President Bush talks w/ Matt Lauer on Torture
interesting interview, and noteworthy that he wouldn't outrightly deny or comment on techniques
Do you really think the president is kept informed on techniques?
That's like a CEO of an electric company being kept informed on collections procedures and policies.
That's like a CEO of an electric company being kept informed on collections procedures and policies.
| rheanna wrote: |
| http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bce_1172446560 |
No truly religious man would condone murder, torture, and be responsible for the nightmare he's unleashed in iraq and on the iraqi people...never mind all the american lives and the gazillions of dollars he's flushed down the toilet...
worst thing that's ever happened to america in my lifetime...what a despicable man...
M
| moworks2 wrote: |
| It's amazing, I'm still in disbelief, why is he still in the white house? He should be in jail along with his whole administration. It's frightening to think that he used religion and god to get elected and people believed him and still believe him...I know it's less than it used to be but it's still too great a number.
No truly religious man would condone murder, torture, and be responsible for the nightmare he's unleashed in iraq and on the iraqi people...never mind all the american lives and the gazillions of dollars he's flushed down the toilet... worst thing that's ever happened to america in my lifetime...what a despicable man... M |
I've been wondering the very same things for a long time now. What scares me more than the fact that he made it into office was that, even after he did all these things, we re-elected him.
| Chalchihuitlicue wrote: | ||
I've been wondering the very same things for a long time now. What scares me more than the fact that he made it into office was that, even after he did all these things, we re-elected him. |
Hi, C.
Actually the first time he was put into office by the supreme court after a ton of voter fraud and confusion found in his brother's home state of florida. The second time there were also massive instances of voter fraud and manipulation in ohio. this man has been a fraud from day one. It's amazing that the american public puts up with it. I don't get it. You can't trust the vote in america, the country that screams the loudest about freedom and justice and democracy. America, sadly, is no longer a democracy. It's run by the rich for the rich. The sad call to religion and god by these bastards is appalling.
Another thing I don't get is why election day is still in the middle of the week. If politicians really want people to vote why don't they make it over a weekend say, saturday and sunday, so those who want to vote can? What, are they afraid too many people might be able to actually do it?...
bush has singlehandedly destroyed any confidence countries around the world had in america, he has created several generations of people who will loathe americans and he is the cause of so much loss and so much suffering to americans, iraqi's, and what about Afghanistan?...
bush and his administration have got to be the most incompetent band of murderers ever to run a country...oh, wait, they were smart in filling the pockets of bush's friends and family in the arms and oil business...hmmm
M
I guess I don't see what's so wrong with George Bush. If it takes torture (remember, we're torturing the terrorists responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people) to prevent the deaths of even more innocent people, why should we not do it? It would be inhumane to allow them to go freely without any sort of punishment.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| I guess I don't see what's so wrong with George Bush. If it takes torture (remember, we're torturing the terrorists responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people) to prevent the deaths of even more innocent people, why should we not do it? It would be inhumane to allow them to go freely without any sort of punishment. |
It's an old and flawed picture of reality.
1) There is nothing inhumane about not torturing people.
2) Torture is widely recognised as a very poor method of gaining information. A subject under torture will inevitably try to tell the torturer what they want to hear.
3) The idea that torture is justified because it saves thousands of lives is a fallacy. There are no cases of this in real life that I am aware of.
4) Very often the people being tortured are either innocent or there is insufficient evidence for a normal trial.
5) The US should not do it because it is illegal, immoral, impractical, ineffective. It merely strengthens resistance to US hegemony and points up the hypocrisy central to the US claims to be acting in defence of democracy and in the cause of truth and freedom. It is also something the US has said it will not do.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| I guess I don't see what's so wrong with George Bush. If it takes torture (remember, we're torturing the terrorists responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people) to prevent the deaths of even more innocent people, why should we not do it? It would be inhumane to allow them to go freely without any sort of punishment. |
It never ceases to amaze how bush supporters are willing to strut their ignorance before the entire world...
Amazing how people who criticize terrorists for their behavior won't criticize george when he behaves just like them...oh yeah, i guess it's because he said he has christ as a mentor...i wonder if christ would ok torture?...i guess so according to george...
I guess there's just no talking to people who have no compassion...but let's not ignore the roe v. wade sticker and the compassion that's supposed to signal...
thanks chris for some lucidity...living this bush madness is truly a lesson for us all...i wonder if we're learning anything...sadly, i have my doubts...
M
| Bikerman wrote: |
|
It's an old and flawed picture of reality. 1) There is nothing inhumane about not torturing people. 2) Torture is widely recognised as a very poor method of gaining information. A subject under torture will inevitably try to tell the torturer what they want to hear. 3) The idea that torture is justified because it saves thousands of lives is a fallacy. There are no cases of this in real life that I am aware of. 4) Very often the people being tortured are either innocent or there is insufficient evidence for a normal trial. 5) The US should not do it because it is illegal, immoral, impractical, ineffective. It merely strengthens resistance to US hegemony and points up the hypocrisy central to the US claims to be acting in defence of democracy and in the cause of truth and freedom. It is also something the US has said it will not do. |
I agree wholeheartedly on all counts. That is precisely why it is illegal under the U.S. military’s UCMJ.
| moworks2 wrote: |
|
Hi, C. Actually the first time he was put into office by the supreme court after a ton of voter fraud and confusion found in his brother's home state of florida. |
I don't think there is any evidence of enough fraud to significantly skew the election results in Florida. As for the final outcome, as I recall (I may be wrong) the reason for it going to the Supreme Court is because that is what Democrats wanted. The only other option per the U.S. constitution is for it to go to a vote in the House of Representatives, which at the time would have been a guaranteed Bush victory. The legal system offered Gore a better chance of winning.
Personally I would have allowed it to go to the House and politely lost if I’d been Gore for a number of reasons. One, it would have been better for the country than dragging it through that ridiculous drama. Two, that is what is suppose to happen per the constitution (although this Florida thing fell into sort of a grey area). Three, the judicial branch already has too much power IMHO, and that fiasco in 2000 made them appear more than equals to the executive and legislative branches of government. Finally, our country is far too litigious as it is and such behavior by national leaders perpetuates and encourages this.
I tire of hearing people make claims of Bush "stealing" the election, of not being really elected because the majority of the Americans did not vote for him, etc. He legally won. End of story. And popular votes do not and will never decide the outcome of a U.S. presidential election. It wasn't even the closest election in U.S. history, certainly not the first time a man lost the popular vote and won the electoral. Heck, there was even one president (John Quincy Adams) who received the fewest popular votes and the fewest electoral and still became president! A brief history:
1824: Andrew Jackson received the most popular and electoral votes, but not enough electoral votes to secure the presidency. The election was tossed to the House of Representatives, who elected John Qunicy Adams, the candidate who came in second in both counts during the general election.
1876: I won’t even go into the details of this mess that directly led to institutional racism in the South up to the Civil Rights Movement! It made the 2000 controversy look like a dispute between 5-year old girls at a pretend tea party. (BTW, Rutherford B. Hayes won without receiving the majority of the popular vote.)
1888: Although he won the popular vote President Cleveland lost his reelection bid to Benjamin Harrison.
| moworks2 wrote: |
|
Another thing I don't get is why election day is still in the middle of the week. If politicians really want people to vote why don't they make it over a weekend say, saturday and sunday, so those who want to vote can? What, are they afraid too many people might be able to actually do it?... |
Yeah, people are much more likely to vote when they have to take time away from their families, hobbies, recreational activity, etc. rather than time off from work.
People can vote whenever they want. Many people simply choose not to do so. If you don’t like going to the booth on a Tuesday, send it in the mail early.
| moworks2 wrote: |
|
bush has singlehandedly destroyed any confidence countries around the world had in america, he has created several generations of people who will loathe americans and he is the cause of so much loss and so much suffering to americans, iraqi's, and what about Afghanistan?... |
That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, of course. However don’t assume that all foreigners share it even if the majority may do. Here is an article I read yesterday in the Arab News by Amir Taheri: What Pelosi Stands For
| moworks2 wrote: |
|
bush and his administration have got to be the most incompetent band of murderers ever to run a country... |
I’ll hold a séance and let some past incompetent and/or murderous rulers like Hitler, Nero, Pol Pott, Stalin, Commodus, Czar Nicholas II, and some others know that they’re out of the running.
