News Bush's Support of Torture: Global Impact and Un-American Reputation

[pattylou]

Yeah, just wait until your neighbor's kid is blown to pieces while riding the bus to school. You'll understand then.

Has this happened to you?

Ron, I have another question for you.

Do you recognize that you are using a fear-based argument?

Do you see any problems with that approach?

(Guess that's two more questions, three in all.)

 

[pattylou]

So the US is the one sending in all of those suicide bombers? Interesting interpretation...

Do you understand the connections between our invasion of iraq and the presence of the insurgency in Iraq?

I'd appreciate an answer to this, as well as the questions in my immediately preceding post. Here, a "yes" or "no" is sufficient, and preferred to vague responses about "novel methods of fighting" or something equally hand-wavy.

 

[ron damon]

Has this happened to you?

Ron, I have another question for you.

Do you recognize that you are using a fear-based argument?

Do you see any problems with that approach?

(Guess that's two more questions, three in all.)

Well, for most of my life I've experienced living under a terrorist regime (Leftist terrorists in my case), and no, I wouldn't recommend it.

If sometimes you make use of a fear-based approach, it's because you have to feel it in order to realize what it means.

 

[TRCSF]

Well, for most of my life I've experienced living under a terrorist regime (Leftist terrorists in my case), and no, I wouldn't recommend it.

If sometimes you make use of a fear-based approach, it's because you have to feel it in order to realize what it means.

And where was this?

 

[ron damon]

Do you understand the connections between our invasion of iraq and the presence of the insurgency in Iraq?

I'd appreciate an answer to this, as well as the questions in my immediately preceding post. Here, a "yes" or "no" is sufficient, and preferred to vague responses about "novel methods of fighting" or something equally hand-wavy.

*~.. yes ..~*

 

[Anttech]

If sometimes you make use of a fear-based approach, it's because you have to feel it in order to realize what it means.

Could that argument be used with disillusionment also, you have to 'feel' the hallucinations in order to relies what it means?

 

[pattylou]

Well, for most of my life I've experienced living under a terrorist regime (Leftist terrorists in my case), and no, I wouldn't recommend it.

If sometimes you make use of a fear-based approach, it's because you have to feel it in order to realize what it means.

I *do* know what it means to watch my kid die. I haven't found fear-based approaches to be very effective in my efforts to help others avoid this sort of situation. Instead, I have found that reaching for mutual compassion has been more effective.

So, leftist terrorists blew up your neighbor's kid? I'm still not clear on this. Can you give an answer? Thank you!

(It's possible you have a very unique perspective, frmo living in a violent coutry rocked by bomb blasts and the like. Such a perspective is valuable, and I think most of us are assuming you're American, and have lived here your whole life. Hence, my request for clarification.)

 

[ron damon]

I *do* know what it means to watch my kid die. I haven't found fear-based approaches to be very effective in my efforts to help others avoid this sort of situation. Instead, I have found that reaching for mutual compassion has been more effective.

So, leftist terrorists blew up your neighbor's kid? I'm still not clear on this. Can you give an answer? Thank you!

(It's possible you have a very unique perspective, frmo living in a violent coutry rocked by bomb blasts and the like. Such a perspective is valuable, and I think most of us are assuming you're American, and have lived here your whole life. Hence, my request for clarification.)

Look, I'd rather we don't go into the personal level. Suffice it to say that, even though I haven't been directly hit (thank god), I've seen and known of enough bestiality, barbarity and sheer inhumanity committed by Left-wing terrorists to be scarred for life. I know what evil is, and thus shiver at the thought of slacking up and retreating from a battle that is beyond our choosing. I don't think anyone who opposes the Bush administration's war policy really comprehends what the alternative entails...

 

[TRCSF]

Look, I'd rather we don't go into the personal level. Suffice it to say that, even though I haven't been directly hit (thank god), I've seen and known of enough bestiality, barbarity and sheer inhumanity committed by Left-wing terrorists to be scarred for life. I know what evil is, and thus shiver at the thought of slacking up and retreating from a battle that is beyond our choosing. I don't think anyone who opposes the Bush administration's war policy really comprehends what the alternative entails...

left-wing terrrorists committing bestiality?

