservative" foreign policy. I know exactly why they are doing what they are doing. My problem is, they are lying about it. If they are so convinved that what they are doing is right, they should come clean about what they are doing, instead of lying about it at every turn. Let the people of the US decide based on fact, not fiction.

    It's times like this that remind me how ignorant the vast majority of people in America really are.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/18/2005 @ 10:44pm

  202. JORCHIEM

    You have a twisted view, but entitled to it. Everything is for corporate America? fine

    Saudi Arabia? Check out the Battle of Kafjhi in 1991, Saddam sent an entire brigade across the border of Saudi Arabia. A military force crossing an international border without permission from the host country is still classified as an invasion. I am sure Saddam just wanted them to have a picnic there, but look it up you will find that you are wrong on that. Period. I stated quite clearly that it was not all peaches and cream, but the US did support self-determination in those countries that allowed them to rise out of colonialism, dont make obscure and isloated examples and sterotype them for the whole.

    By the way while there are still ME countries in poverty, you had better look at the whole, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi, Oman, go check these countries out, they are doing quite well. Contrast them with their state of affairs pre WWII....huge difference

    The rest is your opinion. Warped as it maybe from my perspective

    Posted by CPT at 10/18/2005 @ 10:48pm

  203. CPT:

    Even your beloved OKSPORTSGUY agrees you don't know your asshole from a hole in the wall. So I'll steamroll your arguments again, since obviously that's what you enjoy.

    Ok, do you know how large a brigade is? It is the SMALLEST unit to be allowed to operate independently. You can't invade a country as militarily prepared as Saudi Arabia is or was with a brigade. So it was less an invasion and more an incursion.

    As for isolated examples of US involvement? Dude, I gave you 3 separate examples... 4 if you count Israel. Do you really want me to sit here and document every time the US was playing Risk in the ME? Those are not isolated examples. They were just the first 3 which came to mind...

    As far as ME countries in poverty. I am not talking about GDP. I am talking about median income. Do you understand the difference between mean, median and mode? If you don't, go get yourself a basic statistics textbook. I am not going to teach you rudimentary stats here. You can learn on your own time, or go to college.

    Sure, those countries you mentioned have immense wealth. But what is the DISTRIBUTION of that wealth? What is the median per capita income of those countries? What you said basically amounted to Bush making the claim that the average person would save substantial money on taxes from his tax cuts, when in reality the cuts were drastically skewed to the upper 2% of households in the US. 42% of the tax cuts went to the top 2% of Americans. If that isn't skewed, I don't know what is.

    As far as self-determination... ahem... overthrowing a democratically elected regime is not what I would call "fostering self-determination". We supported their breaking aay from Britain for the simple reason that we took over where they left off.

    Don't believe me, ask OKSPORTSGUY. While I think he is deplorable, he'll back me up on these points.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/18/2005 @ 11:05pm

  204. Jorcheim,

    "It's times like this that remind me how ignorant the vast majority of people in America really are."

    Ya..

    well, we agree again = )

    As I have said before, I would have had a ton more respect for Bush and his administration had he said up front, look gang we tried to get the U.N. on board with us, but they won't budge and here's the bottom line: We have found some 747 airplane shells in Iraq that appears to be used by terrorists to train in, terrorists are Muslims that hate Jews and America anyway, Saddam is an evil tyrant and he won't sell us at a fair price the stockpiles of oil he is sitting on, so we are going to take him out, put in place a U.S. friendly government, and kill a bunch of terrorists in the process, sound good?

    And I would have said.. sounds good ! And had much more respect for him.

    But alas.. instead he had to do it under the false guise of "eminent threat" from WMD's crap.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/18/2005 @ 11:05pm

  205. "Don't believe me, ask OKSPORTSGUY. While I think he is deplorable, he'll back me up on these points."

    deplorable... ?

    I thought we were starting to make a connection on some common ground here Jorcheim, my feelings are hurt now.. =(

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/18/2005 @ 11:09pm

  206. OKSPORTSGUY:

    While we may agree on certain understandings of the way the world works, we will never see eye to eye on whether that is a good thing. Sorry. I'm a Christian first, American last.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/18/2005 @ 11:11pm

  207. LBURWELL:

    What is unbelievable is that you think I should somehow try and have a serious debate on this topic with OK "Let's Kill All the Muslims" Sports Guy and CPT Revisionist History.

    Seriously though, I agree - 108% voter turnout is a huge success, though some may say too huge. You think it was a slip of the tongue when Condi claimed the other day that the constitution had passed, or does she know something we don't know? ;)

    No LBURWELL - what is truly unbelievable is that almost 2000 Americans have died, tens of thousands of Iraqis have died, we have lost credibility with even our allies, we have increased anti-American sentiment in the Arab world, spent $250B, all to oust the leader of a country that had no WMD, no nuclear capability, posed no immenent threat to us, and and no connection to 9/11, apparantly so the citizens could vote to adopt a theocratic constitution.

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/18/2005 @ 11:13pm

  208. HMAN23:

    Damn... couldn't have said it any better myself...

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/18/2005 @ 11:36pm

  209. JORCHEIM

    Unlike you, I am not beholden to anyone elses' opinion, they are free to have it. God bless them. Sure we support Israel, no dispute there. I have no problem with that.

    Steamroll my arguments? lol well maybe in your mind you do. And to many of the fringe here, you probably do, does not make it so.

    Perhaps you like to ask those people in those countries I mentioned what their country was like preWWII and since, you will see a big DIFFERENCE. You paltry attempts to make lite of this by citing isolated examples is funny. Akin to saying, "these people are not well off now, because they have a pump for water in their homes and before they had to draw it from the well, they need a Kohler facet"

    You know how big a brigade is? Are you saying that that doesnt count as an invasion? and ask yourself hero, why did they go in there in the first place? just visting?

    You better check your own A-hole, make sure you are not talking out of that end.

    Posted by CPT at 10/19/2005 @ 08:06am

  210. JORCHIEM

    Christian first, American last, good for you, guess what brother without America, you most likely couldnt be a Christian.

    Posted by CPT at 10/19/2005 @ 08:10am

  211. ok CPT, there was indeed a battle at Kafji, but it was not an invasion of Saudi Arabia as you state. evn a brief google reveals that that battle was a feint by Saddam's army to draw troops away from Kuwait, a small diversion from the war in Kuwait, definitely not an invasion.you and kill, kill, kill Todd have taken over these threads with your tired slogans, and your tedious tendentious rants, rewriting hisory. I am getting very tired of your repetetive shtick, and yes I'm done with you guys,Tata

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 08:59am

  212. Johanne,

    "I am getting very tired of your repetetive shtick, and yes I'm done with you guys,Tata"

    Did you really hit the ignore button this time Johanne? You know you have threatened to do that in the past but never pulled the trigger..

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/19/2005 @ 09:51am

  213. .

    FISHBITE 10/18 @ 2:18pm

    NACL: You wrote: You could not empty a boot filled with water even if the instructions were written on the heel. Hey, if your boots were filled with water, just how do you expect to read the instructions written on the heel? You must be one of those very flexible types - you get that way from all that spinning. Spin, spin, spin, oh happy neocon!