Respectfully,
M
| Moonspider wrote: |
|
I agree wholeheartedly on all counts. That is precisely why it is illegal under the U.S. military’s UCMJ. |
Hi Moonspider,
the problem, of course, is that the political 'imperative' over-rides the military in many cases. In my opinion the military codes and 'norms' are often sensible and grounded in moral and practical terms. The problem with the current 'war on terror' is that the US has allowed the political administration to act against established codes of conduct and practice. I would never suggest that the political administration should not be 'superior' to the military establishment since that implies a militaristic society governed by force. I would, however, point out that when political leaders sanction actions which clearly contravene military codes and practices that there should be an accounting for such actions. Some argue that Rumsfeld has already been judged and held accountable for this in his resignation. I would argue that this is not the case and the guilt for the administration sanctioned torture that occurred, and is still occurring, lies at the top.
| Moonspider wrote: | ||||||||||
I agree wholeheartedly on all counts. That is precisely why it is illegal under the U.S. military’s UCMJ.
I don't think there is any evidence of enough fraud to significantly skew the election results in Florida. As for the final outcome, as I recall (I may be wrong) the reason for it going to the Supreme Court is because that is what Democrats wanted. The only other option per the U.S. constitution is for it to go to a vote in the House of Representatives, which at the time would have been a guaranteed Bush victory. The legal system offered Gore a better chance of winning. Personally I would have allowed it to go to the House and politely lost if I’d been Gore for a number of reasons. One, it would have been better for the country than dragging it through that ridiculous drama. Two, that is what is suppose to happen per the constitution (although this Florida thing fell into sort of a grey area). Three, the judicial branch already has too much power IMHO, and that fiasco in 2000 made them appear more than equals to the executive and legislative branches of government. Finally, our country is far too litigious as it is and such behavior by national leaders perpetuates and encourages this. I tire of hearing people make claims of Bush "stealing" the election, of not being really elected because the majority of the Americans did not vote for him, etc. He legally won. End of story. And popular votes do not and will never decide the outcome of a U.S. presidential election. It wasn't even the closest election in U.S. history, certainly not the first time a man lost the popular vote and won the electoral. Heck, there was even one president (John Quincy Adams) who received the fewest popular votes and the fewest electoral and still became president! A brief history: 1824: Andrew Jackson received the most popular and electoral votes, but not enough electoral votes to secure the presidency. The election was tossed to the House of Representatives, who elected John Qunicy Adams, the candidate who came in second in both counts during the general election. 1876: I won’t even go into the details of this mess that directly led to institutional racism in the South up to the Civil Rights Movement! It made the 2000 controversy look like a dispute between 5-year old girls at a pretend tea party. (BTW, Rutherford B. Hayes won without receiving the majority of the popular vote.) 1888: Although he won the popular vote President Cleveland lost his reelection bid to Benjamin Harrison.
Yeah, people are much more likely to vote when they have to take time away from their families, hobbies, recreational activity, etc. rather than time off from work.
People can vote whenever they want. Many people simply choose not to do so. If you don’t like going to the booth on a Tuesday, send it in the mail early.
That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, of course. However don’t assume that all foreigners share it even if the majority may do. Here is an article I read yesterday in the Arab News by Amir Taheri: What Pelosi Stands For
I’ll hold a séance and let some past incompetent and/or murderous rulers like Hitler, Nero, Pol Pott, Stalin, Commodus, Czar Nicholas II, and some others know that they’re out of the running.
Respectfully, M |
Hey moonspider, I think it's silly to argue about something seven years old. Besides, I'm no lawyer. Deny it if you want but the 2000 election was not a normal election. There were plenty reports afterward that many people in Florida were denied the right to vote, voters were confused about where to go to vote, what precinct, etc. This thanks to politicians and their lawyers trying to stymie voters they thought wouldn't vote in their favor. The same thing happened in Ohio in 2004. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wrote an excellent article about it for the Rolliing Stone. He also talked about how voting machines are not trustworthy, and the politicians know it.
I guess it doesn't bother you that your vote means nothing. So what if you vote. It's who's doing the counting that's important. If you can't trust them then why vote? America, who is trying to champion democracy for the whole world has a voting system that is broken.
I don't get where your values are. You live in a country according to laws. You vote for these basic rights. Don't you think this is important? Instead of playing video games with johnny and sally or taking them to Burger King for whoppers on the weekend, why not show them what it means to vote? Why not introduce them to a system you defend and live by? Isn't that worth a few hours on a weekend once every four years?
And again, the last election showed just how difficult voting was. There were reports of lines, long lines. I'm not making this up. There were reports of people waiting ten and twelve hours to vote. Many people left without voting. Disgusted. I know when I worked in New York people tried to vote but often were unable to because of work deadlines. What are the politicians afraid of?
Ok, I'll give you that. I should have said ...'one of the most incompetent band of murderers'...but what, over three thousand americans are dead, lord knows how many crippled physically and mentally for the rest of their lives...people have lost brothers, sisters, fathers, husbands, wives,...how much suffering is ok with you? And what about the iraqi people? The death is non stop there. Is that all ok with you? How can possibly defend a man responsible for all this besides his hand in torture?...
Aahhh, I just checked your profile. You in the military? Is that why you defend him? You also an evangelical?...I've got news for you moonspider, america was sold a bill of goods by this rotten president. They invented or tried to invent proof so they could declare a war. A lot of people are dying for no good reason. A lot of people are suffering and will suffer for the rest of their lives. There's just no excuse for it. It's your choice if you want to remain blind to all the evidence. You live with it.
Oh, a few things from the news headlines today on my Excite page when I woke up. "Pope laments slaughter in Iraq." "Pope: 'Nothing positive from Iraq.' I guess the pope doesn't see the point behind bush's war. Hmmm. But, George sure is the businessman. Here's another headline. 'North koreans arm Ethiopians as U.S. Assents.' The arms business is big business. I wonder if Christ, who george is so found of mentioning, would approve?
Kind regards...
M
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
Hi Moonspider, the problem, of course, is that the political 'imperative' over-rides the military in many cases. In my opinion the military codes and 'norms' are often sensible and grounded in moral and practical terms. The problem with the current 'war on terror' is that the US has allowed the political administration to act against established codes of conduct and practice. I would never suggest that the political administration should not be 'superior' to the military establishment since that implies a militaristic society governed by force. I would, however, point out that when political leaders sanction actions which clearly contravene military codes and practices that there should be an accounting for such actions. Some argue that Rumsfeld has already been judged and held accountable for this in his resignation. I would argue that this is not the case and the guilt for the administration sanctioned torture that occurred, and is still occurring, lies at the top. |
Once again, I agree. (We don’t always do that!
) I’m afraid that the war (and perhaps fear) has caused too many leaders to turn a blind eye to conduct that they should be deploring. Worse in some cases I fear, leaders promote and support such behavior.
Taking the incidents at Abu Ghraib as an example, I personally feel that not nearly enough punishment was meted out. The heads of many an officer should have rolled. For those at the prison itself, they were at worst complicit in the actions of those enlisted personnel, or at best unaware of their activity. In either case they should have been court-martialed IMHO. To my knowledge only two officers were punished to any degree, a colonel who received NJP (non-judicial punishment) and a brigadier general who was relieved and demoted to colonel. Both of their careers were effectively ended. The brigadier general actually had the gall to protest! As a commanding officer I would have been too ashamed to show my face in public and thanked my lucky stars to be home with my family rather than sitting in a military prison. To Rumsfeld’s credit, he did offer to resign twice (according to him) which President Bush refused to accept (to his and the DOD’s detriment IMHO).
I think punishing the SECDEF by any legal means would have been difficult unless there was some paper trail of directives and orders that could be directly related to Abu Ghraib or any other documented cases of torture in the military. However I agree that the leadership climate has made such incidents more likely.
And I agree with you Chris, that any U.S. administration should take the high road when it comes to torture for all the reasons you discussed before. We should even avoid grey areas and not quibble over what type of abuse is torture and what is not. That is a very treacherous and slippery path.
