quote:Originally posted by mackillian: Why would anyone invade Canada?
Vast natural resources, most notably oil and water. We supply you with about as much oil as Saudi Arabia does.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Short of the US officially repudiating the GenevaConvention, I fail to see any means by which to legalize Dubya's special"military"tribunals, let alone cruel and unusual interrogation techniques.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mig, what would we lefties do to run the war better?
1) Listen to disent, not dismiss it. 2) Understand the local politics, not try to bulldoze over it with our own. 3) Sell democracy to the region at a grass roots level instead of wasting resources selling the war to the US. 4) Treat the inhabitants, both those against us and those opposed, with enough respect and tolerance that we can win the war for their hearts and minds. 5) Add levels of transparency and oversite to prove we are as good as our word, so that no amount of Terrorist Propaganda can convince anyone that we are doing things just as bad as they are. 6) Don't try to out terrorize the terrorists. 7) Never, ever, use the phrase "Islamoterrorists". It is an insult to all those who follow Islam, but do not seek violence. Since we want such people to be our allies, our eyes and ears, and our partners in this war, insulting them is not a practical policy.
It seems to me that the neo-cons went into Iraq believing that if you build a better mousetrap, the world would beat a path to your doorstep. Since Democracy is the "best possible" form of government they were expecing the Iraq people to beat a path to that door. Unfortunately they didn't take into account all the other mousetrap manufacturers who beat a path to that door, faster, and with ideas of bribery, destruction, corporate intrigue, and every other tactic imaginable to close down that improved mousetrap design.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Rakeesh, first, most of us try to discuss these issues here with resorting to insults. Second, I think we can both agree on the need to spend more money on defense and sending more troops into Iraq and Afghanistan, but I don't think that military action is enough to combat this threat. Covert intellegence operations are also essential. We may disagree on how to proceed there, but, although I don't think we should legalize torture, I don't think that making thiem listen to th Red Hot Chilli Peppers should count as torture. Nor do I see a great threat to our way of life we don't share our intelliegnce information with high ranking non-combatant captives.
Where am I wrong in what Powell wrote? He writes that the "world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." The moral basis is that terrosits kill people and threaten our way of life so we should fight them. That seems pretty clear to me, and if some other people think thats wrong, why should we care? Who does he think the rest of the world wants to be doing our fightening, and what does he think their moral basis is? I'm not just parsing his words here. I think the problem is that Powell wasn't very clear in what he wrote. He may have meant that "some are questioning the moral basis for some of the actions we take to fight the terrorsits." But that's not what he wrote, and if that what he meant, then he should have given it more effort.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mig, given your clearly established record around here of both making false statements about people such as former President Clinton, and your equally established record of ignoring almost all requests and even demands to explain yourself when called on such things...
Yeah, I'll insult you. Your primary means of dealing with criticism is to completely ignore it and act as though it was never made.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan_Raven, I believe that we are already doing all of the things that you suggest.
I only quibble with the last one, the use of the term islamo-fascism. Bush has used it, I use it regularly because I think it is accurate. But belive that Bush will, or has already given in to the polically correct police, give up on the phrase.
Mind you I prefer the term used by Oriana Fallaci, who's death was announced today (may she rest in peace): Islamic Nazism.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rake, don't be so hard on Mig. His posts lead me to believe his sole source of information is Conservative Talk Radio. Since they only allow people who agree with them to have a voice can we truly expect Mig to know what to do when calm, reasonable people disgree with his party line? Esepcially when we use things such as facts, logic, patience and a dirth of fear mongering which such a devotee to the far Right's talking points is unused to handling.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where am I wrong in what Powell wrote? He writes that the "world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism."
For starters, Powell does not say, "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis for fighting terrorism." He says our fight against terrorism.
To put it in hyperbolic terms, the world might question the morality of the Soviet fight against Nazi Germany, but not the American or British fight against the same enemy. To call into question the former's morality is not to call into question the latter's, necessarily.
Perhaps if you bent even a fraction as much in searching for meaning in the words of your opponents as you expect your opponents to bend in search of yours...
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Lyth yes I meant to say US military history.
CUlturally Cina has generally had a legalist approach to law, where if you break the law you must be punished to keep you from breaking it again and sometime this means death, but the largest figure Ive seen was what? 10,000 exeutions a year? out of 1.3 billion thats a small number also considering that the USA imprisons 2.5 million people out of 300 million while the PRC only imprisons 1-1.5 million it says alot to how effective it is.