    My flippancy was an absurdly exaggerated poke at your inability to understand anything. That you reply talmudically with a confirmation, is far out.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 10/19/2005 @ 10:43am

  214. I will not click the ignore button, I will not answer posts

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 10:49am

  215. CPT:

    I find your flimsy attempts to make points like dust in the breeze.

    You said:

    Christian first, American last, good for you, guess what brother without America, you most likely couldnt be a Christian.

    My response:

    Please don't tell me that you believe if I didn't live in the US, I wouldn't be Christian. Dude, I'm IRISH! If anything, I probably would have beeen MORE religious had my family not moved here from Ireland. More to the point, there are Christians on every continent except Antarctica. Or did your Americo-centrism blind you to that fact? Dumbass.

    You said:

    Unlike you, I am not beholden to anyone elses' opinion, they are free to have it. God bless them. Sure we support Israel, no dispute there. I have no problem with that.

    My response:

    Do tell, CPT... to whose opinion am I beholden? As I have stated before, I grew up a conservative, Bible-Belt Republican in rural North Carolina. On a farm, in fact. You don't get much more conservative than that... land of Jesse Helms, you know.

    No, it took actually living in a different country, being exposed to different perspectives, and using my own God-given ability to sniff out bullshit to realize that the entire conservative movement is a farce, and that the Democrats are as beholden to corporate America as the Republicans are. Sorry, dood, if anyone's views are beholden to anyone, it's yours... Take a look around. Your views almost precisely parrot those of the current administration... whereas mine don't parrot anyone's. but of course, you wouldn't know how to rationally, dispassionately, and objectively look at an issue if your life depended on it.

    You said:

    Perhaps you like to ask those people in those countries I mentioned what their country was like preWWII and since, you will see a big DIFFERENCE. You paltry attempts to make lite of this by citing isolated examples is funny. Akin to saying, "these people are not well off now, because they have a pump for water in their homes and before they had to draw it from the well, they need a Kohler facet"

    My response:

    Uh... it's obvious you have never had a chance to actually TALK to some of those people (which I have, seeing as I have travelled through the middle east, and I had numerous friends in college who were from that area... one of them was actually a cousin of King Fahd)... nor have you actually read anything about the middle east and the people who live there.

    The average person's life isn't much different now than before WWII. Believe it. Cuz it's the truth. They still, by and large, live under crushing poverty, and are ruled by glorified strongmen who are politically and militarily supported by the west. The only difference is who gives them their marching orders.

    And much to your chagrin, I am far from making light of what goes on over there. In fact, I find it appalling that we meddle in other states' affairs, suborn the democratic attempts of these nations, and turn them into proxies for US imperialism. And hey, guess what... THESE AREN'T ISOLATED CASES! If you would read some history books, (try The Prize by Daniel Yergin for a starting point... while I disagree with many of his political views, it is a good primer on Middle East oil politics) you might actually get an accurate understanding of how the world really works. OKSPORTSGUY has, he just doesn't really give a shit that US policies are extremely self-serving and bear very little if any altruistic value whatsoever, and that they serve in enrage the rest of the world against us.

    To wrap up, CPT... you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Stop wasting everyone's time by thinking you actually know what you are talking about. I have yet to read any of your posts where you have been able to use documented facts with any adroitness in crafting your arguments.

    You seem to think that just because you are conservative, I am attacking you. That couldn't be farther from the truth. I attack you because your arguments are devoid of intellectual value, and you are nothing more and nothing less than a cypher for the neo-conservative agendy. The truly horribly funny part about that is, due to your ignorance of the world, you don't even know it.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/19/2005 @ 10:57am

  216. Pow. Zap. I'll get you next time, Mr. Fantastic!! Down with the brotherhood of evil! Zowee! I will smash you, Lex Luthor Skeletor Afghanistan! Pow! Bang!! UHnhhh Can't think mutant reflexor powers stymied by exhibitor powerpack glove. Zap! Pow!

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/19/2005 @ 11:00am

  217. OK JAYAR, that made me chuckle... Thanks for the comedic relief.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/19/2005 @ 11:02am

  218. To right wing posters: Your comic book reality has begun to infect my thinking. Soon I shall be one of you. Today Krypton, tomorrow Zeton X. Iron Man rules!! Yow, dudes!!!

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/19/2005 @ 11:03am

  219. Forward the Christian Mutant nation!!! STAN LEE IS GODDD!!!!

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/19/2005 @ 11:04am

  220. JAYAR STOP IT!!! I'm gonna spill my coffee from laughing! :D

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/19/2005 @ 11:05am

  221. Johanne,

    "I will not click the ignore button, I will not answer posts"

    You just did...

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/19/2005 @ 12:22pm

  222. "Forward the Christian Mutant nation!!! STAN LEE IS GODDD!!!!"

    Actually... we can play that game too! It sounds fun!

    I'll start...

    Be gone with the zionist pigs who stand in the way of Alah's will to convert all people to Islam!

    Kill the infidel who stand side by side with the pig jews!

    We will not stop executing Alah's will through terrorist acts until every last Jew is dead and all of the lands of Israel belong to the Pallastenians!

    Oh wait.... that's no joke, they are really saying that crap.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/19/2005 @ 12:30pm

  223. OKSPORTSGUY:

    Go back to some of your posts. They sound the same to me, except, the object of your ire. I guess in your world, two wrongs make a right.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/19/2005 @ 2:46pm

  224. NACL - Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt hath lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted?

    In your world view, torture is viable, desirable even. How loathsome to be you!

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/19/2005 @ 2:48pm

  225. OKSG - Keep killing the "terrorists" until they're all dead. You're really saying that.

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/19/2005 @ 2:48pm

  226. Fish, dat's what de man been sayin' all along

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 2:51pm

  227. "OKSG - Keep killing the "terrorists" until they're all dead. You're really saying that."

    Yes, before they kill us, that's exactly what I'm saying, any other questions?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/19/2005 @ 3:14pm

  228. "you might actually get an accurate understanding of how the world really works. OKSPORTSGUY has, he just doesn't really give a shit that US policies are extremely self-serving and bear very little if any altruistic value whatsoever, and that they serve in enrage the rest of the world against us. "

    Yes..

    Exactly... how "unethical" of us huh? exuding so much ethnocentrism?

    We are self serving, who else will look out for our best interest besides our selves? I can assure you Iraq won't, Syria won't, and Russia won't.

    Whose best interest was it from the American perspective for Americans to fight the war of independence? Answer.. America's

    Whose best interest from the English point of view was keeping America under English rule? Answer... the English

    The English weren't trying to keep us under their rule for OUR best interest, it was for THEIR best interest, to continue to tax the crap out of us.

    We on the other hand were fighting for our independence not for England's best interest but for OURS so that we could govern ourselves and not be subject to taxation without representation.

    All countries make decision based on what's in it for Themselves.

    Get used to it...

    Like it or not people, nations may have "state departments," however those are merely facades, when all is said and done, ALL countries are looking out for their best interest first and foremost, even if those interests can only come at the expense of other nations.

    The sooner we all will acknowledge this, the sooner we can all find some common ground to communicate on.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/19/2005 @ 3:23pm

  229. Wow, Todd, you really don't know very much! I am impressed at how much learning you've been able to avoid in your lifetime:

    No, the analogy goes the other way.