My goodness.

That sounds worse that the time my great aunt was run over by green fundamentalist gorillas.

Yes, gorillas.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The Russians, with 20,000 nuclear warheads to back them up, never launched an attack on the US. Al Qaeda did, armed with only a couple of planes. Care to take a guess on what a Muslim terrorist would do with just one nuclear weapon? Can you comprehend the implications of that?

Believe me, I understand the threat. Also, as is China today, the Russians were more of a threat than Al Qaeda could ever be. I grew up expecting the world to end in one big mushroom cloud. To lose a city is chicken feed by comparison. And just because it didn't happen, the threat was in fact greater than that of any terrorist, and we knew it. We all knew that the world might end at any moment and all because of them evil Ruskies. But we still didn't legalize torture in order to solve the problem.

All your questions from your previous post are very valid, common-sense, ones. And no, I don't have answers for them. But I know this, that if you try to confront Muslim terrorists with the tools and methods designed to fight conventional war or crime, you'll end up in a holocaust of innocent civilians, and the world retreating into a new dark age.
The nature of the threat they represent is extreme, and thus requires extreme (and innovative) measures to counteract it.

This has been true in any war, and I understand your fear and concern, but nothing in this sense has changed since the rules of the Geneva Convention were written. Every war puts homes, families, and even entire cultures at risk. However, to allow base instincts to dominate our humanity is certain doom for all of us, and it would certainly represent an end to the American dream. To accept torture is in effect a surrender; a surrender of everything we believe as right and just, and what this country tries to be. Also, consider that at first the terrorist just wanted us out of the Middle East; this since they kept watching US built planes drop US built bombs on their land and people. But now we have given them many more reasons to hate us. And tactics such as those that you support would only help to guarantee yet another generation of terrorist will be made ready to die fighting the great Satan; and in that event, for good reason. At that point, I too would consider the US the bad guy; in fact I already do under this illegal administration.

Do you understand what I'm saying? Years ago you would have been hard pressed to find anyone more patriotic than me, but Bush and his criminal court are making enemies of American citizens. How far do you think this will get the US? If you want the terrorists to win, that's the way to do it.

 

[Informal Logic]

1) To use Bush's new term "Islamic militants," which makes reference to religious affiliation - terrorists such as Bin Laden are fundamentalist extremists who want a traditional, conservative society with strict adherence to Islam. Not unlike the fundamentalist extremists in the US who also want a traditional, conservative society with strict adherence to Christianity. That would make Bin Laden a right-wing terrorist.

2) To examine what the alternative entails, would be that the US should have stayed focused on Bin Laden, rather than illegally invading Iraq thus adding fuel to the Middle East fire.

I suspect the support for Bush and the war are from those who believe in the "containment" of Islamic terrorism by spreading democracy (like the domino theory and view of communism during the cold war). Terrorism is a result of US policies, not governing systems, and consists of angry individuals around the world, not any particular nation state. The best way to address terrorism is for the US to stop the self interested and unbalanced interference in the region (what a novel idea).

I realize those who blindly follow Bush probably will not read this post and/or absorb any of it, but I know Bush is a charlatan (and perhaps even an “evil doer”) not only through reasoning, but because I feel it.

We cannot promote freedom and liberty abroad unless we practice it at home.

 

[Skyhunter]

BTW, thanks for the link, this is interesting. Though, I don't see anything referring to curfews, national id cards, or transit cards. Are there governments that use such cards?

Remember the http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,67471,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 bill they tacked onto the defense appropriations bill in the middle of the night?
This is the same way they are trying to pass portions of Patriot act II. Just like with the first patriot act they are going to make it law with little or no debate. Once the government has these broad sweeping powers the rest will follow. We the people need to become aware and voice our opposition now, before it is too late!
If this act is made law, an American citizen can be declared a "foreign power", secretly arrested and detained in secret indefinitely.
People might think I am paranoid and maybe they are right. But just because I am paranoid, doesn't mean they are not out to get us!