Respectfully,
M
| Moonspider wrote: |
|
I think punishing the SECDEF by any legal means would have been difficult unless there was some paper trail of directives and orders that could be directly related to Abu Ghraib or any other documented cases of torture in the military. However I agree that the leadership climate has made such incidents more likely. |
There is bound to be a paper trail to the numerous 'extraordinary renditions' carried out by the US however. This is the process where suspects were flown to countries where torture could be carried out. The European parliament confirmed many such cases - Britain was complicit in allowing such flights to use UK airspace and refuelling facilities - but official responses have been muted and press coverage almost non existent.
| Quote: |
| And I agree with you Chris, that any U.S. administration should take the high road when it comes to torture for all the reasons you discussed before. We should even avoid grey areas and not quibble over what type of abuse is torture and what is not. That is a very treacherous and slippery path.
|
We are in complete agreement on this and I don't honestly find that too surprising. We have disagreed on issues in the past and no doubt will do so again but my impression is that you have a strong moral/ethical sensibility and I think that you 'speak' honestly and in good faith, even when we disagree.
| moworks2 wrote: |
| Hey moonspider, I think it's silly to argue about something seven years old. |
I’m an historian by my first education, so I’ll argue events that happened millennia ago!
To me seven years ago is less than a day. Anyway, you broached the subject.
| moworks2 wrote: |
| Besides, I'm no lawyer. Deny it if you want but the 2000 election was not a normal election. |
No. But as I pointed out by historical examples, not out of the ordinary either.
| moworks2 wrote: |
| There were plenty reports afterward that many people in Florida were denied the right to vote, voters were confused about where to go to vote, what precinct, etc. This thanks to politicians and their lawyers trying to stymie voters they thought wouldn't vote in their favor. The same thing happened in Ohio in 2004. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wrote an excellent article about it for the Rolliing Stone. He also talked about how voting machines are not trustworthy, and the politicians know it. |
A few cases of confusion and people being denied access to polling places does not a conspiracy make. Kennedy article to the contrary, I don’t think there is evidence of nation-wide voter fraud to the extent that a national election can be or has been manipulated. Voting in the United States is much freer and less susceptible to fraud than it was in the 19th Century. That being said, yes the Kennedy article was a good article and he made some pretty compelling arguments, as I recall.
I pray that the 2008 presidential election does not follow a similar pattern of the losers crying foul as in 2000 and 2004. The systems (cities and states use different systems since there is no national standard, just as Kennedy spoke of in his Rolling Stone article) are not full-proof and there are flaws. Let’s concentrate on fixing the flaws rather than pointing fingers at one another and concocting grandiose conspiracy theories.
However, I see no correction of what I find to be the greatest flaw in our system, the very existence of political parties. I am a registered independent and abhor all political parties. I believe, as George Washington did, that political parties are a detriment to the United States political system and to the country.
| President George Washington in his farewell address of 1796 wrote: |
| I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. 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.... It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume. |
| moworks2 wrote: |
| I guess it doesn't bother you that your vote means nothing. |
I believe that it does.
| moworks2 wrote: |
| So what if you vote. It's who's doing the counting that's important. If you can't trust them then why vote? |
I do trust them.
| moworks2 wrote: |
| America, who is trying to champion democracy for the whole world has a voting system that is broken. |
Like I said, it has flaws but it is less susceptible to fraud than 19th Century (or even early 20th Century) America. Let’s concentrate on fixing the problems. The problem with political parties is that they often want to fix things to their favor and rather blame each other than the system to score political points. As Washington said, such behavior foments jealousy and animosity. In short, it can tear a country apart.
| moworks2 wrote: |
| I don't get where your values are. You live in a country according to laws. You vote for these basic rights. Don't you think this is important? Instead of playing video games with johnny and sally or taking them to Burger King for whoppers on the weekend, why not show them what it means to vote? Why not introduce them to a system you defend and live by? Isn't that worth a few hours on a weekend once every four years? |
I don’t recall mentioning how often I vote. But since you brought it up, I vote in every election, which in California can be more than once a year! (For reasons of California politics which is another torrid tale entirely!
) So, yes, I think it very important and act accordingly. I simply said that Americans as a whole choose not to vote and would be even less likely, in my opinion, to vote on a weekend than on a weekday. (Pure supposition on my part.) And if everyone has an attitude that their vote does not count, as you mentioned earlier and which is encouraged by people in both political parties crying fraud and conspiratorial foul every time they lose an election, it is no wonder Americans are disinclined to exercise this right.
| moworks2 wrote: |
| And again, the last election showed just how difficult voting was. There were reports of lines, long lines. I'm not making this up. There were reports of people waiting ten and twelve hours to vote. Many people left without voting. Disgusted. I know when I worked in New York people tried to vote but often were unable to because of work deadlines. What are the politicians afraid of? |
“Work deadlines” sound like an excuse to me, but I may be wrong. I don’t know them or their employers so I will not pass judgment. Yes, there were reports of such problems and I do not doubt them. I simply don’t believe there was an all-encompassing conspiracy to thwart the will of the people.
| moworks2 wrote: |
| Ok, I'll give you that. I should have said ...'one of the most incompetent band of murderers'...but what, over three thousand americans are dead, lord knows how many crippled physically and mentally for the rest of their lives...people have lost brothers, sisters, fathers, husbands, wives,...how much suffering is ok with you? |
I never wish for anyone to suffer, and in war there is far too much of it. (To paraphrase General Robert E. Lee, it is good that war is so horrible, otherwise we’d grow too fond of it.) However, I do not believe that wars should never be fought. There are things that are worth fighting and dying for in my opinion. There are consequences worse than war. And whereas battles may be decided by the number of casualties, wars are not necessarily so.
I supported the invasion of Iraq. And I am not going to hem and haw about my position and claim that I was duped as others have claimed now that all the facts are in. The United States was not alone in its belief regarding Iraq’s WMDs. Other intelligence agencies believed the same. Countries however differed on how to deal with it. That is in the past though and I believe pulling out now will make matters far worse, not better. And I would believe that even if I did not support the initial invasion.
International politics is a game of poker sometimes. Hussein was bluffing and the United States called it. He knew what his hand was but no one else did. Sure, there were those that thought he didn’t have WMDs, but they did not know until after the country was conquered. They turned out to be right, but wanted to keep throwing chips on the table rather than going all in and ending the game. (To carry the analogy further, in such a situation one always risks your opponent drawing a valuable hand.) Which is perfectly fine and in hindsight probably would have been better.
But that is past and we must deal with the here and now.
I don’t mean to and would never minimize the deaths of my countrymen and women in uniform. I know it well and have shed very personal tears for them. However 3,000 in five years is not that many in a war. During the American Civil War, World War I or World War II, that figure could be a few hours (or even minutes) work. I believe we must stay, and thus those deaths and wounds, however painful, are worthy and honorable. And like I said, I honestly believe pulling out now would cause more problems and more suffering than staying , just as Amir Taheri does in the article he wrote in Arab News which I posted earlier. If we don’t finish this war properly, the United States may find itself fighting a much larger war later and 3,000 dead Americans may indeed just be one day’s sacrifice rather than five years.’ Furthermore, Iraq may find itself in a civil war of much larger scale than that tit-for-tat struggle currently being waged.
I won’t go further into the war as that is another debate better suited for a different thread.
| moworks2 wrote: |
| And what about the iraqi people? The death is non stop there. Is that all ok with you? How can possibly defend a man responsible for all this besides his hand in torture? |
As I said, I believe matters there would be worse if we pulled out. A sudden power vacuum like that would make the fall of Hussein’s regime pale in comparison. Not only would you have a real civil war, but the active involvement of surrounding nations such as Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has already intimated direct intervention if the U.S. pulls out and Iraqi Sunnis become victimized by the dominant Shiites (supported by Iran).
| moworks2 wrote: |
| Aahhh, I just checked your profile. You in the military? |
Yes. Navy (reserves, although there is technically no such thing anymore, just one navy).
| moworks2 wrote: |
| Is that why you defend him? |
I re-read my original post and I don’t think I ever defended him. I objected to the notion that Bush supporters and the GOP somehow fixed the 2000 and 2004 elections. I objected to Gore’s behavior and that of other Democrats in the aftermath. Had their roles been reversed I would have said the exact same things.
| moworks2 wrote: |
| You also an evangelical?... |
I’m a Christian and as such believe in evangelizing. However I assume you speak of “evangelical” in the sense of a political identification.
| moworks2 wrote: |
| I've got news for you moonspider, america was sold a bill of goods by this rotten president. They invented or tried to invent proof so they could declare a war. |
As I said before and as I recall, there was little conflict in intelligence reports from various national services. Hindsight is always 20/20, to turn the trite phrase. No one knows how things may have turned out had another route been taken. We can only speculate. From our perspective we may think Britain and France would have done well to launch a preemptive attack against Nazi Germany in 1936. Imagine the lives that could have been saved! But had they actually done so. No one would know anything about what never happened. They would only have known the consequences of invading Germany.