    If we give in to terrorism and try to negotiate with terrorists, try to "understand" why our foreign policy has caused these people to feel like their only recourse in life is to kill them selves to make a political statement, then we are becoming the stupid European civilizations that cried "please don't attack us, we are peaceful, we beg for your mercy!"

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 10/18/2005 @ 07:54am

    That is a world record "jump" to a conclusion, especially given that your conclusion is a non sequitur.

    The fact that you equate "understanding" a problem to pleading for mercy has to qualify this as your all-time dumbest post.

    By that "logic", we shouldn't have even investigated 9/11! Why learn anything about the problem? We could have just put names in a hat, pulled one out at random, and said "the terrorist attack was caused by...." (drum roll please)

    Not to mention your reasoning is the height of greed! Yes, basically you are promoting the sins of greed and selfishness. In other words, you're saying "why should americans even care if their government acts responsibly in the world. Hey, let's just do whatever we want, and if our actions injure someone else we can just pretend it is their fault."

    And you dare preach personal responsibility? What about national responsibility?

    Please wake up before writing your next post. I'd like something sensible from you please.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/19/2005 @ 3:53pm

  230. You lefties amaze me. CPT presented an argument different than yours, and what is your first reaction? Why, of course, you call him names.

    Posted by LBURWELL 10/18/2005 @ 1:44pm

    Please get off your high horse. There are people from both sides that use "name calling." If you can't admit that, I don't think you're reading all the posts. To single out one side is nothing more than extreme partisanship.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/19/2005 @ 3:58pm

  231. "They are not subject to, nor deserving of, the Geneva Conventions."

    I second that motion Lburwell.

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 10/18/2005 @ 1:50pm

    You guys are well on your way to justifying the Spanish Inquisition. Nice work!

    Please answer me this: How does torturing someone make the torturer one of the "good guys"?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/19/2005 @ 4:00pm

  232. Fish,

    "As it becomes clear that we torture our captives, how many new folks will be drawn to commit their own terrorist acts to strike a blow against torturing hypocrits that espouse democracy while behaving like brutes?"

    right...

    So again, we are back to.. it's all OUR fault that terrorists exist. If we didn't have such a bad foreign policy, particularly with respect to always backing and siding with Israel, we wouldn't have so many terrorists (who happen to be Muslims) that dislike us.

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 10/18/2005 @ 2:24pm

    Uh, no, Todd. Wrong again. That's not what FISHBITE said. Please stop misrepresenting arguments.

    And another thing, Todd. I am really sick of hearing you promote Satan worship. Please quit encouraging children to worship Satan. Thanks in advance! Especially your 10/19/2005 @ 09:51am post. That was really good advertising for the Devil. I am outraged.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/19/2005 @ 4:05pm

  233. JORCHEIM, I know your post of 10/18/2005 @ 4:47pm was not meant to be an exhaustive list. But I thought I'd mention one you left out: The "battle" of Wounded Knee.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/19/2005 @ 4:08pm

  234. "And another thing, Todd. I am really sick of hearing you promote Satan worship. Please quit encouraging children to worship Satan."

    Only in your opinion am I "encouraging them to worship Satan", not mine.

    And if you are really sick of hearing my posts, feel free to do what Johanne did, hit the ignore button = )

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/19/2005 @ 4:13pm

  235. JORCHIEM

    Christian first, American last, good for you, guess what brother without America, you most likely couldnt be a Christian.

    Posted by CPT 10/19/2005 @ 08:10am

    WHAT?????? Ever heard of Europe? One and a half milenia of Christianity before the New World was even discovered...

    My god, you are fact-challenged!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/19/2005 @ 4:15pm

  236. ILOVEPHYSICS:

    CPT suffers from a wide-spread disease of ignoranceofthefactsitis. I believe he should either be forced to go to school and learn, in order to heal his malady, or he should just be put down, and put him out of our misery.

    :D Just kidding.

    Posted by jorcheim at 10/19/2005 @ 4:47pm

  237. Jorchy, do what I do, I do not "ignore" but rather just ignore, no reply

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 5:02pm

  238. I do enjoy reading your answers to our attack dogs, apologies to canines, so mayber don't do what I do. cpt does seem to be getting loonier by the day

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 5:04pm

  239. CPT suffers from a wide-spread disease of ignoranceofthefactsitis. I believe he should either be forced to go to school and learn, in order to heal his malady, or he should just be put down, and put him out of our misery.

    :D Just kidding.

    Posted by JORCHEIM 10/19/2005 @ 4:47pm

    You were just kidding! Of course, we would be the ones put out of our misery :-)

    Just kidding, CPT, don't get your jodhpurs in a bind...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/19/2005 @ 5:04pm

  240. "And another thing, Todd. I am really sick of hearing you promote Satan worship. Please quit encouraging children to worship Satan."

    Only in your opinion am I "encouraging them to worship Satan", not mine.

    And if you are really sick of hearing my posts, feel free to do what Johanne did, hit the ignore button = )

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 10/19/2005 @ 4:13pm

    Wow, Todd, that one really did go over your head. But if you read the first part of my post, you may very well figure out what the second part of it meant...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/19/2005 @ 5:06pm

  241. "Wow, Todd, that one really did go over your head. But if you read the first part of my post, you may very well figure out what the second part of it meant..."

    apparently it did go over my head, was that one of our satirical humor little slam posts, is that what you meant? I thought you were serious.

    My appologies.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/19/2005 @ 5:27pm

  242. Here are some excerpts of interviews with soldiers from "Leadership Failure Firsthand Accounts of Torture of Iraqi Detainees by the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne Division" courtesy of Human Rights Watch. Neocons are free to ignore, trivialize or whatever. Please note that PUC is newspeak for Persons Under Control, used instead of POW for obvious reasons.

    To "fuck a PUC" means to beat him up. We would give them blows to the head, chest, legs, and stomach, pull them down, kick dirt on them. This happened every day.

    To "smoke" someone is to put them in stress positions until they get muscle fatigue and pass out. That happened every day. Some days we would just get bored so we would have everyone sit in a corner and then make them get in a pyramid. This was before Abu Ghraib but just like it. We did that for amusement.

    Guard shifts were four hours. We would stress them at least in excess of twelve hours. When I go off shift and the next guy comes we are already stressing the PUC and we let the new guy know what he did and to keep fucking him. We put five-gallon water cans and made them hold them out to where they got muscle fatigue then made them do pushups and jumping jacks until they passed out. We would withhold water for whole guard shifts. And the next guy would too. Then you gotta take them to the john if you give them water and that was a pain.

    What you allowed to happen happened. Trends were accepted. Leadership failed to provide clear guidance so we just developed it. They wanted intel. As long as no PUCs came up dead it happened. We heard rumors of PUCs dying so we were careful. We kept it to broken arms and legs and shit. If a leg was broken you call the PA--the physician's assistant--and told him the PUC got hurt when he was taken. He would get Motrin and maybe a sling, but no cast or medical treatment.

    People would just volunteer just to get their frustrations out. We had guys from all over the base just come to guard PUCs so they could fuck them up. Broken bones didn't happen too often, maybe every other week. The PA would overlook it. I am sure they knew.