 

[deckart]

Remember the http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,67471,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 bill they tacked onto the defense appropriations bill in the middle of the night?
This is the same way they are trying to pass portions of Patriot act II. Just like with the first patriot act they are going to make it law with little or no debate. Once the government has these broad sweeping powers the rest will follow. We the people need to become aware and voice our opposition now, before it is too late!
If this act is made law, an American citizen can be declared a "foreign power", secretly arrested and detained in secret indefinitely.
People might think I am paranoid and maybe they are right. But just because I am paranoid, doesn't mean they are not out to get us!

You have a point, because if one is found to be against the government the patriot acts could kick in against a common citizen. That is dangerous and unconstitutional. A fundamental reason why we maintain the right to bear arms and overthrow an unconstitional government. This why I remain conservative and anti-socialist. (as apposed to anti-social )

 

[Rabid]

You have a point, because if one is found to be against the government the patriot acts could kick in against a common citizen. That is dangerous and unconstitutional. A fundamental reason why we maintain the right to bear arms and overthrow an unconstitional government. This why I remain conservative and anti-socialist. (as apposed to anti-social )

Why would this position be limited to conservatives?

 

[loseyourname]

left-wing terrrorists committing bestiality?
My goodness.
That sounds worse that the time my great aunt was run over by green fundamentalist gorillas.
Yes, gorillas.

Is it really necessary to make fun of a guy as he alludes to horrible things he's seen that he doesn't even want to talk about?

 

[Smurf]

Why would this position be limited to conservatives?

Or anti-socialists.

Naw.
The U.S. is using homicide bombers.

Excellent come back, btw.

 

[Skyhunter]

You have a point, because if one is found to be against the government the patriot acts could kick in against a common citizen. That is dangerous and unconstitutional. A fundamental reason why we maintain the right to bear arms and overthrow an unconstitional government. This why I remain conservative and anti-socialist. (as apposed to anti-social )

But, it is the alleged conservatives, you know the Republicans, that are doing this.

We don't have access to the type of arms that the military can bring to bear against us. I have a military video from Iraq, showing what you would be up against. PM me if you would like me to email it to you.

 

[TRCSF]

Is it really necessary to make fun of a guy as he alludes to horrible things he's seen that he doesn't even want to talk about?

You know, I really understand why he doesn't want to talk about that sort of thing.

I really don't like to talk about the tragic demise of my Great Aunt Fred. But everytime I bring here up unsolicited in completely off topic discussions, people always ask me real hard questions.

Like just what was she doing in Iceland in the first place? And what exactly was she ran over with? And how did Green-party fundamentalist gorillas get a license to operate a steam roller? And how legal is it to preserve a body by rolling it up in cellophane? And just how much cellophane is needed, given that my Great Aunt Fred was 600 lbs. and two millimeters thick when she expired two days later in hospital, God rest her soul? And how much does it cost for the storage unit we needed to rent to store her Great Aunt Fred roll-up?

Why oh why do they harass me so?

 

[deckart]

But, it is the alleged conservatives, you know the Republicans, that are doing this.
We don't have access to the type of arms that the military can bring to bear against us. I have a military video from Iraq, showing what you would be up against. PM me if you would like me to email it to you.

I do understand what would be faced. I live in the Northwest, I'm not a militia type but if that is what it came to, these boys up here are prepared for that kind of situation. At this point these guys are seen as paranoidal wierdos but they aren't stupid and many have military experience. If there was an obvious breach of fundamentals in this country, it wouldn't go without serious resistance from within. Those guys are scary serious. People are paying attention to what's going on.

Not all conservatives are "Republican" or "Democrat". There are liberal conservatives who aren't partisan. Who is that guy on talk radio, Randy Savage (I think), who calls himself a liberal conservative? And he has over a million listeners alone.