| moworks2 wrote: |
| A lot of people are dying for no good reason. A lot of people are suffering and will suffer for the rest of their lives. There's just no excuse for it. It's your choice if you want to remain blind to all the evidence. You live with it. |
I disagree. I believe there is a good reason for it. I think the consequences of failing in Iraq would exceed the costs of pressing forward now. Once again, that is the subject of another much more lengthy debate.
| moworks2 wrote: |
| Oh, a few things from the news headlines today on my Excite page when I woke up. "Pope laments slaughter in Iraq." "Pope: 'Nothing positive from Iraq.' I guess the pope doesn't see the point behind bush's war. Hmmm. But, George sure is the businessman. Here's another headline. 'North koreans arm Ethiopians as U.S. Assents.' The arms business is big business. I wonder if Christ, who george is so found of mentioning, would approve? |
I lament it as well. I did not read the Pope’s address, but from the news articles I read I did not see where he criticized the Bush administration. If I’d been alive in 1863, I would greatly lament the loss of so many Americans in the Civil War, and do so even now. However, the costs of that war were exceeded by the benefits of the results achieved by Union victory. I can mourn the loss of life and still believe in the cause for which they died.
As for the headlines, I read the New York Times article and agree with Ambassador Bolton. I would have not allowed the transaction had I been President and strongly disagree with the administration’s decision to allow it.
Respectfully,
M
| Moonspider wrote: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I’m an historian by my first education, so I’ll argue events that happened millennia ago! To me seven years ago is less than a day. Anyway, you broached the subject.
No. But as I pointed out by historical examples, not out of the ordinary either.
A few cases of confusion and people being denied access to polling places does not a conspiracy make. Kennedy article to the contrary, I don’t think there is evidence of nation-wide voter fraud to the extent that a national election can be or has been manipulated. Voting in the United States is much freer and less susceptible to fraud than it was in the 19th Century. That being said, yes the Kennedy article was a good article and he made some pretty compelling arguments, as I recall. I pray that the 2008 presidential election does not follow a similar pattern of the losers crying foul as in 2000 and 2004. The systems (cities and states use different systems since there is no national standard, just as Kennedy spoke of in his Rolling Stone article) are not full-proof and there are flaws. Let’s concentrate on fixing the flaws rather than pointing fingers at one another and concocting grandiose conspiracy theories. However, I see no correction of what I find to be the greatest flaw in our system, the very existence of political parties. I am a registered independent and abhor all political parties. I believe, as George Washington did, that political parties are a detriment to the United States political system and to the country.
I believe that it does.
I do trust them.
Like I said, it has flaws but it is less susceptible to fraud than 19th Century (or even early 20th Century) America. Let’s concentrate on fixing the problems. The problem with political parties is that they often want to fix things to their favor and rather blame each other than the system to score political points. As Washington said, such behavior foments jealousy and animosity. In short, it can tear a country apart.
I don’t recall mentioning how often I vote. But since you brought it up, I vote in every election, which in California can be more than once a year! (For reasons of California politics which is another torrid tale entirely! ) So, yes, I think it very important and act accordingly. I simply said that Americans as a whole choose not to vote and would be even less likely, in my opinion, to vote on a weekend than on a weekday. (Pure supposition on my part.) And if everyone has an attitude that their vote does not count, as you mentioned earlier and which is encouraged by people in both political parties crying fraud and conspiratorial foul every time they lose an election, it is no wonder Americans are disinclined to exercise this right.
“Work deadlines” sound like an excuse to me, but I may be wrong. I don’t know them or their employers so I will not pass judgment. Yes, there were reports of such problems and I do not doubt them. I simply don’t believe there was an all-encompassing conspiracy to thwart the will of the people.
I never wish for anyone to suffer, and in war there is far too much of it. (To paraphrase General Robert E. Lee, it is good that war is so horrible, otherwise we’d grow too fond of it.) However, I do not believe that wars should never be fought. There are things that are worth fighting and dying for in my opinion. There are consequences worse than war. And whereas battles may be decided by the number of casualties, wars are not necessarily so. I supported the invasion of Iraq. And I am not going to hem and haw about my position and claim that I was duped as others have claimed now that all the facts are in. The United States was not alone in its belief regarding Iraq’s WMDs. Other intelligence agencies believed the same. Countries however differed on how to deal with it. That is in the past though and I believe pulling out now will make matters far worse, not better. And I would believe that even if I did not support the initial invasion. International politics is a game of poker sometimes. Hussein was bluffing and the United States called it. He knew what his hand was but no one else did. Sure, there were those that thought he didn’t have WMDs, but they did not know until after the country was conquered. They turned out to be right, but wanted to keep throwing chips on the table rather than going all in and ending the game. (To carry the analogy further, in such a situation one always risks your opponent drawing a valuable hand.) Which is perfectly fine and in hindsight probably would have been better. But that is past and we must deal with the here and now. I don’t mean to and would never minimize the deaths of my countrymen and women in uniform. I know it well and have shed very personal tears for them. However 3,000 in five years is not that many in a war. During the American Civil War, World War I or World War II, that figure could be a few hours (or even minutes) work. I believe we must stay, and thus those deaths and wounds, however painful, are worthy and honorable. And like I said, I honestly believe pulling out now would cause more problems and more suffering than staying , just as Amir Taheri does in the article he wrote in Arab News which I posted earlier. If we don’t finish this war properly, the United States may find itself fighting a much larger war later and 3,000 dead Americans may indeed just be one day’s sacrifice rather than five years.’ Furthermore, Iraq may find itself in a civil war of much larger scale than that tit-for-tat struggle currently being waged. I won’t go further into the war as that is another debate better suited for a different thread.
As I said, I believe matters there would be worse if we pulled out. A sudden power vacuum like that would make the fall of Hussein’s regime pale in comparison. Not only would you have a real civil war, but the active involvement of surrounding nations such as Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has already intimated direct intervention if the U.S. pulls out and Iraqi Sunnis become victimized by the dominant Shiites (supported by Iran).
Yes. Navy (reserves, although there is technically no such thing anymore, just one navy).
I re-read my original post and I don’t think I ever defended him. I objected to the notion that Bush supporters and the GOP somehow fixed the 2000 and 2004 elections. I objected to Gore’s behavior and that of other Democrats in the aftermath. Had their roles been reversed I would have said the exact same things.
I’m a Christian and as such believe in evangelizing. However I assume you speak of “evangelical” in the sense of a political identification.
As I said before and as I recall, there was little conflict in intelligence reports from various national services. Hindsight is always 20/20, to turn the trite phrase. No one knows how things may have turned out had another route been taken. We can only speculate. From our perspective we may think Britain and France would have done well to launch a preemptive attack against Nazi Germany in 1936. Imagine the lives that could have been saved! But had they actually done so. No one would know anything about what never happened. They would only have known the consequences of invading Germany.
I disagree. I believe there is a good reason for it. I think the consequences of failing in Iraq would exceed the costs of pressing forward now. Once again, that is the subject of another much more lengthy debate.
I lament it as well. I did not read the Pope’s address, but from the news articles I read I did not see where he criticized the Bush administration. If I’d been alive in 1863, I would greatly lament the loss of so many Americans in the Civil War, and do so even now. However, the costs of that war were exceeded by the benefits of the results achieved by Union victory. I can mourn the loss of life and still believe in the cause for which they died. As for the headlines, I read the New York Times article and agree with Ambassador Bolton. I would have not allowed the transaction had I been President and strongly disagree with the administration’s decision to allow it. Respectfully, M |
I think it was a lot more than a few cases, entire lists in fact being denied the vote based on articles read and video reports...i guess you can 'believe' what you want...
and i absolutely do feel it was an orchestrated effort on the part of some republican politicians to slant the election in their favor both in 2000 and 2004...it doesn't have to be nation wide...a few key states like florida and ohio can do it...i don't think it was 'concocted' at all...this childish argument of losers crying foul is no argument at all...the voting system in america can be manipulated and has been, people living in a supposedly free country, a democracy, have the right to call foul when it is seen...