    The interrogator [a sergeant] worked in the [intelligence] office. He was former Special Forces. He would come into the PUC tent and request a guy by number. Everyone was tagged. He would say, "Give me #22." And we would bring him out. He would smoke the guy and fuck him. He would always say to us, "You didn't see anything, right?" And we would always say, "No, Sergeant."

    One night a guy came and broke chem lights open and beat the PUCs with it. That made them glow in the dark which was real funny but it burned their eyes and their skin was irritated real bad.

    I was an Infantry Fire Team Leader. The majority of the time I was out on mission. When not on mission I was riding the PUCs. We should have had MPs. We should have taken them to Abu Ghraib [which] was only 15 fucking minutes drive. But there was no one to talk to in the chain – it just got killed. We would talk among ourselves, say, "This is bad." But no one listened. We should never have been allowed to watch guys we had fought.

    [Intel] would tell the Lieutenant that he had to smoke the prisoners and that is what we were told to do. No sleep, water, and just crackers. That's it. The point of doing all this was to get them ready for interrogation. [The intelligence officer] said he wanted the PUCs so fatigued, so smoked, so demoralized that they want to cooperate. But half of these guys got released because they didn't do nothing. We sent them back to Fallujah. But if he's a good guy, you know, now he's a bad guy because of the way we treated him.

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/19/2005 @ 6:19pm

  243. Todd,

    Apparently my sense of humor doesn't always translate well into writing. That doesn't stop me from trying!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/19/2005 @ 6:19pm

  244. FISHBITE,

    If that post doesn't get through to the rightwingers on this blog, then they are beyond redemption. What a sad, disgusting summary.

    Tell me who are the "good guys" again, 'cause I forgot...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/19/2005 @ 6:24pm

  245. JORCHEIM

    Stop deluding yourself, into thinking that because you take you time to craft an argument on these threads you have some intellectual superiority.

    I laugh at people like you JORCHEIM, who are you trying to impress?

    Sorry, I do not give "a rat's ass" what people on this thread think of my mental aptitude. They can go pound sand for all I care, the many insults by some here are akin to a five-year old boy threatening to kick the ass of a 6'4 250pd linebacker! The linebacker simply chuckles.

    Skillful argument? Is that what you call it, well I suppose I could spend an hour crafting a carefully constructed retort. But nah, I prefer to say my peace and go.

    You care about impressing people you dont know, good for you, live long and prosper.

    This is great entertainment. Pretention abounds, pseudo-intellectuals reign, elitism is the norm, all the while spouting the most ridicluolus anaylsis I have ever seen. But it is fun.

    I dont hate anyone here, I wish you all the best, even FRANKGITS, well especially FRANKGITS, I dont know if he is all together truthful, but I chose to beleive him.

    So if you want to think you are writing Supreme Court judicial opinions go right ahead, you might as well go pound sand! It is just as fruitful. Spend less time on here carefully contructing your arguments and more with your family.

    Damn 4 minutes and 23 seconds, this is one of my longer posts

    Posted by CPT at 10/19/2005 @ 6:28pm

  246. What would be interesting to learn is what the outcome was of the torture done in the name of interrogating? What info was gathered? What lives were saved? What plots were foiled? Even the thugs who are overseeing these crimes have to, at some point, conduct a crude cost-benefit analysis.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/19/2005 @ 6:29pm

  247. ILOVE

    Oh chill out, you know what I meant, you are smart most of the time.

    15 seconds

    Posted by CPT at 10/19/2005 @ 6:29pm

  248. FISHBITE

    Human Rights Watch?!?!? lol And they interviewed how many people from that unit? 3? out of how many in an infantry battalion? 800-1000. Yeah thats accurate right? Why not just wait until the Insepctor General finishes investigating. That will be definitive!

    Posted by CPT at 10/19/2005 @ 6:34pm

  249. FISHBITE

    PUC is not Newspeak, originated in the Army in Afghan.

    Posted by CPT at 10/19/2005 @ 6:35pm

  250. ILP,

    "Tell me who are the "good guys" again, 'cause I forgot..."

    The good guys are the guys torturing the guys that blow themselves up in pizza parlors and bus stations....

    Hope that clarifies things...

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/19/2005 @ 6:38pm

  251. Don't remember who said it but it's a keeper. Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/19/2005 @ 6:43pm

  252. What is nice for Todd is that we can first: define these people as something other than soldiers, meaning that the Geneva Convention does not apply; yet second: we define these people as something other than regular non-soldiers (terrorists), meaning that we can torture them without being branded terrorists ourselves.

    After all, torture of a non-soldier in a pizza parlor or torture of a non-soldier in a cell seems like a fine line. Even more, since the tortures that have been videotaped and broadcast were done in a setting that seems similar to any prison, then the torture/murder of Nick Berg could be acceptable (author's note: I do not find it acceptable). If al Zarqhawi defined Berg as a terrorist...

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/19/2005 @ 6:50pm

  253. Jeez, Todd, I forgot, it's collateral damage when the state commits acts of terrorism. Blowing a child to pieces is so much more civilized if you do it with jets and and vastly superior fire power, and don't witness the actual consequences of your actions. Oh yes, the actions you endorse are so much more civil than the actions of people who blow up people in pizza parlors.

    Accidental massacre on your side doesn't count, because you didn't mean to do it, right? That makes the crime less a crime. Even now, your moron government is trying to get people to accept the possibility of a pandemic that could very well wipe out at least hundreds of people in this country, if not thousands or millions.

    Never do we lean on the poultry industry to clean up its killing floors, or stand in the way of patents in a manner that could disrupt "intellectual property rights". On the other hand, it's perfectly fine to talk glibly of suspending the constitution. Fuck you all, Todd. If you and your fucking Jesus freak friends want out of the world so badly, why don't you just go to heaven now? Ain't no one stopping you, you're so pure, I'm amazed you haven't floated off already. Then, once you have your "rapture" maybe the rest of us can have a little peace. Horrendous as you and your bible spook friends and stories promise us tribulation will be, it couldn't be any worse than a world that you and your friends are running. And if heaven ain't open yet, go to Mars already. With 28 years for the estimated time of a round trip, it would sure cut the rest of us some slack.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/19/2005 @ 7:04pm

  254. I wonder how far the selfishness goes. If Britain were suddenly brimming over with petroleum but giving us the cold shoulder, would we replace Tony Blair and set up American contractors to reshape their country? After all, they'd have what we want, what we need to carry on the American way of life. I'm sure that at some point they have violated a UN order of some kind.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/19/2005 @ 7:09pm

  255. TJB,

    Valid point TJB, but again here's where you and I differ.

    I don't give a shit what Zarqhawi defines Berg as, Zarqhawi had his band of cronies behead nick berg and george armstrong, both civilians I might add, and for that Zarqhawi and his band of cronies need to be imprisoned for life, or killed, makes no difference to me.

    The difference I can really see after reading many of these posts between progressives and conservatives is the disconnect on the whole ethics thing.

    conservatives (in general, I certainly don't speak for all) are myopic as well as ethnocentric in their view, and value the lives of Americans, particularly civilians as civilians haven't voluntarily signed up to die in a war, where at least military people have volontarily accepted the risk of death in war.

    But I digress, the point I was making is.. it is apparent that progressives seem to value the people who do strap on bombs to their backs, they value them as human beings and care about what happens to them. They ask questions such as; are they being treated fairly in prisons? Particularly since not all of them have for sure picked up arms against the United States.

