quote:Originally posted by kacard: Before you decide that this is "the most corrupt presidency in the history of the United States" I suggest a little history reading.
Oh I know my history my friend, and in my opinion which i have the right to have, this is the most corrupt.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's really very hard to decide which presidency was the most corrupt. It's probably pretty difficult to argue that the current administration is not thoroughly corrupt, but I'd be seriously intimidated by any request to place it on a sliding scale of corruption relative to, say, Taylor's administration.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe he's not the most corrupt. It's politics. I trust rats more than politicians and I'm only half joking about that. But I sure don't trust him anyway. i just do not like his policies one bit.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps one of few administrations so willing to blatantly abuse our rights as citizens and the rights of people in general.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not a fan of the Bush administration at all, but there have been presidents who have been more willing to curtail the rights of US citizens. Bush hasn't taken to confiscating the property of a particular demographic and sending those people to internment camps, for example.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say he was the worst but good point. The Bush administration has had some pretty egregious violations though. I could literally go on for hours. It's not just the Patriot Act or Guantanamo either (a tad bit dehumanizing).
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think dehumanizing prisoners, in and of itself, is necessarily evidence of corruption. Doing it and lying about it, however, probably is.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh I know my history my friend, and in my opinion which i have the right to have, this is the most corrupt.
No one is disputing your right to your opinion. That has nothing to do with pointing out that your opinion is wrong, though.
Pick a standard of corruption, and we'll see if we can't find another, more corrupt administration, eh?
quote:He has an opinion, and that is that.
I don't understand why anyone ever says this on a discussion board, particularly when politics aren't just brought up but they're the point of the discussion.
Who's here to just find out a bunch of opinions, as opposed to actually discussing them? That's setting aside the fact that while the right to an opinion is equal, the opinions themselves are not.
"Mexicans are slothful, illiterate law-breakers, and we would all be better off if they stayed in Mexico." There's an opinion for you. Is 'that that'? I think not. Even though that's an opinion some have, it's a shameful, stupid, racist opinion and should not be accorded respect just because some idiot thinks it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE]That has nothing to do with pointing out that your opinion is wrong, though.
Pick a standard of corruption, and we'll see if we can't find another, more corrupt administration, eh?
[QUOTE]
Um let's see.......the fact that 3000+ American Soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead for absolutely nothing, that doesn't sound corrupt to you? You want to tell me it is ignorance, not corruption. This man is not an idiot, he knows exactly what he is doing. Now please my friend, since we have started this debate, find me a more corrupt example than that, eh. And please don't get on my case for saying the man has an opinion and that is that. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, because that was pointless.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:the fact that 3000+ American Soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead for absolutely nothing
"Nothing," as defined by whom? At the very least, a brutal dictator was deposed and brought to justice.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
For a given definition of "justice." He was deposed and killed. I'm not sure it's really the same thing.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the peripheral conversations went to another thread -- maybe one titled "Iraq" or some such -- then OSC wouldn't have to see an insult at the top of the "Discussions about OSC" page any time he might decide to look. That is -- why not let this thread die?
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Um let's see.......the fact that 3000+ American Soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead for absolutely nothing, that doesn't sound corrupt to you? You want to tell me it is ignorance, not corruption. This man is not an idiot, he knows exactly what he is doing. Now please my friend, since we have started this debate, find me a more corrupt example than that, eh. And please don't get on my case for saying the man has an opinion and that is that. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, because that was pointless.
Please stop saying, 'my friend'. In the context it's patronizing.
Also, I did not say there was no corruption. You're not paying close attention to this discussion at all. I'm not interested in continuing it with you.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kghuneim: This man is not an idiot, he knows exactly what he is doing.
I think a big part of the tragedy of Iraq is that Bush didn't know what he was doing, despite a wide variety of intelligence available to illuminate the situation. If some reports are to be believed, he didn't even understand the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims.
Oh, I think he knew what he thought he was doing- I don't think even the most cynical minds would suggest that the deaths of thousands of Americans, tens of thousands (or more) Iraqis, an enormous blow to our international diplomacy, etc. etc. etc. was actually the goal of this exercise.
Of course, now we're facing the problem of a pathological institutional inability to admit to being wrong and accept responsibility.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our troops aren't dying for nothing....they're dying for big oil. Iraq and Iran both have huge supplies of oil. To remain an empire, the US must still be relevant, to do this, it needs... OIL!