Actually according to a google video I watched a discussion of Hu Jintao by the US ambassador to China, and 2 other china experts their consensus was that the central government was held in good standing by the people as a whole its generally the local government that frustrates people. And also for that matter the PLA is also held in high esteem since they are highly publicized as the ones that act to help people during emergancies like bad weather.
Aside from a lack of western conceived notions of democracy what exactly is the government NOT doing in the people's best interest? Last I checked economic growth, providing jobs, and hundreds of billions of dollars in aid to the poor central provences, the autonomus provecnes and the underdeveloped Manchurian areas where all things that can be considered in the peoples interest.
Even people who I argue vehemently against at school agree that the human rights record is improving.
And BB during th Boxer rebellions foreigners were very well possibly the cause or perceievd cause of many of the nations misfortunes I see no reason why the people shouldnt resort to whatever means nessasary to force them out.
"I see no reason why people shouldn't resort to whatever means neccesary to force them out."
Its THIS attitude that bothers me about the Chinese Government. They often IGNORE very valid means and simply go with the one that is MOST effective. Tanks and soldiers shooting indescriminately was probably the fastest way to clear tian a men square.
I won't once condone what the foreigners did to China, it was deplorable and its a blot on us that most people do not realize exists. But allowing and even encouraging the common folk to execute and mutilate foreigners as well as laying seige to their embassy rather then say simply forcing them on to ships and deporting them clearly was not right IMO.
Its so strange to me Blayne that I find you playing defence attorney for the likes of Mao Ze Dong, Deng Xiao Ping, and most strangly The Emperess Dowager Ci Xi, its seriously like trying to defend Senator Joseph McCarthy.
The people are more or less happy with their government? How can ANYONE know that, you can't go out and take a poll, unless you did it in secret. AND EVEN THEN! Most people in China do NOT answer honestly when it comes to political opinions. They have learned through TERRIBLE events that anything you say can be brought against you when you LEAST expect it.
Its much SAFER to simply say "I approve of the job the government is doing." Because no ill can come of it. When I hear a Chinese person from China discussing politics freely, they invariably turn out to be from Hong Kong or Taiwan.
We already agree that human rights are doing better in China, why not simply admit the situation is STILL unacceptable. In the US its unacceptable, and MOST people will tell you that there is plenty of room for imporvement. Do you really think the standard of living and the freedoms a Chinese person enjoys are equal to the US, or are you operating on the premise that Americans expect too much?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mig, I do not believe that they are, or more importantly, that they were.
1) Listen to disent, not dismiss it.: This administration from day one has announced that "You are either with us or against us" in more than the war on terror. Conformity, loyalty, and adherence to party line has proven a more accurate measure of whom the administration listens too than any measure of competance. WMD and lack there of is a measure of what happens when you label dissenting voices as unworthy to be listened too.
2) Understand the local politics, not try to bulldoze over it with our own.: The President admited that as the invasion took place he was unsure of the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite. The decision to remove from jobs anyone with a Ba'athist connection means, despite warnings from local experts such as the Iraq CIA station cheif, that thousands of Iraqi men now had no future in an Americanized Iraq. They had little choice but to become insurgents.
3) Sell democracy to the region at a grass roots level instead of wasting resources selling the war to the US: What are we doing to sell the idea? What ever it is, it is not enough because poorly financed men who happen to know the language, the culture, and the people are convincing them to throw thier lives away, live in harsh conditions, and deny their futures in order to fight us.
4) Treat the inhabitants, both those against us and those opposed, with enough respect and tolerance that we can win the war for their hearts and minds: Abu Graib, Torture of Prisoners, The holding cells of Gitmo are not signs of respoect. There has been little leadership in how our troops should react to and with the inhabitants of Iraq except to Awe and Fear them into submission.
5) Add levels of transparency and oversite to prove we are as good as our word, so that no amount of Terrorist Propaganda can convince anyone that we are doing things just as bad as they are. Where do you see this happening? All I see is the administration saying, "We can't let you see what we are doing. You have to trust us. We can't let the legislature see what we are doing. You have to trust us. We can't let the Judiciary see what we are doing. YOu have to trust us." Having multiple levels of the administration overseeing what may be a breach of the law is not the same as having independent oversight.
6) Don't try to out terrorize the terrorists. What is "Alternative forms of persuasion" other than trying to fear people into giving us information. Its terrorizing the terrorists.