    What makes them do what they do? Could the U.S. somewhat be at fault due to our pro Israeli stance and other foreign policy stances? How can we change what we are doing to lesson the dislike against America by people in middle eastern countries who for the most part are Muslims?

    All of these questions are great... for people that care...

    conservatives on the other hand view the world from a much more myopic view, we also tend to place a much higher value on American lives, mainly due to ethnocentrism, and don't particularly value or care what happens to the terrorists.

    On top of that, educated conservatives that can at least see both sides of the argument like me and still are pro-America, pro-Israel, pro-American way of life, can look at the world and say screw you and your damned worldly ethics, we don't give a shit. We are going to do what's right for us in our view regardless of what the world thinks.

    Anyway, hope that helps...

    Regardless of how you feel about me and my views, I must say, I do enjoy coming here and seeing how vastly different our world views on issues like these are, it's really fascinating!

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/19/2005 @ 7:14pm

  256. CPT - As you suggested yourself, you said your piece, now go. If it took you over 4 minutes to craft your 6:28 post, you need some kind of speed thinking course. I kind of gather that folks like Jorcheim are trying to make points, perhaps make them eloquently. Your reaction indicates that he's humbled you, but that has more to do with your lack of mental agility, not that he's "trying to impress".

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/19/2005 @ 7:19pm

  257. Jay,

    "Accidental massacre on your side doesn't count, because you didn't mean to do it, right? That makes the crime less a crime."

    The U.S. does not strategical target civilians.

    Bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki if you like, I agree with you bad thing, but I can still assure you I would trade the lives of the hundreds of thousands of Japanese killed for the hundreds of thousands of Americans saved because the devastation of the bombs forced Japan's surrender, how many more years would the war have continued if we didn't drop the bomb?

    Since then we have not strategical targeted civilians.

    Yes we have collateral damage where innocent civilians die in war, however the point is that is NOT our strategic goal.

    Our strategic goals are always to take out military personal or terrorists or specific targets such as communication buildings, military building equipment, etc. The generals in charge of the war never say, "go attack THAT building at this time because we should be able to kill several hundred civilians"

    terrorists on the other hand strategical target civilians.

    Are you telling me that the terrorists really think that their goals will be achieved by taking out a specific bus depot in London or a pizza parlor in Israel?

    No, they chose those places to attack because they know there will be a lot of civilians in them, terrorists STRATEGICAL target civilians, just ask Nick Berg or George Armstrong..

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/19/2005 @ 7:22pm

  258. OKSG - The difference is that I value humanity and human life. The fact that someone has done an unspeakable crime or has attempted to do one or is suspected of planning one does not mean we can rip that guys fingernails out or break his legs with a baseball bat. When we do that, our own humanity drains away.

    With your world view, if a guy (an american!) is found guilty of a capital crime, should we allow the jailors to beat him up or burn him with cigarettes while they wait for the execution? Let's say he killed civilians who had no chance to fight back. Should we have tortured McVeigh to get names of co-conspirators? If not, what's the distinction?

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/19/2005 @ 7:24pm

  259. Fishbite, you're wasting your time with cpt and Todd, they are the kind that likes to pull wings off of flies, they just like the idea of torture and the idea of the "Untermensch", it makes them feel superior, something their intelligence does not allow. they are the kill, kill, kill, and torture, torture , torture guys, and everything else is just rationalisation.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/19/2005 @ 9:31pm

  260. Fish,

    "Should we have tortured McVeigh to get names of co-conspirators? "

    Absolutely, McVeigh is/was a terrorist, the same as the Muslim variety in my opinion.

    terrorists are terrorists regardless of religion.

    Regarding your question about the american guilty of a capital crime, if for instance my daughter had been kidnapped and the government had good information that he was a co-conspirator with another man that has my daughter somewhere and may be molesting her, then hell ya, torture the poop out of him if it would get information that would lead to my daughters safety.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/19/2005 @ 9:46pm

  261. All right, I am finished interacting with these soulless ones. They continue to wallow in their violent, subhuman state - and cannot be brought back to humanity. Sigh.

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/19/2005 @ 10:16pm

  262. Well, I'll give you one thing, Todd. You're honest enough to admit that you're not interested in hearing any other side of the story. That being the case, further discussion with you is impossible.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/20/2005 @ 09:38am

  263. By the way, the mere fact that your name rhymes with God doesn't mean you're related.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/20/2005 @ 09:39am

  264. ILOVE

    Oh chill out, you know what I meant, you are smart most of the time.

    15 seconds

    Posted by CPT 10/19/2005 @ 6:29pm

    I cannot "chill out" right now - I have a lot to do at work, and I am working 16 hour days and getting half the normal sleep. I have to stay focused and intense if I am going to finish up in time.

    If that boils over into my posts when I get a chance to visit this site, so be it. Since you said yourself you're not serious about what goes on here, you should be able to deal with that.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/20/2005 @ 10:09am

  265. The good guys are the guys torturing the guys that blow themselves up in pizza parlors and bus stations....

    Hope that clarifies things...

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 10/19/2005 @ 6:38pm

    You have lost it, dude. Think about what you said for a minute. Not only does it not make any sense physically, but torturing anyone cannot make a torturer "good".

    I am being serious here, Todd. I study a lot. History is one of my favorite things to study. Let me warn you: You are doing what the Nazis did. They chose an enemy, the Jews. Then they dehumanized their enemy. Called them "subhuman". Then they whipped up hatred against them, accusing them of subverting the Fatherland and a myriad of other things.

    This allowed the Nazis to get to a place in their minds where not only could they commit horrific atrocities against Jews, they could tell themselves it was the right thing to do.

    You are following that same path. I urge you to get off that path as soon as you can.

    Now think about "torturing guys who blow themselves up in pizza parlors." How do you torture someone who has blown up and is dead? The answer is, you don't.

    You can only torture someone who is alive. SOMEONE WHO HASN'T DONE THE ACT WHICH YOU CLAIM JUSTIFIES TORTURE!!!

    Read FISHBITE'S post again, this time carefully. Even the soldiers doing the torture are saying that "good guys" are getting tortured. People who don't know anything, haven't done anything.

    And you are blind to it, because of your rabid hatred. You are transferring your hatred of "terrorists" onto anyone unlucky enough to be a "person under control." And you aren't interested in "are they guilty? Do they have anything to do with terrorism?" No, those people just become surrogates for real terrorists, in your mind, so you can satisfy your impotent desire for payback.

    I hope you will think about this issue, rather than just making some flippant remark in response. Don't come back with some BS about "I don't want to understand my enemies." This is NOT about that. This is about just identifying the enemy. This is about making sure the person you are treating as guilty really is guilty.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/20/2005 @ 10:23am

  266. don't give a shit what Zarqhawi defines Berg as,

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 10/19/2005 @ 7:14pm

    Funny, that is the exact same attitude bin Laden has towards Americans, which is why he perpetrated 9/11 against civilian targets (the pentagon being apparently a target of opportunity when the White House proved to be too small to find).