We deposed a "tyrant" that not only didn't have WMD's.. but he had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Everyone seems to say "at least we killed a bad person"... uhh yeah so? We did and because of that hundreds of thousands have died.
So wait, we went to Iraq to take out a dictator... because of how he treats his citizens. In doing so, we destabilize their entire economy, turn their country into a warzone, kill thousands of their civilians, and set up private bases so we have a presensce there. We have become the new dictator.. and a pretty crappy one as well.
Personally, I don't care about Saddam. He's a SCAPEGOAT, just like Osama bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden the supposed mastermind behind 9/11, still assumed to be allive... and we have people saying "Well at least we killed Saddam"... you people are nuts. Are you really that easily fooled?
Iraq didn't even attack us, we lead a pre-emptive strike, took over everything... then act as if we are liberating them. Did you know that the entire televised scene where the Saddam statue is being pulled down.. was basically a photo op set up by US forces ? Apparently the crowd had to be told to pull down the statue...
Also it's a funny thing, how every single attack in Iraq seems to come from the mysterious "Al Qaeda" group. Reading the governments own statistics, only 12% of insurgent groups in Iraq are in "Al Qaeda". So does this mean that everytime we kill someone, we say they are in Al Qaeda, just to soften the blow?
"Hey, we didn't get Osama, but hey at least they were in Al Qaeda".
On the subject of torture.
IF you think torture should be used to coerce people. You deserve to be tortured! It's a very simple idea! If the only way you can get information is putting someone in an agonizing near-death state... then you probably are really bad at your job.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Our troops aren't dying for nothing....they're dying for big oil. Iraq and Iran both have huge supplies of oil. To remain an empire, the US must still be relevant, to do this, it needs... OIL!
The United States is not an empire. And please, don't insist I "provide evidence", you have offered none yourself beyond your own rhetoric.
quote:We deposed a "tyrant" that not only didn't have WMD's.. but he had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Everyone seems to say "at least we killed a bad person"... uhh yeah so? We did and because of that hundreds of thousands have died.
Why the scare quotes? He wasn't a tyrant? Not 'everyone' says that. And just because he had nothing to do with 9/11 is no reason he wasn't our enemy.
Too many people have died, yes.
quote:We have become the new dictator.. and a pretty crappy one as well.
Oh? Remind me, what was that thing they did awhile ago? Starts with an 'e', rhymes with 'confection'? Whatever else you can say, the United States is not the dictator if Iraq.
quote:Personally, I don't care about Saddam. He's a SCAPEGOAT, just like Osama bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden the supposed mastermind behind 9/11, still assumed to be allive... and we have people saying "Well at least we killed Saddam"... you people are nuts. Are you really that easily fooled?
Who says, "At least we killed Saddam"? I literally cannot remember hearing anyone ever saying that. It's easy for you to argue when you get to stuff words in people's mouths.
quote:Also it's a funny thing, how every single attack in Iraq seems to come from the mysterious "Al Qaeda" group. Reading the governments own statistics, only 12% of insurgent groups in Iraq are in "Al Qaeda". So does this mean that everytime we kill someone, we say they are in Al Qaeda, just to soften the blow?
We don't say that every attack comes from Al Qaeda. Clearly you don't even listen to what your opponents say, if you're going to tell such an obvious and stupid lie.
quote:IF you think torture should be used to coerce people. You deserve to be tortured! It's a very simple idea! If the only way you can get information is putting someone in an agonizing near-death state... then you probably are really bad at your job.
Ahh, OK. So what's your alternative, then? Offer one. Let's assume everything else you said is right (an assumption of massive proportions). How do you think we should get information from prisoners?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This poster above me is very ignorant, please don't listen to his line of thinking. He has no answers, he's just trying to divide people... and with nothing, no proof, no facts, no real alternative viewpoint besides "oh yeah? How come? I don't think so!"
1. America is an Empire. If you don't know that you don't know what an Empire is. DUHHHH
2. Saddam Hussein was our enemy but not a threat whatsoever to us, the same as most of the middle east is not a threat. They can't launch a full-scale invasion against us. There is an entire ocean between us, if anything, they could pull of a few 9/11 style attacks... can they bring nukes here? No. Could they do the damage we've done to Iraq? Not even close. What are people so terrified of? The boogie man? Please, the bad man with a turban is coming (lol). Terror isn't going to stop just because we want it to, in fact, we're causing terror by pissing so many people off.