7) Never, ever, use the phrase "Islamoterrorists". This isn't PC. This is working to make our allies less scared of us. You say, "If all the bad terrorists are Islamic, then we should focus our attention on the threat that any Islamic may pose." They say, "If the only people the US attacks, bombs, conquers, and tortures are Islamic, then we have to defend ourselves from everything that is connected to the US."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1) Listen to disent, not dismiss it.: This administration from day one has announced that "You are either with us or against us" in more than the war on terror. Conformity, loyalty, and adherence to party line has proven a more accurate measure of whom the administration listens too than any measure of competance. WMD and lack there of is a measure of what happens when you label dissenting voices as unworthy to be listened too.
I remember when some 300,000 of us (millions around the world) were dismissed as a "focus group". Had they listened at all, they would have know things like the difference between Shi'ite and Sunni, that this was an occupation, and that it would be far more costly in both money and lives than any of them thought. These were all things that your average guy in the street (and I mean in the street) knew four years ago.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but Canada exports comedians, sci-fi TV series, and snow. Actually, we really don't need the snow.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:General Powell was very right to write "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," and without allies we cannot hope to defeat or even contain terrorism.
Mr. Powell, who in the world is doubting the moral basis for fighting terrorism, other that the terrorists themselves? I can't belive that Powell is starting to wonder whether it is immoral to fight terrorism. Terrorists kill innocent people in planes, building in in trains? It's sad when a respected leader of Powell's stature begins to wonder whether we should stop fighting and just give in.
Mig, as was pointed out later in the thread, you neglected the importance of the word "our" in General Powell's quote. Also, Powell has nowhere said or implied that "we should stop fighting and just give in." That is putting words in his mouth that he never said. Nor is Powell "starting to wonder whether it is immoral to fight terrorism." He's questioning the tactics of the Bush administration, as are many US citizens, including Republicans, and other people around the world.
quote: There seems to be a great reluctance on the part of many of you to actually fight the terrorists. Sure you'll deny this, and you'll say that you want to fight them the right way and not the way that this administration is doing it. Every one opposed to Bush's efforts can only offer criticism. What terror fighting options do any of the opponents of Bush actually support. Please name a few because many of us Bush supporters are starting to wonder whether your more committed to scoring partican political points than actually defending us from the islmofascists.
quote: The president called a Rose Garden news conference to confront a Republican rebellion led by Sens. John Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine. To the administration's dismay, Colin Powell, Bush's former secretary of state, has joined with the lawmakers. Powell said Bush's plan to redefine the Geneva Conventions would cause the world "to doubt the moral basis" of the fight against terror and "put our own troops at risk." [...] Warner, a former Navy secretary, is chairman of the Armed Services Committee. McCain is a former Navy pilot who spent more than five years in enemy captivity during the Vietnam War. Graham is a former Air Force Reserve judge. Powell, a retired general, is a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060915/D8K5J7R80.html edit:Also, two other former Chiefs of Staff are against the president's bill redefining Article 3 protections for soldiers, Generals John Shalikashvili and Jack Vessey. Vessey was Chief under Reagan, Shalikashvili under the current President a few years ago. Vessey wrote his own letter to McCain, and Shalikashvili signed one along with 28 other admirals and generals addressed to members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=72524
Sure, I know that all of these leaders opposed to specific Bush anti-terrorism tactics, Republicans all (except for possibly a few of the generals), 32 former military men, 4 conservative Republican senators and 3 former chairmans of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (all under Republican presidents) and Bush's former highest ranking cabinet officer are all "more committed to scoring partican political points than actually defending us from the islmofascists."
They're all really al-Queda sleeper agents, right?
And to address your other point, all 4 senators are backing McCain's alternative bill concerning military tribunals and interrogation methods. They are not partisan hacks droning on without offering meaningful plans as alternatives.
quote:Terrorists kill innocent people in planes, building in in trains? It's sad when a respected leader of Powell's stature begins to wonder whether we should stop fighting and just give in.
Wow, man. Is it really so hard to understand Powell's actual position that you invent positions for him?
By the way, I'd be quite interested in whether or not you can demonstrate a correct interpretation of Powell's contention!
Odds are 4:1 that you just simply ignore the brazen hollowness of your presently established position and just keep blazing on.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mig, can I take your lack of response to mean that you think 32 generals and admirals, 3 former Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former Secretary of State and 4 Republican Senators are all more interested in scoring on Bush than informing policy?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
All I can take it as is that he is as good at cutting and running as he doubtless routinely accuses liberals of being.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