    So basically your argument boils down to "2 wrongs make a right." Pure genius!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/20/2005 @ 10:29am

  267. On top of that, educated conservatives that can at least see both sides of the argument like me and still are pro-America, pro-Israel, pro-American way of life, can look at the world and say screw you and your damned worldly ethics, we don't give a shit. We are going to do what's right for us in our view regardless of what the world thinks.

    Anyway, hope that helps...

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 10/19/2005 @ 7:14pm

    Actually, no it doesn't help. That attitude causes most of our country's problems.

    But don't take my word for it. Try it with your family. Do whatever selfish thing pops into your head, and if your wife or kids say anything about it, tell them "I'm going to do what I damn well please whether you like it or not." Then, if they say anything else about it, just kick their asses.

    And go ahead, be as selfish as you possibly can. That will only help the experiment reach its conclusion more quickly! I think you will learn something that way, Todd.

    Let me know how it goes!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/20/2005 @ 10:34am

  268. One more thing, Todd, be sure to use your exact language if you wife complains: "Screw you and your damned ethics, I don't give a shit."

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/20/2005 @ 10:35am

  269. "One more thing, Todd, be sure to use your exact language if you wife complains: "Screw you and your damned ethics, I don't give a shit."

    That's the point ILP, I wouldn't with my family, I value my family.

    I don't place as much value on the world, not the what the world consider's ethically correct.

    In other words, I'm totally fine with two different set of standards, one that I apply to people I consider friends/loved ones etc. and a different set of standards for those that I consider enemies.

    How unethical huh?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/20/2005 @ 10:48am

  270. How unethical huh?

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 10/20/2005 @ 10:48am

    More appropriate is to say "How dumb." And you wonder why some people hate America? Wonder no more. There it is in a nutshell. You don't value other people, and you show that with your actions, and you are happy when your government shows it through foreign policy.

    As long as that attitude prevails in this country, there will always be more terrorists. You can never "kill them all" as you want to.

    Why don't you just go pound your head against a brick wall?

    One more thing, I'd rather have you respond to my 10:23 post.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/20/2005 @ 11:24am

  271. Physics, that part of demonizing the enemy was done by the Nazis not only against jews but also to the russians. the germans behaved more than beastly during their occupation of Russia, Todd and cpt would have fit right in, and it's small wonder that the russians behaved beastly right back when it was their turn. same with our enemies now, there will be payback for Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, and cpt's beloved soldiers will be on the receiving end.McCain understands this

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 12:11pm

  272. How unethical huh? Todd Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 10/20/2005 @ 10:48am | ignore this person

    No - more like sociopath.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 10/20/2005 @ 12:36pm

  273. Ramble alert:

    It's not even just about payback. Those who share Todd's beliefs apparently root for the Mafia. Define your friends and family very narrowly, establish "understandings" with the other families, and then fuck everybody else over.

    How much do our relationships with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel and the other families cost us? Meanwhile our more formal business relationships with China, India, and the rising "---stan" countries are costing us in the pocketbook? We piss off the Canadians and the Mexicans with our inability to maintain free trade zones. We repeatedly ignore genocides and other massive tragedies in spite of the fact that as each one passes into history we swear we will never fail to act again.

    Exactly when, where, and how we will have the opportunity to establish a good, healthy relationship with another country? Can we survive on shared smiles with the British and Australians? At some point we need to realize that we are not operating under the radar, that we have to exhibit leadership in a way that is recognized as (nearly) universally positive. As the next few decades progress and we continue to invest such a large percentage of our wealth into the military, we will be a smaller and smaller part of the global economy. If we don't watch out, we will turn ourselves into those former powers like the Soviet Union that militarized themselves into oblivion.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/20/2005 @ 1:44pm

  274. ILP,

    "One more thing, I'd rather have you respond to my 10:23 post."

    Sure..

    With your 10:23 post, you compared my thinking with the Nazi's thinking in terms of how they dehumanized and vilified the Jews.

    If you now want to compare this current war with what was going on in 1943-45 fine, I'll be happy too.

    The difference between my view of terrorists and the Nazi's view of the Jews is...

    The Jews during that period of time had done nothing wrong, other than be Jewish, the Nazi's deserved what they got, and what did they get? What stopped that war? Answer: total annihilation of the Third Reich army, and all of Hitler's forces. Then and ONLY then was there peace in that region.

    Hmmm sounds similar to what I have been saying...

    Only when all of the terrorists world wide have been annihilated, will there be peace from terrorism.

    I find it ironic and dare I say hypocritical in that you find it ok to compare my thinking with the Nazi's during WW2 however I have read many posts from progressives, I think you included, however don't remember for sure off the top of my head, that say you can't compare the 2nd world war with the current war on terrorism.

    Additionally...

    I don't advocate destroying an entire RACE of people, like the Nazi's strove to do in WW2, I advocate destroying an entire act of aggression and ONLY the people that carry that act out, the terrorists, not the innocent peaceful Iraqi people or peaceful Muslims. This is much different from the Nazi regime whose goal was the entire extermination of the Jewish people from this earth.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/20/2005 @ 2:03pm

  275. Todd, you aren't thinking clearly. You are stumbling back and forth, comparing unrelated topics.

    You should ask for your money back for all those critical thinking courses you say you attended in college.

    With your 10:23 post, you compared my thinking with the Nazi's thinking in terms of how they dehumanized and vilified the Jews.

    If you now want to compare this current war with what was going on in 1943-45 fine, I'll be happy too.

    No, that is a separate issue. I guess you'll be trying to change the subject to Bill Clinton soon...

    The difference between my view of terrorists and the Nazi's view of the Jews is...

    The Jews during that period of time had done nothing wrong, other than be Jewish

    Which is exactly my point! You are villifying people who've done nothing wrong, a point made by one of the soldiers of the 82nd Airborne! Did you even read that post of FISHBITE's? Apparently not. Read that post, and then it will make sense to you (maybe)

    ...the Nazi's deserved what they got, and what did they get? What stopped that war? Answer: total annihilation of the Third Reich army, and all of Hitler's forces. Then and ONLY then was there peace in that region.

    Since the comparison was between your thinking and the thinking of the Nazis, either you were confused and posted this irrelevant statement, or maybe you are suggesting you will get annihilated. Your emotions are dominating your reasoning at this point.

    Hmmm sounds similar to what I have been saying...

    No, in order to be similar, the innocent Iraqis that get tortured would have to wipe out Oklahoma.

    Only when all of the terrorists world wide have been annihilated, will there be peace from terrorism.

    Just the attempt to wipe out terrorists worldwide has spawned more terrorists. So by your logic, there won't ever be peace from terrorism. To deny this is to either indict your own logic or else you must deny the fact that the war in Iraq is breeding terrorists.

    I find it ironic and dare I say hypocritical in that you find it ok to compare my thinking with the Nazi's during WW2 however I have read many posts from progressives, I think you included, however don't remember for sure off the top of my head, that say you can't compare the 2nd world war with the current war on terrorism.

    You damn well didn't read that from me. But again, you're confusing the analogies, as I explained earlier in this post.

    Additionally...

    I don't advocate destroying an entire RACE of people, like the Nazi's strove to do in WW2, I advocate destroying an entire act of aggression and ONLY the people that carry that act out, the terrorists, not the innocent peaceful Iraqi people or peaceful Muslims.