3. Anything that has to do with Iraq's government has to do with the US. You are stupid. How can you not see that anything that happens there is done by the hand of the US? We have Hundreds of thousands of troops there and we are also paying hundreds of thousands of blackwater mercenaries.
So not only are we fighting with our army... we're paying mercenaries MORE. We are also hiring mercenaries because they don't have to abide by US laws, how quaint and wholesome, like America.
4. YOU can't remember hearing it but from your response to my post, you don't seem to absorb much of anything. How can anyone listen to you when this is how you think about the president? When you obviously have done no research? You're sorely prepared for a debate about this.
Oh and also, in response to "I've never heard anyone say that, EVER", someone in the same thread did... I responded to them saying that. Lol!
5. I'm not sure who "we" is anymore... but yes the US media labels almost every attack on US troops as an Al Qaeda attack, go watch CNN or Fox news or any mainstream news network and you can see this. Every attack seems to be by "al qeada operatives".
6. This response confirmed my belief that this whole post wasn't worth responding to *sigh*. Anyone that says we should torture people... probably doesn't run on all cylinders. First of all, it's against human rights, no one should be tortured, you're a sick **** if you want people tortured. Second, ABU GHRAIB YOU IDIOT. Third, people will be tortured that didn't do anything, people will also be tortured for fun, because the system is easily corruptible. It's funny, how many arrests have we had from guantanamo? How many years has it been there? Are you comfortable with the US having concentration camps?
Welcome to 2008, where it doesn't matter if we torture people in America. IT doesn't matter if they can arrest and detain you indefinitely without charges.
It's because of people like the previous poster that we've gotten to this point. I'm sure he listens to everything he's told, like a good boy Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
In my opinion you're a troll. It's either deliberate, as in you're just spouting off to annoy people, or just because your politics are shallow and narrow.
Enjoy your trolling! I hope you will garner no further responses until you improve your dialogue and listening skills. It's clear at the moment that you're not listening, and not making a genuine effort to converse with anyone who doesn't immediately agree entirely with you. You'll get no further response from me, anyway. Go ahead and count that as a victory, if you like.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I'm not a proponent of the death penalty. But Sadaam was responsible for killing more than 500k of his own people during his 24 year reign there. This is a number that is not (as far as I know) disputed.
As far as I can see, as a complete outsider who only knows the numbers and the history, the Iraqi people and justice were served by his death. I never suffered under him; I didn't have my ears cut off because I dared to listen to 'seditious Western lies.'
Usually, I'm not certain that justice is served by the death of the convicted. This time, I'm a believer.
Also, I'm never sarcastic.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of my point, Scott, is that justice is not served when someone who is directly responsible for five hundred thousand deaths is killed himself. There's no standard of justice out there that demands an eye for half a million eyes. I suspect that, in the case of Saddam Hussein, justice could never be served and will never be served.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The U.S. doesn't exactly have a marvelous history as far as interventions just to stop leaders from killing massive numbers of their own people. At this point, Hussein's death is something of a booby prize.
I kind of agree with what Tom says regarding Hussein and justice. But I think that it underscores another point; to act justly with regard to Iraq requires a good deal more than just deposing a dictator.
I don't feel our current tack is bringing justice to Iraq. I wish I had a magic bullet answer for that, but a mishmash of concrete walls and armed militia groups isn't it. After years of tyranny and deprivation, and an occupation marked by corruption and failed reconstruction projects, what can bring justice to Iraq? It seems as though the ultimate result of the current road is going to be that there's no one left without blood on their hands for us to want to bring justice to, no wronged victim who has not played a role in wronging others.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This man is not an idiot, he knows exactly what he is doing.
I have now talked with two people who have personally spent time with GW; one works for the Pakistan government and the second, a family friend of the Bush's, recently had dinner with the family. Both would completely deny this statement.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Part of my point, Scott, is that justice is not served when someone who is directly responsible for five hundred thousand deaths is killed himself. There's no standard of justice out there that demands an eye for half a million eyes. I suspect that, in the case of Saddam Hussein, justice could never be served and will never be served.