I think the 2008 political election will be just as bad no matter who wins if honesty is found to be lacking...the flaws are now being created by people all too eager to do anything necessary to have 'their side' win...
thanks for that text by washington...i'd never seen that...i'd totally agree with that sentiment...i'd also add i feel the same about religion and nationalism...psychological and physical boundries that do nothing to unite humanity...perhaps for some breaking down these walls would be asking too much...
based on all the lies I wouldn't trust anything coming out of the bush white house...it seems like every week there's another scandal being reported on...I don't trust them at all...i don't trust the vote in america, i don't trust that it's a 'little' broken...men will go to enormous lengths to gain power, control, wealth...i don't have to tell you that...i guess i don't trust the 'political spirit' to do it fairly...i used to, i think i was just naive...
and just so you know, if it was democrats in the white house doing what bush and his administration are doing i'd feel exactly the same...I don't belong to any political party...i think as leaders of a free country where politicians are supposed to be working for the people politicians have a minimum of honesty and decency to uphold and be accountable for...bush and his buddies don't even come close...
i also agree with you that now, pulling all the troops suddenly would create even more of a mess than already exists...sadly, when bush was given good advice and asked to wait he didn't...
Hans Blix working for the UN found no weapon's...bush was in a rush to attack...he and blair were both behind an effort to furnish 'reason' to start a war...i think it's a sad fact and one that americans and iraqi's are paying for now...
don't get me wrong...saddam hussein was an evil man, i don't think that's the question...i think bush has lowered himself far too much to the level of the terrorists, that's all, and that's too much...he has shown time and time again that he isn't a very intelligent man...
It always shocks me that people can put a number on life lost and say it's acceptable..."However 3,000 in five years is not that many in a war." I wonder how you'd feel if it was happening in your hometown and to you and your friends and family...I don't wish it on anyone...i just think it's far too easy to talk this way when you aren't on the front lines...
and personally, i think all life is precious, human, animal, etc., I think the taking of one life is too much let alone three thousand...
I think it's nonsense to suppose that this is acceptable now 'cause down the road it could be even worse...rationalizing violence and the loss of life...no, i just can't agree with this...
Attacking iraq was the first mistake...not trying to talk and meet and work things out should have been the course of action...so it takes a few months or years longer than one wants...when do human beings start living peace and stop just talking about it...
and showing their ignorance politicians will point to tv and hollywood for the violence in our children...i think they are taught violence by the actions of their parents and the society they live in...i'd love to see adults take responsibility for once...
our children see a president hemming and hawing about torture on tv...i don't think this is the right way to show our children the difference between right and wrong behavior...violence is violence...you can play psychological games and call your violence righteous and 'their violence' evil or wrong but in the end it's all violence...definition/rationalization is a human game we fall prey to far too often...
and trying to export the american way of life, democracy, whatever you want to call it, to a country/people that are so fundamentally different than you is bound to fail...it is happening right before our eyes...
the people i feel sorry for are the men and women in these countries who are intelligent enough for themselves to want freedom...they see through the propaganda of politics and religion and want their freedom...i wish we could help them because they are living in prisons within their own countries...but, dropping bombs is no solution...it aggravates the problem...
You know what moonspider, it could be that even if bush had waited for more inspections that an attack would have proven to be inevitable...but it would have been done with international approval or at least, the very least, the international community being heard...we'll never know now...
sorry to go on rambling here...
kind regards...
M
| moworks2 wrote: |
| I think it was a lot more than a few cases, entire lists in fact being denied the vote based on articles read and video reports...i guess you can 'believe' what you want...
and i absolutely do feel it was an orchestrated effort on the part of some republican politicians to slant the election in their favor both in 2000 and 2004...it doesn't have to be nation wide...a few key states like florida and ohio can do it...i don't think it was 'concocted' at all...this childish argument of losers crying foul is no argument at all...the voting system in america can be manipulated and has been, people living in a supposedly free country, a democracy, have the right to call foul when it is seen... I think the 2008 political election will be just as bad no matter who wins if honesty is found to be lacking...the flaws are now being created by people all too eager to do anything necessary to have 'their side' win... |
If there are cases in which criminal activity can be proven, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Problems with the systems should be corrected so that they cannot be easily exploited. However I am not going to jump to the conclusion that there was a lot of coordinated, illegal activity until I see district attorney offices building cases and prosecuting them. Maybe they have and I simply have not seen them. Perhaps I am wrong. But if there is an absence of legal action taking place I will assume that that means little illegality occurred. The only other option is to assume that the lack of prosecutorial activity in and of itself is evidence of illegal activity and cover-up, which just tends towards conspiracy theories IMHO.
Political parties in congress use their power to launch investigations into much more mundane things than that! So unless the Democrats are in on it as well as the Republican conspirators who rigged the elections, I personally don’t think the dots connect that easily.
| moworks2 wrote: |
| thanks for that text by washington...i'd never seen that...i'd totally agree with that sentiment... |
Anytime. It’s one of my personal favorites.
| moworks2 wrote: |
| based on all the lies I wouldn't trust anything coming out of the bush white house...it seems like every week there's another scandal being reported on...I don't trust them at all...i don't trust the vote in america, i don't trust that it's a 'little' broken...men will go to enormous lengths to gain power, control, wealth...i don't have to tell you that...i guess i don't trust the 'political spirit' to do it fairly...i used to, i think i was just naive... |
It is easy to become cynical. I try not to but often fail miserably.
I don’t think there will ever be an administration that does not have one scandal or another. In the absence of an outright scandal their political opponents will (and do) create them.
| moworks2 wrote: |
| and just so you know, if it was democrats in the white house doing what bush and his administration are doing i'd feel exactly the same...I don't belong to any political party...i think as leaders of a free country where politicians are supposed to be working for the people politicians have a minimum of honesty and decency to uphold and be accountable for... |
Agreed
| moworks2 wrote: |
| It always shocks me that people can put a number on life lost and say it's acceptable..."However 3,000 in five years is not that many in a war." I wonder how you'd feel if it was happening in your hometown and to you and your friends and family...I don't wish it on anyone...i just think it's far too easy to talk this way when you aren't on the front lines... |
I do have friends and family there. My father is currently in Iraq as are friends of mine. I have men who served under me in my previous command as well as my current command doing third and fourth tours since 9/11 in Iraq, Kuwait, Djibouti, and the U.A.E.
I try not to let my personal feelings get in the way of my thinking regarding this. If I did I wouldn’t be able to perform my military duties. The last thing I want is someone to get wounded or killed. Furthermore, I don’t want to spend another tour away from my family or have anyone in harm’s way. But I have to look at it objectively and endeavor to do so.
| moworks2 wrote: |
| and personally, i think all life is precious, human, animal, etc., I think the taking of one life is too much let alone three thousand... |
I agree that life is precious. But I also believe that there are things for which it is worth fighting and dying.
| moworks2 wrote: |
| I think it's nonsense to suppose that this is acceptable now 'cause down the road it could be even worse...rationalizing violence and the loss of life...no, i just can't agree with this... |
As you said:
| moworks2 wrote: |
| i also agree with you that now, pulling all the troops suddenly would create even more of a mess than already exists... |
Given a choice between more people dying in the future and fewer people dying now, I’ll always choose the latter. The problem is that one never knows the future. One can only make educated guesses. And like I said earlier, I believe there are those things worth more than life, ideas such as freedom. Thus, such as in World War II or the War Between the States, war was the right choice (IMO) for the United States, even though not going to war would have meant that literally hundreds of thousands of Americans would not have died in those wars and perhaps tens of millions of Americans would be alive today as their descendants.
This could be the subject of a much larger philosophical debate on war, so I’ll resist the temptation to go too far a field.
| moworks2 wrote: |
| Attacking iraq was the first mistake...not trying to talk and meet and work things out should have been the course of action...so it takes a few months or years longer than one wants...when do human beings start living peace and stop just talking about it...
and showing their ignorance politicians will point to tv and hollywood for the violence in our children...i think they are taught violence by the actions of their parents and the society they live in...i'd love to see adults take responsibility for once... our children see a president hemming and hawing about torture on tv...i don't think this is the right way to show our children the difference between right and wrong behavior...violence is violence...you can play psychological games and call your violence righteous and 'their violence' evil or wrong but in the end it's all violence...definition/rationalization is a human game we fall prey to far too often... |
I agree with you on the torture and on some of the other points. However I obviously disagree with you on the subject of violence if you are claiming that all violence is wrong. If someone is trying to violently harm me or my family (or my country for that matter) I think defending myself or my family (or my country) by violent, even lethal means to be a proper choice of action.
| moworks2 wrote: |
| and trying to export the american way of life, democracy, whatever you want to call it, to a country/people that are so fundamentally different than you is bound to fail...it is happening right before our eyes... |
It may fail, sure. But historically it has succeeded (i.e. Japan and Germany). The differences between us and Japan were far greater than those between us and Iraq. However there are a lot of nuances in Iraq, factions battling for control of the country by asymmetrical means, neighboring foreign powers attempting to influence the development of Iraq to their favor, etc.