    Then why aren't you advocating for trials of the PUC's before they are tortured? Shouldn't they at least be proven guilty first, if you care about innocents as you claim to? Why are you having such a difficult time understanding these rather simple concepts?

    And again, I refuted your logic earlier. You cannot torture someone who has blown himself up in a pizza parlor. This is a truism, it isn't debatable.

    This is much different from the Nazi regime whose goal was the entire extermination of the Jewish people from this earth.

    Todd

    Except for the part where you don't bother to determine guilt or innocence, and you simply dehumanize PUCs by equating them to some arbitrary pizza parlor bomber, a link that exists only in your mind.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/20/2005 @ 3:44pm

  276. physics, I must say I admire you stamina, trying to argue with kill kill kill Todd.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 3:58pm

  277. ccontinued... his is a lynchmob mentality

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 3:59pm

  278. ILP,

    "No, that is a separate issue. I guess you'll be trying to change the subject to Bill Clinton soon..."

    No.. it's exactly the same issue in my mind. comparing the good America with destroying evil Nazi's in response to the Nazi's trying to take over the world and exterminating Jews. The same way the good Americans are keeping the evil terrorists(Nazi's) from killing all non-Muslims(Jews) or anyone that sides with the west.

    "Which is exactly my point! You are villifying people who've done nothing wrong, a point made by one of the soldiers of the 82nd Airborne! Did you even read that post of FISHBITE's? Apparently not. Read that post, and then it will make sense to you (maybe)"

    I read the post, again I never said I advocate torturing peaceful Iraqi's. I advocate detaining and torturing only those involved in terrorism.

    "Just the attempt to wipe out terrorists worldwide has spawned more terrorists."

    Right... in the same way that destroying all of Hitler's forces spawned more Nazi's, just how many Nazi's are there in the world now anyway?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/20/2005 @ 4:02pm

  279. OKSG - "total annihilation of the Third Reich army, and all of Hitler's forces" ? So none of these soldiers were left alive? Kind of a semantic quibble but just checking. Your "kill all the terrorists" is a literal objective.

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/20/2005 @ 4:13pm

  280. OKSG - How many nazi's are there in the world now? Well some folks on this site refer to the Muslim terrorists as IslamoFascist or something - does that count? One definition of nazi ideology is that it is anticommunist, anti-Semitic, racist, nationalistic, imperialistic and militaristic. How many of those apply to you? To our leadership? Just wondering.

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/20/2005 @ 4:19pm

  281. Fish,

    "One definition of nazi ideology is that it is anticommunist, anti-Semitic, racist, nationalistic, imperialistic and militaristic. How many of those apply to you?"

    These apply to me..

    anticommunist (communism sucks, and I can't stand the thought of supporting people that don't have the drive for success that I do, i.e. people that want to live off of other peoples successes.)

    nationalistic.. America is the greatest nation in the world, and I'm extremely PROUD of being an American, and I don't give a crap if my pride in America offends people that live in other nations.

    militaristic.. this might be me depending on your meaning. If my militaristic you mean a country that believes in having a strong military defense and is determined to defend the countries people then yes that's me.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/20/2005 @ 4:42pm

  282. Fishy, they didn't kill all the nazis either, as claimed by brain damaged poster. they instituted a program called de-nazification. the way it worked was that you went before a board, which would then issue a piece of paper certifying you as de-nazified. this piece of paper was known as the Tide certificate,(soap product, name changed for clarity reasons)

    you went in with a brown shirt and came out with a white one. needless to say a very large number of scum floated to the top, and went along just fine .the judiciary, for instance, was left largely intact, to judge another day.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 4:44pm

  283. Johanne,

    "Fishy, they didn't kill all the nazis either, as claimed by brain damaged poster. they instituted a program called de-nazification. the way it worked was that you went before a board, which would then issue a piece of paper certifying you as de-nazified. this piece of paper was known as the Tide certificate,(soap product, name changed for clarity reasons)"

    You are absolutely right, and if and when terrorists are willing to go through the same "de-terrorism" system, and drop their mortors, and drop their dynomite, and drop their AK-47, and stop blowing up civilians in pizza parlors, then they can come out with their white shirt, and we will be happy.

    Until then...

    The war continues.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/20/2005 @ 4:49pm

  284. oh, what the hell, I'm consistently inconsistent. Todd, you missed the point entirely, boy are you dense. the point was that the nazis did nothing but get their certificate, and were protected by other nazis.

    also a lot of them went to Argentina, with no small help from the catholic church in Rome. when you throw nazi lore around, do it for people that are as ignorant of facts as yourself and not here, while I'm posting

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 4:55pm

  285. oh and while I'm at it, Todd, grrr,kill,kill,kill

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 4:56pm

  286. Johanne,

    "oh and while I'm at it, Todd, grrr,kill,kill,kill"

    Wait... you responded again...

    What happened to:

    "Jorchy, do what I do, I do not "ignore" but rather just ignore, no reply

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/19/2005 @ 5:02pm | ignore this person"

    Your lying again Johanne = )

    Either you are going to respond or you aren't, and you have already said several times that you aren't..

    What's the deal?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/20/2005 @ 5:04pm

  287. in the face of your silly posts I just ccan't help myself. I'll try harder to control myself.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 5:08pm

  288. consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/20/2005 @ 5:52pm

  289. Todd, you don't know shit about communism.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/20/2005 @ 11:14pm

  290. "Todd, you don't know shit about communism."

    I know enough to know I like capitalism better, I've seen how well communism worked in the former Soviet Union.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/21/2005 @ 08:38am

  291. Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 10/20/2005 @ 4:02pm:

    ILP,

    "No, that is a separate issue. I guess you'll be trying to change the subject to Bill Clinton soon..."

    No.. it's exactly the same issue in my mind.

    Then you need to put more knowledge into your mind. The thought process, the mindset I was talking about, is clearly not limited to Nazis of the WWII era. It has existed throughout human history. I merely cited one example from history to illustrate what such thinking could lead to, namely, holocaust-type crimes. I could have cited the Spanish Inquisition, or Manifest Destiny, or a myriad of other human tragedies. The strategies and outcomes of WWII are irrelevant. It is the dehumanizing thought process that is the issue. But of course you always try to change the subject, as you've said yourself many times. I suspect you do that in order to duck an issue on which you have no reasonable argument.

    ...again I never said I advocate torturing peaceful Iraqi's. I advocate detaining and torturing only those involved in terrorism.

    Which implies that involvement in terrorism must be determined in some way before you carry out your sadistic desires. But apparently the investigation amounts to little more than "he's a PUC, he must be a terrorist." So you combine immorality, sadism and stupidity all in one! Reminds me of the infomercials on TV: "Wait, there's more! Not only is my stance on this issue lacking in intelligent thought, it is also sadistic and against my own religion as well. All for the low low price of betraying the golden rule! Act now, supplies are limited."

    "Just the attempt to wipe out terrorists worldwide has spawned more terrorists."

    Right... in the same way that destroying all of Hitler's forces spawned more Nazi's, just how many Nazi's are there in the world now anyway?