I think this is an excellent point that I'm going to have to disagree with. I believe justice was served in Sadaam's state-sponsored death; I also believe that justice hasn't been satisfied.
There may never be a way to satisfy or compensate for all the harm Sadaam accomplished. I think you're right to point out that killing him doesn't balance things, or put things right completely.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:This man is not an idiot, he knows exactly what he is doing.
I have now talked with two people who have personally spent time with GW; one works for the Pakistan government and the second, a family friend of the Bush's, recently had dinner with the family. Both would completely deny this statement.
That depresses me. I wanted that to be an act. Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think this is an excellent point that I'm going to have to disagree with. I believe justice was served in Sadaam's state-sponsored death; I also believe that justice hasn't been satisfied.
Uhhhh and look at the messed up situation that got us into. There's no doubt he was a despicable person and probably should have died... but this is what happens when emotions become more important than procedure.
Sure, we deposed a tyrant but now 3000+ troops dead (+15,000 post iraq war vet suicides that are not added to the tally), over a million dead civilians in Iraq, millions displaced, and the American economy is heading to recession because our budget deficit has skyrocketed during the war. This not not even mentioning all the signing statements and new laws shoved through congress in the last 5 years that are intended to help the government spy on Americans.
The media has done a wonderful job on a few of you
I mean... you do realize every death in Iraq was because of Bush's unconstitutional decision to invade the country? right? All just to kill Saddam and get oil, they also tried to imply it was connected to 9/11 too, so people would be more apt to agree(it worked pretty well!). Heck, it also works calling someone unAmerican or saying they want to "cut and run".
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not a troll, just passionate. I love the ender's saga and lost boys, I came here mostly to read the book forums, I just don't want to spoil things cause I'm only on book 7 in the ender's saga.
I was pretty sure I would be called a troll, mostly because my argument is the correct one, you are wrong and will find out in due time. *sigh* I don't really go on literature forums much but I expected more discussion and open thought here, I know it sounds weird to just blantantly say you're wrong... but you haven't really provided evidence to the contrary.
If anyone would like to ACTUALLY debate what I've said, instead of calling me a troll, let me know. You two have gotten so into saying I'm wrong or calling me a troll... that you didn't even respond to the content of my post. You guys are silly. Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Barack's adherence to the idea of troop withdrawal is about the only thing left that makes me wince at the idea of him being president. All of the other things I disagree with him about are... well, not small, but I think that the healing he represents is worth more at this point in our country's existence than the possibility of restricting abortion rights.
Barack puts withdrawal from Iraq as his first topic when he advertises. I just don't think it's going to be as easy as he seems to think it will be. I think that it may even be necessary to establish a permanent American military base on Iraqi soil.
These are not things that the US public probably wants to hear. But I think it's necessary that we consider them. I don't want us pulling out of Iraq only to watch the government be retaken by scoundrels or jihaddists. Yes-- this might be imperialism. We are definitely sticking our whole hand into Iraq's sovereignty pie.
Nontheless-- despite my misgivings about this and other issues, Barack's still my man. National healing is more important, I think, than staying in Iraq.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Our troops aren't dying for nothing....they're dying for big oil. Iraq and Iran both have huge supplies of oil. To remain an empire, the US must still be relevant, to do this, it needs... OIL!
The United States is not an empire. And please, don't insist I "provide evidence", you have offered none yourself beyond your own rhetoric.
It depends on how you define an empire. We have a military prescence in 30 or 40 other countries and have significant economic and political influence over even more. I would say that qualifies us as an empire.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:IF you think torture should be used to coerce people. You deserve to be tortured! It's a very simple idea! If the only way you can get information is putting someone in an agonizing near-death state... then you probably are really bad at your job.
Ahh, OK. So what's your alternative, then? Offer one. Let's assume everything else you said is right (an assumption of massive proportions). How do you think we should get information from prisoners?
He only needs to offer an alternative if torture can be shown to produce reliable information and can be shown to be ethically acceptable by common societal standards. So far it has not on either count. There are many documented cases where reliable information has been produced but there have also been many cases where totally unreliable information has been produced. Even worse, torture can lead to false confessions.