 

[Anttech]

Is it really necessary to make fun of a guy as he alludes to horrible things he's seen that he doesn't even want to talk abou

Probably not, but it is also not necessary to spread lies, and nationalistic ideals of hatred. If he doesn't want to talk about it, then that's his choice and we should respected it.

TRCSF if you need a shoulder to cry on PM me, I feel your pain brother!

 

[deckart]

I do understand what would be faced. I live in the Northwest, I'm not a militia type but if that is what it came to, these boys up here are prepared for that kind of situation. At this point these guys are seen as paranoidal wierdos but they aren't stupid and many have military experience. If there was an obvious breach of fundamentals in this country, it wouldn't go without serious resistance from within. Those guys are scary serious. People are paying attention to what's going on.
Not all conservatives are "Republican" or "Democrat". There are liberal conservatives who aren't partisan. Who is that guy on talk radio, Randy Savage (I think), who calls himself a liberal conservative? And he has over a million listeners alone.

I apologize, the guy is Micheal Savage (I thing Randy Savage was a WWF guy lol). http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html"

 

[loseyourname]

Probably not, but it is also not necessary to spread lies, and nationalistic ideals of hatred. If he doesn't want to talk about it, then that's his choice and we should respected it.

I don't agree with the guy's stance in this thread either (frankly, I did a double-take when I first saw it), but that doesn't mean we need to mock him. This isn't third grade.

 

[Anttech]

but that doesn't mean we need to mock him. This isn't third grade.

Point taken

 

[vanesch]

2) To examine what the alternative entails, would be that the US should have stayed focused on Bin Laden, rather than illegally invading Iraq thus adding fuel to the Middle East fire.
I suspect the support for Bush and the war are from those who believe in the "containment" of Islamic terrorism by spreading democracy (like the domino theory and view of communism during the cold war). Terrorism is a result of US policies, not governing systems, and consists of angry individuals around the world, not any particular nation state. The best way to address terrorism is for the US to stop the self interested and unbalanced interference in the region (what a novel idea).

The funny thing is that Bush is acting to promote the "domino effect", but not as he thought about it...
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20051012%2F0915643868.htm&ewp=ewp_news_qaeda&floc=NW_1-T

The letter laid out his long-term plan: expel the Americans from Iraq, establish an Islamic authority and take the war to Iraq's secular neighbors, including Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.

 

[ron damon]

Believe me, I understand the threat. Also, as is China today, the Russians were more of a threat than Al Qaeda could ever be.

No. This is were all of you go wrong. You can deter Russia and China, since they are rational agents, and are interested in their own survival and well-being. You can't deter Muslim terrorists. They are more than happy to die. If you apply game theory to them, the only rational option left for you is to kill them first. And to do that you need intelligence...
The indispensable, long-term complement of that strategy is the transformation of the Muslim world, lifting it out of the middle ages and into the modern world, a process that was supposed to be jump-started by the establishment of democracy and capitalism in Iraq and the inclusion of Turkey into the EU, something that Bush heavily lobbied for, personally calling Eurpoean heads of state, and which upset many chancelleries, contributing to the falling out over Iraq.
Before you shower me with insults, that is the main vision me and other classical liberals shared when supporting the invasion from the start; the fact that it has not gone well is something I'm willing to take responsibility for.
And before you suggest getting out of the middle east altogether, there are two practical, empirical, concrete, real reason for why it can't be done:
1) Genocide against the Jews would follow, something some of us will never allow to happen yet again.
2) Oil. The modern world needs it, and *every* industrialized nation *will* actively work to secure access and control over it. The Chinese condoning genocide in Sudan, the French supporting Saddam Hussein, or Russia backing up Iran; it is a fact of life. If you think it is evil, don't heat your home this winter, and give up motorized transportation.
Finally, for those lacking perspective, if the terrorists again hit the civilized world hard enough, draconian measures in immigration and trade would follow, resulting in the collapse of the world economy, a plunge in living conditions throughout the globe, and a return to pre-Enlightenment times.