Iraq (in fact the entire Global War on Terror or GWOT), is a fourth generation war (4GW). The only way to lose is to quit. We cannot militarily defeat our enemies, even though we may never lose a battle when forces collide. They cannot militarily win either because they cannot win a single battle let alone conquer us or even territory we choose to contest. 4GW is a war of wills, a war whose primary battlefields are the media, public sentiment, elections, and politics. The military is just the highly visible part. And its primary role is not to fight, but to sway public opinion in local populations through diplomacy, cooperation, health and civil projects, education, etc.
An example of a 4GW battle that Al Qaeda won would be the Madrid train bombings. Victory was not measured in the amount of damage or the deaths caused. Victory was measured by the fact that the elections shortly thereafter reflected the will of Al Qaeda. They swayed public opinion in Spain and thereby altered the election. That is how this war will be won or lost. Traditional military victories or defeats are inconsequential. (Vietnam would be a good example, since the United States never lost a single battle but lost the war.)
Terrorism is never about destroying or killing. It is just (one of) the means by which an entity can alter the will and therefore the politics of its enemy, which is the objective of fourth generation warfare. In 4GW everyone is fighting for the hearts and minds of citizenry.
Sorry for going off on a tangent. I started a thread on 4GW in the philosophy forum but nobody bit.
| moworks2 wrote: |
| the people i feel sorry for are the men and women in these countries who are intelligent enough for themselves to want freedom...they see through the propaganda of politics and religion and want their freedom...i wish we could help them because they are living in prisons within their own countries...but, dropping bombs is no solution...it aggravates the problem... |
I can tell you though that dropping bombs is not the only thing we are doing. In fact in all that is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention Djibouti, Ethiopia, Somalia, U.A.E., Philippines, and the other theatres of the Global War o Terror) combat operations are the least significant part. They just get all the press because blowing things up and people dying is more exciting than humanitarian assistance and diplomacy IMHO (I am cynical about the press.
)
| moworks2 wrote: |
| You know what moonspider, it could be that even if bush had waited for more inspections that an attack would have proven to be inevitable...but it would have been done with international approval or at least, the very least, the international community being heard...we'll never know now... |
Nope. But that is the way of all things. Once a decision is made in complex systems, it is impossible to ever know what would have resulted from a different decision. There are too many factors involved. So to say things would have turned out better is just as right (or wrong) as saying things would have turned out worse. One can only speculate based upon available evidence and reasonable suppositions of everyone’s behavior.
Had France and England deemed Hitler to be a terrible future threat and therefore invaded and conquered Germany in 1936, would anyone have surmised the possibility of the Holocaust had they not? Would Chamberlain have gone down in history as a tyrant for starting what many may have thought an unnecessary war rather than a Nazi patsy? Would the Soviet Union have lasted longer, shorter, no change? What would have been the development of Eastern Europe? Would there have been a Cold War, or might there have been a full fledged world war (even nuclear?) with the USSR? Would Churchill have been remembered more for the fiasco at Gallipoli in World War I? Would he have even become prime minister? Would Israel have come back into existence in 1948? Would a resurgent Germany have started a third war in the 1960s? Would man have walked on the moon in 1969? Would there have even been a “space race?” Who would have headed the U.S. space program in the 1950s and 60s? When would the atomic bomb have been developed? Would Benny Goodman’s career have lasted into the 1960s and given us more wonderful music? Would Chuck Yeager have been the first man to break the sound barrier? Would there be a Volkswagen Beetle? How would the plot of X-Men and the character of Magneto have developed? Would Eisenhower have ever been president? Would 20th Century Fox have survived without The Sound of Music and The Longest Day, or would they have gone bankrupt? Would NATO have existed?
The list goes on and on from the global scale of humanity to the lives of hundreds of millions of individuals, from the monumental to the mundane.
Of course, none of that would have (probably) altered the course of events in the Pacific in 1941. The United States would have just had more resources to throw at Japan.
On a personal note, without World War II in Europe my wife (as well as one of my best friends) would not exist!
| moworks2 wrote: |
| sorry to go on rambling here... |
Not a problem. Don’t we all!
Respectfully,
M
| Quote: |
| If there are cases in which criminal activity can be proven, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Problems with the systems should be corrected so that they cannot be easily exploited. However I am not going to jump to the conclusion that there was a lot of coordinated, illegal activity until I see district attorney offices building cases and prosecuting them. Maybe they have and I simply have not seen them. Perhaps I am wrong. But if there is an absence of legal action taking place I will assume that that means little illegality occurred. The only other option is to assume that the lack of prosecutorial activity in and of itself is evidence of illegal activity and cover-up, which just tends towards conspiracy theories IMHO.
Political parties in congress use their power to launch investigations into much more mundane things than that! So unless the Democrats are in on it as well as the Republican conspirators who rigged the elections, I personally don’t think the dots connect that easily. |
just because something can't be proven to be illegal according to the judicial system doesn't mean it was honest...our judicial system is all we have today, that doesn't mean it is just or honest...you know as well as i do that it can be manipulated by lawyers quite easily...we need to be honest with ourselves if we are ever to live in peace, side by side...politicians or the people that work for them and with them, it doesn't matter which party, can easily manipulate a vote by having a voters precinct 'accidentally' changed so that when they get there to vote they can't or by a last minute change in borders that just didn't get out to the voters in time via mail...something like that happened in ohio...that's just one example of a 'possible' slip...something easily manipulated...another from the ohio election, a small town that registered something like three thousand votes with only eight hundred residents...it was something like that...i'd have to go back to the article to find the exact figures...i guess what i'm trying to say is that the fact that no legal action has been taken doesn't mean that people didn't do illegal things to manipulate the vote or start a war...who's at fault?...that's a whole 'nother topic i guess...
| Quote: |
| It is easy to become cynical. I try not to but often fail miserably. Wink I don’t think there will ever be an administration that does not have one scandal or another. In the absence of an outright scandal their political opponents will (and do) create them.
|
What Washington warned against...parties, pitting us against each other, what a waste of time, money, and often lives...
| Quote: |
| I do have friends and family there. My father is currently in Iraq as are friends of mine. I have men who served under me in my previous command as well as my current command doing third and fourth tours since 9/11 in Iraq, Kuwait, Djibouti, and the U.A.E.
I try not to let my personal feelings get in the way of my thinking regarding this. If I did I wouldn’t be able to perform my military duties. The last thing I want is someone to get wounded or killed. Furthermore, I don’t want to spend another tour away from my family or have anyone in harm’s way. But I have to look at it objectively and endeavor to do so. |
I'm sorry to hear this. It has to be hard, every day. I hope your family comes home to you safe and sound. That's not the same as having an army invade your country, destroy your country, with how many countless innocents killed,...You have chosen to join a military force. You have chosen to fly to another country and possibly kill.
I'm happy to be living in a country where there is peace, for the moment at least. Should that change I'd go elsewhere. I'm personally not bound to any country, religion, or political ideology. By paper, yes, but that's the extent of it. I have an american passport.
Forgive me for saying so, but I don't see how you could live without your personal feelings. If every one lived their lives with their conscience and hearts, took responsibility, maybe we'd have no more war. I personally couldn't live that way. That's living a contradiction and I think why we see our societies all over the world so confused. It's a reflection of ourselves. I also think it's one reason why people accept the party system. The party system is a reflection of our own inner confusion.
| Quote: |
| I agree that life is precious. But I also believe that there are things for which it is worth fighting and dying. |
I guess this is where we differ. I won't accept any excuse for violence. I see nothing worth dying for. All the things that are supposedly worth dying for are the illusions created by men. I think it's the result of a sick human brain. National borders, religion, politics, ideology, so called 'holy' land...all created by man...I think people are sick, their brains are not functioning in a normal, healthy way. Our societies are living illusions. Maybe one day we will wake up. I have my doubts.
| Quote: |
| Given a choice between more people dying in the future and fewer people dying now, I’ll always choose the latter. The problem is that one never knows the future. One can only make educated guesses. And like I said earlier, I believe there are those things worth more than life, ideas such as freedom. Thus, such as in World War II or the War Between the States, war was the right choice (IMO) for the United States, even though not going to war would have meant that literally hundreds of thousands of Americans would not have died in those wars and perhaps tens of millions of Americans would be alive today as their descendants. |
We differ here too. I don't accept murder, small or large, now or later. Like i said earlier, violence is violence. We can all say no to it, see the madness. You have to look for yourself. I can't rationalize my violence as righteous. Years ago I did. Years ago I thought of myself as an american, a jew, this, that...that's all gone now. Can I say I'm a citizen of the earth, a citizen of the universe and knock down all the psychological and physical boundries we humans create?