There is some evidence that treating prisoners humanely can actually produce reliable information. I had a good link with examples from WWII where guards actively interacted with and socialized with prisoners and were able to get information (I can't find it atm but can try to dig it up if you are interested). Theoretically that should work because it's a lot more difficult to hold a person in spite once you get to know them (provided they treat you nicely).
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:the American economy is heading to recession because our budget deficit has skyrocketed during the war.
The two events coincide, but I'm not sure that the deficit is causative of recession.
A number of factors go into the recession-- it's simplistic to assert that the deficit is the only one. (For example-- overseas migration of jobs, the mortgage market's woes, rising price of oil accompanied by an increase/static demand;) There's a lot there-- and remember, the economy was starting to tumble even before 9/11.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Snowspot, your casual (and uninformed) disdain does little to recommend your argument. (emphasis mine)
QFT.
------
quote:Barack's adherence to the idea of troop withdrawal is about the only thing left that makes me wince at the idea of him being president. All of the other things I disagree with him about are... well, not small, but I think that the healing he represents is worth more at this point in our country's existence than the possibility of restricting abortion rights.
Barack puts withdrawal from Iraq as his first topic when he advertises. I just don't think it's going to be as easy as he seems to think it will be. I think that it may even be necessary to establish a permanent American military base on Iraqi soil.
Agreed. However, I have heard (I think it was on NPR) that he is not quite as immediately committed to massive immediate withdrawls as he once was. I haven't looked into it yet, perhaps someone can help out, but I remember a slew of questions asked of the Democratic candidates on that topic, and I liked his answer.
------------
Threads,
quote:It depends on how you define an empire. We have a military prescence in 30 or 40 other countries and have significant economic and political influence over even more. I would say that qualifies us as an empire.
It's insufficient to simply state we have such an international military presence. Context is important. You also need to ask, "How many of those countries want us out immediately?" The answer may surprise you.
Substantial political and economic influence do not an empire make. I seem to recall an awful lot of people in our 'empire' not going along with our plans for Iraq for all this talk of empire to have any real weight.
Seriously. Empires do not influence, they command. Unless we're just going to slide the definition over a few degrees to get the same connotative oomph for a different thing altogether.
quote:He only needs to offer an alternative if torture can be shown to produce reliable information and can be shown to be ethically acceptable by common societal standards. So far it has not on either count. There are many documented cases where reliable information has been produced but there have also been many cases where totally unreliable information has been produced. Even worse, torture can lead to false confessions.
All of that applies, to an even greater degree, to your make-nice approach to interrogation. And let's be clear, the comparison between WWII and the current so-called 'War on Terror' is murky at best. German, Japanese, and Italian soldiers did not have nearly the ideological foundation to resist making friends with Americans as do the current 'residents' down in Cuba.
And no, he needs to offer an alternative because (for better or worse) right now, torture is one of the tools in our interrogative toolbox. If he's going to take one away, he should explain why the other tools are just as good, not go into a childish rant about how anyone who dares disagree is an idiot who deserves to be tortured themselves.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, it's written in the constitution that you can't torture people. Your toolbox is from the movie Saw. It disturbs me.
I did say people that believe torture should be used should be tortured. If only to show them how much torture hurts... cause then they wouldn't allow it to be done to people.
I'm sure everyone that hasn't been tortured is all for torture, seems to fall along the same lines for the death penalty! Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Snowspot: Um, it's written in the constitution that you can't torture people
The eighth amendment prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments. By my (liberal) reading, yes, torture is prohibited by the United States constitution.
What's debatable is what torture consists of. It can be a very dangerous thing to give further definition to the terms 'cruel and unusual punishments'-- because then it's implied that whatever is NOT prohibited is allowable.
Thus, the flap over waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and restricted bathroom visits.
quote:I'm sure everyone that hasn't been tortured is all for torture, seems to fall along the same lines for the death penalty!
You know, you haven't been on the site long enough for me to be able to tell if you're serious or not. If you want people to address the topic you're discussing rather than your behavior, you need to be a bit more sincere and a lot less insulting.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Um, it's written in the constitution that you can't torture people.
No it isn't. It can be interpreted that way (and as a matter of fact, I do interpret it that way), and it is debateable whether or not the Constitution applies only to US citizens or not.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It depends on how you define an empire. We have a military prescence in 30 or 40 other countries and have significant economic and political influence over even more. I would say that qualifies us as an empire.