    Todd

    The lack of thought you are displaying continues to amaze me. Nazism is a political philosophy. Terrorism is a tactic. Why not compare enfilading fire to mercantilism? That would be similarly inane.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/21/2005 @ 09:08am

  292. Before all the attacks start flying, yes, I made a mistake. Mercantilism is an economic system, so I should have made a slightly different analogy. The absurdity still illustrates the point.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/21/2005 @ 09:10am

  293. ILP,

    "The lack of thought you are displaying continues to amaze me. "

    Funny... I was thinking the exact same thing, I'm wondering if you feel the irony that I do?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/21/2005 @ 10:36am

  294. ILP,

    "The lack of thought you are displaying continues to amaze me. "

    Funny... I was thinking the exact same thing, I'm wondering if you feel the irony that I do?

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 10/21/2005 @ 10:36am

    Since I backed up my statement by systematically analyzing your thoughtless posts, while you just make a groundless assertion, it is not irony that I am feeling.

    I am feeling disappointed that you cannot provide anything intellectually challenging.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/21/2005 @ 11:09am

  295. Todd, you don't know shit about communism.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/21/2005 @ 11:54am

  296. "Todd, you don't know shit about communism."

    I know enough to know I like capitalism better, I've seen how well communism worked in the former Soviet Union.

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 10/21/2005 @ 08:38am | ignore this person

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/21/2005 @ 11:59am

  297. ILP,

    "I am feeling disappointed that you cannot provide anything intellectually challenging."

    Ah ILP, going the HMAN route and demeaning the intellect of those who think differently than you, particularly when it comes to ideologically opposed conservatives.

    I'm quite used to it ILP, I guess what perhaps you are really frustrated by is the fact that people with my thought process are the one's leading our country, particularly leading in areas like the war on terror.

    Is that what is really frustrating you?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/21/2005 @ 12:03pm

  298. Okay, Todd, here's Ding Dong school one more time for you. You couldn't have seen what communism did in the Soviet Union because there was no communism in the Soviet Union in your lifetime. In fact, according to a fairly reliable source, the leader of the Bolshevik Party, one V.I. Lenin, there wasn't even any socialism- which is the lower phase of communism- in the Soviet Union in 1923. Why? Because the Bolshevik Party was slowly getting smothered by bureaucratic tendencies within its own ranks. Lenin admitted that all the Bolsheviks had succeeded in doing was oiling the old Czarist police state with Bolshevik oil, and that the old political and cultural backwardness of Russia was inside the party. Hence, a bureaucratically deformed worker's state, with capitalist features. The writings I'm alluding to can be found in any decent collection of Lenin's work during the years of "war communism", which were the years that marked the most fatal errors and crimes of the Bolsheviks. Now, if Lenin could see that reality in 1923, what the hell makes you think you "saw" communism any more clearly than he eighty years later?

    The advantage Lenin had, that you don't have, is in that he was always willing to explain his errors, his retreats, his over-reaching. That's not a skill you have just yet.

    As for how many fascists there still are in the world, that's an unknowable, as you should know. Fascism is not something that is defeated merely by "shooting all the nazis", fascism is a mass phenomenon that can grow again in different forms. I suppose you're one of those geniuses who thinks fascism could have been defeated by shooting Hitler. Hitler was only its most competent advocate. Fascism would have been a reality with or without him, as the experience of Italy clearly proves.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 10/21/2005 @ 12:16pm

  299. Jay, or spain for that matter. fine post, as usual

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 12:21pm

  300. it never fails to amaze me, a right wing poster bursts on the scene with slogans and half truths, and the resident sages patiently refute with facts, research, I guess we're really having fun now

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 12:23pm

  301. "I guess we're really having fun now"

    Fun is the only reason I come here...

    To see the difference in the way people think who are opposed to me. It's very interesting and amusing to see the differences. I get a great kick out of it.

    Do you not come here for the same reasons?

    I get a great deal of amusement out of reading and responding to the different posts.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/21/2005 @ 12:43pm

  302. Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 10/21/2005 @ 12:03am

    Ah ILP, going the HMAN route and demeaning the intellect of those who think differently than you, particularly when it comes to ideologically opposed conservatives.

    I didn't demean your intellect (this time :-) I say this because you'll notice I never offered the reason why you couldn't provide a challenging post! Maybe the reason is that you are too busy to put some thought into it, or you just don't care to. A few posts earlier, you'll notice that I attributed it to excessive emotionalism on your part. People often let their emotions crowd out rational thinking when it comes to "hot button" issues.

    But if you want me to do so, I can go ahead and assume it is because you're not smart enough to provide something better.

    I'm quite used to it ILP, I guess what perhaps you are really frustrated by is the fact that people with my thought process are the one's leading our country, particularly leading in areas like the war on terror.

    Is that what is really frustrating you?

    Todd

    No, what's frustrating is that they are running the country, but not "leading". George Bush could lead his way out of a paper bag, but only with printed directions.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/21/2005 @ 1:10pm

  303. Fun is the only reason I come here...

    To see the difference in the way people think who are opposed to me. It's very interesting and amusing to see the differences. I get a great kick out of it.

    Do you not come here for the same reasons?

    I get a great deal of amusement out of reading and responding to the different posts.

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 10/21/2005 @ 12:43am

    Wow, that's a relief. At least you can achieve that objective. I know I do sometimes.

    If you're coming here to post rational, thoughtful arguments supported by facts, I'd have to say you're not doing very well :-)

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/21/2005 @ 1:13pm

  304. physics, maybe he likes reading rational, thoughtful, oxymoron alert, posts more than he likes writing them

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 1:43pm

  305. JOHANNESROLF

    Evidently.....

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/21/2005 @ 1:44pm

  306. ILP,

    you wanted facts, here's some facts:

    terrorists blew up civilians in a London bus depot.

    terrorists flew two 747's into buildings in New York.

    terrorists live, train, and are fighting against us in Iraq.

    terrorists are also living, and training in places like Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and other Nations that the U.S. should strike after we finish with Iraq.

    Now a question that you know the facts, here's the questions: Who were these terrorists? what cities and Nations did they come from? Where were they trained?

    What can we do to stop these people now. Not what can we do that might help 20 years from now.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 10/21/2005 @ 1:55pm

  307. "terrorists are also living, and training in places like Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and other Nations that the U.S. should strike after we finish with Iraq".

    grrrr, kill, kill, kill

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/21/2005 @ 3:37pm

Peter Rothberg Peter Rothberg

Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.

Archives

  1. March 2010

  2. February 2010

  3. January 2010

  4. December 2009

  5. November 2009

  6. October 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

Health Reform Foes Scream N-Word at Civil Rights Icon | "I haven't heard anything like this in 40, 45 years," says Congressman John Lewis. "Since the march to Selma, really."
John Nichols
108 Comments

» The Notion

Fox Flubs at Suspending Disbelief | Lately, 3D reality has been popping out of Fox's 2D world.
Leslie Savan
39 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | On health insurance, food insecurity, poverty and the mail.
Eric Alterman

» Act Now!

March for America | Organizers of this Sunday's immigration reform rally in Washington, DC are hoping that lightening strikes twice.
Peter Rothberg
44 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

GOP Peaceniks? | Some Republicans suggest that a "silent majority" of their party opposes nation-building and counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. So where are they?
Robert Dreyfuss
62 Comments

» Editor's Cut

Around The Nation | Welcoming our newest blog. Plus: Two must-see videos.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
16 Comments