Freedom can't be given. I don't look upon it as an idea. It is a living thing, something we live, not an idea. Ideas are the past. The past is a dead, memory. Freedom is the living present. I know what you mean. I'm not trying to be coy. The freedom to express ones self in america is different than the reality of expression was say under saddam hussein...in america you can protest and not be killed...well, not usually anyway...Kent state is one example where that's not always true...but that's not personal freedom...the freedom given by a 'State' is with limits...follow the rules and you can do what you want...the prison is there only the boundry is a little bigger...
| Quote: |
| I agree with you on the torture and on some of the other points. However I obviously disagree with you on the subject of violence if you are claiming that all violence is wrong. If someone is trying to violently harm me or my family (or my country for that matter) I think defending myself or my family (or my country) by violent, even lethal means to be a proper choice of action. |
I understand your thinking and what I'm going to tell you will sound crazy but i'll tell you just the same. I feel like we're all going to die anyway. I feel that I don't want to add to human violence. So, if someone asks me to kill someone or be killed i'd let them kill me. I just couldn't kill someone. We're all just passing through. My heart tells me not to add to the violence if possible. I like this sentiment from an old Neil Young song, "no one wins, it's a war of man".
When do we start living peace? When does it become more than talk? At present we don't know what peace is. I feel if it doesn't start today it won't happen. The future is now. I feel if we are violent today we'll be violent tomorrow. We are peaceful today or we aren't. I don't know if that means anything to you. If we are racist today we'll be racist tomorrow. Time is an illusion. The end of our violence or our racism won't come because another twenty four hours has ticked by...
| Quote: |
| It may fail, sure. But historically it has succeeded (i.e. Japan and Germany). The differences between us and Japan were far greater than those between us and Iraq. However there are a lot of nuances in Iraq, factions battling for control of the country by asymmetrical means, neighboring foreign powers attempting to influence the development of Iraq to their favor, etc. |
First, I think if Iraq wasn't an oil rich nation bush would never have been in such a rush to attack. I can't really say about your comparison between germany and japan, i don't know. But it's the U.S. that has opened that floodgate by iraq's neighbors. And can you blame Iran. The US backed iraq and saddam hussein in their war against iran. I don't see why anyone would expect friendly gestures from them.
Please don't think I'm defending Iran. No way. It's a sick, demented bunch of religious bastards controlling that country. I'm just trying to look at the bigger picture.
In fact, when you look at america's history and the role they've played backing one country against another, one regime against another around the world, it is not a rosey picture. Far from it.
The fact of the discord among iraqi's of differing sects, kurds, sunni, shiite, etc...man, just more proof for me of the sickness we engender by clinging to the vestiges of religion and tradition, propaganda thousands of years old...
Ok, I'm gonna have to come back to this a little later to finish...I've gotta go...later moonspider...
kind regards...
M
| Quote: |
| If there are cases in which criminal activity can be proven, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Problems with the systems should be corrected so that they cannot be easily exploited. However I am not going to jump to the conclusion that there was a lot of coordinated, illegal activity until I see district attorney offices building cases and prosecuting them. Maybe they have and I simply have not seen them. Perhaps I am wrong. But if there is an absence of legal action taking place I will assume that that means little illegality occurred. The only other option is to assume that the lack of prosecutorial activity in and of itself is evidence of illegal activity and cover-up, which just tends towards conspiracy theories IMHO.
Political parties in congress use their power to launch investigations into much more mundane things than that! So unless the Democrats are in on it as well as the Republican conspirators who rigged the elections, I personally don’t think the dots connect that easily. |
just because something can't be proven to be illegal according to the judicial system doesn't mean it was honest...our judicial system is all we have today, that doesn't mean it is just or honest...you know as well as i do that it can be manipulated by lawyers quite easily...we need to be honest with ourselves if we are ever to live in peace, side by side...politicians or the people that work for them and with them, it doesn't matter which party, can easily manipulate a vote by having a voters precinct 'accidentally' changed so that when they get there to vote they can't or by a last minute change in borders that just didn't get out to the voters in time via mail...something like that happened in ohio...that's just one example of a 'possible' slip...something easily manipulated...another from the ohio election, a small town that registered something like three thousand votes with only eight hundred residents...it was something like that...i'd have to go back to the article to find the exact figures...i guess what i'm trying to say is that the fact that no legal action has been taken doesn't mean that people didn't do illegal things to manipulate the vote or start a war...who's at fault?...that's a whole 'nother topic i guess...
| Quote: |
| It is easy to become cynical. I try not to but often fail miserably. Wink I don’t think there will ever be an administration that does not have one scandal or another. In the absence of an outright scandal their political opponents will (and do) create them.
|
What Washington warned against...parties, pitting us against each other, what a waste of time, money, and often lives...
| Quote: |
| I do have friends and family there. My father is currently in Iraq as are friends of mine. I have men who served under me in my previous command as well as my current command doing third and fourth tours since 9/11 in Iraq, Kuwait, Djibouti, and the U.A.E.
I try not to let my personal feelings get in the way of my thinking regarding this. If I did I wouldn’t be able to perform my military duties. The last thing I want is someone to get wounded or killed. Furthermore, I don’t want to spend another tour away from my family or have anyone in harm’s way. But I have to look at it objectively and endeavor to do so. |
I'm sorry to hear this. It has to be hard, every day. I hope your family comes home to you safe and sound. That's not the same as having an army invade your country, destroy your country, with how many countless innocents killed,...You have chosen to join a military force. You have chosen to fly to another country and possibly kill.
I'm happy to be living in a country where there is peace, for the moment at least. Should that change I'd go elsewhere. I'm personally not bound to any country, religion, or political ideology. By paper, yes, but that's the extent of it. I have an american passport.
Forgive me for saying so, but I don't see how you could live without your personal feelings. If every one lived their lives with their conscience and hearts, took responsibility, maybe we'd have no more war. I personally couldn't live that way. That's living a contradiction and I think why we see our societies all over the world so confused. It's a reflection of ourselves. I also think it's one reason why people accept the party system. The party system is a reflection of our own inner confusion.
| Quote: |
| I agree that life is precious. But I also believe that there are things for which it is worth fighting and dying. |
I guess this is where we differ. I won't accept any excuse for violence. I see nothing worth dying for. All the things that are supposedly worth dying for are the illusions created by men. I think it's the result of a sick human brain. National borders, religion, politics, ideology, so called 'holy' land...all created by man...I think people are sick, their brains are not functioning in a normal, healthy way. Our societies are living illusions. Maybe one day we will wake up. I have my doubts.
| Quote: |
| Given a choice between more people dying in the future and fewer people dying now, I’ll always choose the latter. The problem is that one never knows the future. One can only make educated guesses. And like I said earlier, I believe there are those things worth more than life, ideas such as freedom. Thus, such as in World War II or the War Between the States, war was the right choice (IMO) for the United States, even though not going to war would have meant that literally hundreds of thousands of Americans would not have died in those wars and perhaps tens of millions of Americans would be alive today as their descendants. |
We differ here too. I don't accept murder, small or large, now or later. Like i said earlier, violence is violence. We can all say no to it, see the madness. You have to look for yourself. I can't rationalize my violence as righteous. Years ago I did. Years ago I thought of myself as an american, a jew, this, that...that's all gone now. Can I say I'm a citizen of the earth, a citizen of the universe and knock down all the psychological and physical boundries we humans create?