It's insufficient to simply state we have such an international military presence. Context is important. You also need to ask, "How many of those countries want us out immediately?" The answer may surprise you.
Substantial political and economic influence do not an empire make. I seem to recall an awful lot of people in our 'empire' not going along with our plans for Iraq for all this talk of empire to have any real weight.
Seriously. Empires do not influence, they command. Unless we're just going to slide the definition over a few degrees to get the same connotative oomph for a different thing altogether.
How about "imperialist" instead?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: All of that applies, to an even greater degree, to your make-nice approach to interrogation.
"Greater degree" of what? I have seen no real studies on the "make-nice approach" in the first place so I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that it is less effective than torture.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Um, it's written in the constitution that you can't torture people.
No it isn't. It can be interpreted that way (and as a matter of fact, I do interpret it that way), and it is debateable whether or not the Constitution applies only to US citizens or not.
Are you Alberto Gonzalez? Haha.. what a joke. You're talking semantics!?! So what if they aren't a US citizen? Whats if you're in a different country and they will torture you because you aren't their citizen? Do you have no foresight? You should be ashamed. Ashamed. People used to look at America and think we were the good guys, people willing to subvert their values and morals because of their irrational fear cowards. You ARE A COWARD. You know why Saddam Hussein killed so many people? He was AFRAID. He Feared his citizens and the only way to combat that was terrorizing them. It's the same approach you're advocating.
Torture has also been proven to not be effective in finding actual facts. Most people lie and make up what they think the interrogator wants to hear. Would you know that? No, like I said way earlier, it doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: There are many documented cases where reliable information has been produced but there have also been many cases where totally unreliable information has been produced. Even worse, torture can lead to false confessions.
We must not forget that, in our own history, torture has led to the admission of people to being witches and having enchanted others with their powers.
This fact, while anecdotal, certainly doesn't speak to the reliability of torture in acquiring accurate information.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"People used to look at America and think we were the good guys, not the people willing to subvert their values and morals because of their irrational fear"
that's what was supposed to be there, I dunno what happened, lol.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you Alberto Gonzalez? Haha.. what a joke. You're talking semantics!?! So what if they aren't a US citizen?
I don't think you need to be the Attorney General to acknowledge that certain rights accorded to our citizens under the Constitution are in fact guaranteed only for our citizens.
quote:He Feared his citizens and the only way to combat that was terrorizing them. It's the same approach you're advocating.
You're missing two key points, here, which I think is why you're coming off like a lunatic:
1) Rakeesh has not actually advocated torture. 2) Even if he were, advocating the torture of foreign hostiles is not in fact the "same approach" that Saddam used in Iraq.
Snow, you're acting on the assumption that the people here are idiots. That's unfortunate, because it means you're arguing from a position of streamlined and distilled arrogance that sadly makes you look incredibly, awesomely unintelligent.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Um, it's written in the constitution that you can't torture people.
No it isn't. It can be interpreted that way (and as a matter of fact, I do interpret it that way), and it is debateable whether or not the Constitution applies only to US citizens or not.
Are you Alberto Gonzalez? Haha.. what a joke. You're talking semantics!?! So what if they aren't a US citizen? Whats if you're in a different country and they will torture you because you aren't their citizen? Do you have no foresight? You should be ashamed. Ashamed. People used to look at America and think we were the good guys, people willing to subvert their values and morals because of their irrational fear cowards. You ARE A COWARD. You know why Saddam Hussein killed so many people? He was AFRAID. He Feared his citizens and the only way to combat that was terrorizing them. It's the same approach you're advocating.
Rakeesh made it clear that he believes that torture is unconstitutional. He was just pointing out that it is not an objective fact.
quote:Originally posted by Snowspot: Torture has also been proven to not be effective in finding actual facts. Most people lie and make up what they think the interrogator wants to hear. Would you know that? No, like I said way earlier, it doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about.
Whistled. And not just because of that comment. Your attitude in general is very negative and you have made many personal attacks against Rakeesh.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And let's be clear, the comparison between WWII and the current so-called 'War on Terror' is murky at best. German, Japanese, and Italian soldiers did not have nearly the ideological foundation to resist making friends with Americans as do the current 'residents' down in Cuba.