Freedom can't be given. I don't look upon it as an idea. It is a living thing, something we live, not an idea. Ideas are the past. The past is a dead, memory. Freedom is the living present. I know what you mean. I'm not trying to be coy. The freedom to express ones self in america is different than the reality of expression was say under saddam hussein...in america you can protest and not be killed...well, not usually anyway...Kent state is one example where that's not always true...but that's not personal freedom...the freedom given by a 'State' is with limits...follow the rules and you can do what you want...the prison is there only the boundry is a little bigger...
| Quote: |
| I agree with you on the torture and on some of the other points. However I obviously disagree with you on the subject of violence if you are claiming that all violence is wrong. If someone is trying to violently harm me or my family (or my country for that matter) I think defending myself or my family (or my country) by violent, even lethal means to be a proper choice of action. |
I understand your thinking and what I'm going to tell you will sound crazy but i'll tell you just the same. I feel like we're all going to die anyway. I feel that I don't want to add to human violence. So, if someone asks me to kill someone or be killed i'd let them kill me. I just couldn't kill someone. We're all just passing through. My heart tells me not to add to the violence if possible. I like this sentiment from an old Neil Young song, "no one wins, it's a war of man".
When do we start living peace? When does it become more than talk? At present we don't know what peace is. I feel if it doesn't start today it won't happen. The future is now. I feel if we are violent today we'll be violent tomorrow. We are peaceful today or we aren't. I don't know if that means anything to you. If we are racist today we'll be racist tomorrow. Time is an illusion. The end of our violence or our racism won't come because another twenty four hours has ticked by...
| Quote: |
| It may fail, sure. But historically it has succeeded (i.e. Japan and Germany). The differences between us and Japan were far greater than those between us and Iraq. However there are a lot of nuances in Iraq, factions battling for control of the country by asymmetrical means, neighboring foreign powers attempting to influence the development of Iraq to their favor, etc. |
First, I think if Iraq wasn't an oil rich nation bush would never have been in such a rush to attack. I can't really say about your comparison between germany and japan, i don't know. But it's the U.S. that has opened that floodgate by iraq's neighbors. And can you blame Iran. The US backed iraq and saddam hussein in their war against iran. I don't see why anyone would expect friendly gestures from them.
Please don't think I'm defending Iran. No way. It's a sick, demented bunch of religious bastards controlling that country. I'm just trying to look at the bigger picture.
In fact, when you look at america's history and the role they've played backing one country against another, one regime against another around the world, it is not a rosey picture. Far from it.
The fact of the discord among iraqi's of differing sects, kurds, sunni, shiite, etc...man, just more proof for me of the sickness we engender by clinging to the vestiges of religion and tradition, propaganda thousands of years old...
Ok, I'm gonna have to come back to this a little later to finish...I've gotta go...later moonspider...
kind regards...
M
sorry for the double post...frihost was acting kinda weird...where was I?...oh, moonspider, I don't think your analogy about germany and japan is the same...we're talking about a muslim nation here...i think far removed from either of those countries histories...all three, pretty different, but germany perhaps the closest to what became american politics and government and our 'melting pot' type of thinking and behavior...i don't know, i don't have the historical background to say really...
I'm not sure what to say about this either. I mean terrorism has been going on for a long time and it seems it will continue for a long time...seems to me that violence has not proven effective in ending it...it only stimulates it...i think george bush has created several generations of people that will be willing to continue the struggle of these madmen because of his actions...and his stand on torture, behaving like the terrorists in his first strike in iraq, i don't think that helps anyone...
and part of what made people vote counter to the government in spain at the time of the train bombings was how the government lied to the country at first saying it was not al qaeda related but from the basque terrorist group in spain...that set up an immediate reaction of distrust of the then current government...it wasn't the will of al qaeda...although here again one can't say with certainty...
what i do think is that a lot of spaniards, like american, french, germans, english, etc...were against the war and wanted to US to wait...george bush calling the millions and millions of people protesting against the war a 'focus group' shows how out of touch with reality he is...it also, at least for me, showed how much he and his administration wanted to invade...
Well, the US dropped their bombs and then went in...all the help now is the least that can be done considering the damage the US has caused...and this argument is like the NRA publicity about how pro environment they are, their organization giving dollars to this and that group...please, moonspider...I don't buy this argument at all...
I agree about the press...it is no longer what it used to be, a neutral entity reporting facts...like most political parties and their special interest groups there's an agenda for some or maybe most...but I'm still glad for photographers being able to show us some of the reality...again, being skeptical because of recent evidence of tampering with the photos...
that said...it's known how much the US goes out of its way to direct the news and photographers...they don't want the average american getting images the way we did during the vietnam war...
I was just hoping sanity would prevail before bush ordered the strike on iraq...he chose to start this war...there were options...
His response lowered the US to the level of the terrorists and to people like saddam hussein...his approval of torture, jeez, I really find him a despicable human being...I wish him no harm, I just will be happy when he is no longer in office...
peace to you moonspider...
M
[/quote]
| Quote: |
| Iraq (in fact the entire Global War on Terror or GWOT), is a fourth generation war (4GW). The only way to lose is to quit. We cannot militarily defeat our enemies, even though we may never lose a battle when forces collide. They cannot militarily win either because they cannot win a single battle let alone conquer us or even territory we choose to contest. 4GW is a war of wills, a war whose primary battlefields are the media, public sentiment, elections, and politics. The military is just the highly visible part. And its primary role is not to fight, but to sway public opinion in local populations through diplomacy, cooperation, health and civil projects, education, etc.
An example of a 4GW battle that Al Qaeda won would be the Madrid train bombings. Victory was not measured in the amount of damage or the deaths caused. Victory was measured by the fact that the elections shortly thereafter reflected the will of Al Qaeda. They swayed public opinion in Spain and thereby altered the election. That is how this war will be won or lost. Traditional military victories or defeats are inconsequential. (Vietnam would be a good example, since the United States never lost a single battle but lost the war.) Terrorism is never about destroying or killing. It is just (one of) the means by which an entity can alter the will and therefore the politics of its enemy, which is the objective of fourth generation warfare. In 4GW everyone is fighting for the hearts and minds of citizenry. Sorry for going off on a tangent. I started a thread on 4GW in the philosophy forum but nobody bit. Wink |
I'm not sure what to say about this either. I mean terrorism has been going on for a long time and it seems it will continue for a long time...seems to me that violence has not proven effective in ending it...it only stimulates it...i think george bush has created several generations of people that will be willing to continue the struggle of these madmen because of his actions...and his stand on torture, behaving like the terrorists in his first strike in iraq, i don't think that helps anyone...
and part of what made people vote counter to the government in spain at the time of the train bombings was how the government lied to the country at first saying it was not al qaeda related but from the basque terrorist group in spain...that set up an immediate reaction of distrust of the then current government...it wasn't the will of al qaeda...although here again one can't say with certainty...
what i do think is that a lot of spaniards, like american, french, germans, english, etc...were against the war and wanted to US to wait...george bush calling the millions and millions of people protesting against the war a 'focus group' shows how out of touch with reality he is...it also, at least for me, showed how much he and his administration wanted to invade...
| Quote: |
| I can tell you though that dropping bombs is not the only thing we are doing. In fact in all that is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention Djibouti, Ethiopia, Somalia, U.A.E., Philippines, and the other theatres of the Global War o Terror) combat operations are the least significant part. They just get all the press because blowing things up and people dying is more exciting than humanitarian assistance and diplomacy IMHO (I am cynical about the press. Wink) |
Well, the US dropped their bombs and then went in...all the help now is the least that can be done considering the damage the US has caused...and this argument is like the NRA publicity about how pro environment they are, their organization giving dollars to this and that group...please, moonspider...I don't buy this argument at all...
I agree about the press...it is no longer what it used to be, a neutral entity reporting facts...like most political parties and their special interest groups there's an agenda for some or maybe most...but I'm still glad for photographers being able to show us some of the reality...again, being skeptical because of recent evidence of tampering with the photos...
that said...it's known how much the US goes out of its way to direct the news and photographers...they don't want the average american getting images the way we did during the vietnam war...
I was just hoping sanity would prevail before bush ordered the strike on iraq...he chose to start this war...there were options...
His response lowered the US to the level of the terrorists and to people like saddam hussein...his approval of torture, jeez, I really find him a despicable human being...I wish him no harm, I just will be happy when he is no longer in office...
peace to you moonspider...
M
[/quote]
| moworks2 wrote: |
| I'm happy to be living in a country where there is peace, for the moment at least. |
Where do you currently reside?
| moworks2 wrote: |
| Forgive me for saying so, but I don't see how you could live without your personal feelings. If every one live |