But have we even tried? I can't say with certainty that we haven't because there is virtually no transparency in our intelligence system, but I won't buy the "its a different type of enemy" argument until it is demonstrated to be valid.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:But have we even tried? I can't say with certainty that we haven't because there is virtually no transparency in our intelligence system, but I won't buy the "its a different type of enemy" argument until it is demonstrated to be valid.
If we're going to think like that, I can just as easily say that as far as we know, the interrogations down in Guantanamo Bay work spectacularly well, seeing as how we lack transparency. Let's not go down that road, it's fruitless.
As for not buying the argument, I'm not saying it would never work, I just (correctly) pointed out major differences between modern enemies and WWII nation-state soldier enemies. For example, how many German soldiers do you imagine spent years in religious schools instructing them that not only was it correct to hate America and Americans on secular grounds, but also on religious grounds as well?
It's strange to me that you expect the same approach to work on two groups with such wildly different perspectives, or at least hint that it would work just as well.
And anyway, if you've seen no great studies on the approach you describe, why do you want to try it? Because it would make you feel good? Honest question there. It's all well and good to insist that we deal with people all white-hatted and everything, but what you describe would have us treating the prisoners we're talking about better than domestic criminals.
How does that wash? And anyway, how is that not just a mean trick to lull them into our confidence?
quote:How about "imperialist" instead?
Setting aside Iraq (Afghanistan doesn't count, since activities there enjoy a much greater degree of international support), in what way is the United States imperialist?
How, exactly, do we extend our rule over foreign nations? And don't say 'economic pressure', because that is a two-way street, and everyone drives on it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If we're going to think like that, I can just as easily say that as far as we know, the interrogations down in Guantanamo Bay work spectacularly well, seeing as how we lack transparency. Let's not go down that road, it's fruitless.
I don't understand your objection. If our government had tried a real policy of non-violent interrogation and it failed then I would expect them to use that as an argument in favor of torture. I don't see that being done so I doubt that they have really tried. However, due to the fact that our government rarely reveals anything about it's intelligence programs, I don't know for sure. I don't see how that connects with "I can just as easily say that as far as we know, the interrogations down in Guantanamo Bay work spectacularly well."
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And anyway, if you've seen no great studies on the approach you describe, why do you want to try it? Because it would make you feel good?
Maybe because I feel that we should try ethical approaches before resorting to ethically-questionable (unethical by any common modern standard) practices.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: How does that wash? And anyway, how is that not just a mean trick to lull them into our confidence?
This isn't mind control. I don't see how showing an enemy that we can be human is a "mean trick."
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:How about "imperialist" instead?
Setting aside Iraq (Afghanistan doesn't count, since activities there enjoy a much greater degree of international support), in what way is the United States imperialist?
How, exactly, do we extend our rule over foreign nations? And don't say 'economic pressure', because that is a two-way street, and everyone drives on it.
There are literally tons of examples (proxy wars, manipulated foreign elections, etc.). Here's a list of the countries that we have bombed since 1980: El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Iran, Panama, Iraq, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, and Yemen. How many of those countries attacked us first?
Also, economic pressure is a perfectly valid point when it is biased heavily towards one side. For example, recently Egypt opened its borders to Palestine to provide food and medicine to its citizens during Israel's blockade of Gaza but then closed them after the U.S suspended 100 million dollars of aid.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"How, exactly, do we extend our rule over foreign nations?"
Rakeesh, the thing is that American imperialism is on a stage of decay, so contemporary examples will be fewer than they'd be if I'm allowed to use e.g. examples from the 1980s and earlier back. It says anything to you, how you financed the Contras? How you supported dictatorships all over Latin America?
"And don't say 'economic pressure', because that is a two-way street, and everyone drives on it."
One of the chief example of Russian imperialism nowadays is the economic pressure it's exerting on its neighbours' politics via the gas pipes. The chief example of Greek imperialism in the 1990s was the embargo it imposed on the Republic of Macedonia.
So, frankly, *no*, you can't have it your way and just take one of the primary tools of imperialism out of the equation. Sure, it's a tool that *every* imperialist uses when it's more convenient that military strength. So what?
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whistle me all you want, that won't change anything I say. All I said is he doesn't know what he's talking about... which you (anonymous), seem to have proven yourself.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