 

[arildno]

Finally, for those lacking perspective, if the witches again magicked the civilized world hard enough, draconian measures in immigration and trade would follow, resulting in the collapse of the world economy, a plunge in living conditions throughout the globe, and a return to pre-Christian times.

 

[TRCSF]

No. This is were all of you go wrong. You can deter Russia and China, since they are rational agents, and are interested in their own survival and well-being. You can't deter Muslim terrorists. They are more than happy to die. If you apply game theory to them, the only rational option left for you is to kill them first. And to do that you need intelligence...
The indispensable, long-term complement of that strategy is the transformation of the Muslim world, lifting it out of the middle ages and into the modern world, a process that was supposed to be jump-started by the establishment of democracy and capitalism in Iraq and the inclusion of Turkey into the EU, something that Bush heavily lobbied for, personally calling Eurpoean heads of state, and which upset many chancelleries, contributing to the falling out over Iraq.
Before you shower me with insults, that is the main vision me and other classical liberals shared when supporting the invasion from the start; the fact that it has not gone well is something I'm willing to take responsibility for.
And before you suggest getting out of the middle east altogether, there are two practical, empirical, concrete, real reason for why it can't be done:
1) Genocide against the Jews would follow, something some of us will never allow to happen yet again.
2) Oil. The modern world needs it, and *every* industrialized nation *will* actively work to secure access and control over it. The Chinese condoning genocide in Sudan, the French supporting Saddam Hussein, or Russia backing up Iran; it is a fact of life. If you think it is evil, don't heat your home this winter, and give up motorized transportation.
Finally, for those lacking perspective, if the terrorists again hit the civilized world hard enough, draconian measures in immigration and trade would follow, resulting in the collapse of the world economy, a plunge in living conditions throughout the globe, and a return to pre-Enlightenment times.

1. Stop with the "me and other liberals" silliness. Nobody's buying it.

2. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. The only connection with Iraq and 9-11 is Islam. Don't talk about preventing another holocaust while being anti-semitic.

3. If you can admit it's all about stealing other people's oil, please stop with the nonsense about terrorism and democracy and liberating the Iraqis. It's unbecoming.

4. If you really want to take "responsibility" for the quagmire, but you don't want to pull out, then you're obliged to march down to your local recruitment office and sign up. They're accepting 57 year old women, I'm sure you'll qualify. Where was it you're from again?

 

[vanesch]

The indispensable, long-term complement of that strategy is the transformation of the Muslim world, lifting it out of the middle ages and into the modern world, a process that was supposed to be jump-started by the establishment of democracy and capitalism in Iraq and the inclusion of Turkey into the EU, something that Bush heavily lobbied for, personally calling Eurpoean heads of state, and which upset many chancelleries, contributing to the falling out over Iraq.

The error in that approach is of course that you think that you have the ABILITY to "transform the Muslim world", without any knowledge of it. It is like the apprentice sorcerer: you want to "clean up the house" and you achieved something quite different.

Instead of "Europeanising Turkey", this business is going to wreck havoc to the entire European construction.

Before you shower me with insults, that is the main vision me and other classical liberals shared when supporting the invasion from the start; the fact that it has not gone well is something I'm willing to take responsibility for.

But that's the point: it WAS OBVIOUS THAT IT WAS GOING TO FAIL. The plan was so damn naive that about everybody who knew just a little bit about Arab mentality saw that such a "strategy" was not going to work. THAT's the real reason a lot of people were against the invasion.

And before you suggest getting out of the middle east altogether, there are two practical, empirical, concrete, real reason for why it can't be done:

No, you should stay and bleed until you've fixed what you've broken. it will never happen, but nevertheless you should try.

1) Genocide against the Jews would follow, something some of us will never allow to happen yet again.

It's their business, no ? This conflict was build in from the start.

2) Oil. The modern world needs it, and *every* industrialized nation *will* actively work to secure access and control over it. The Chinese condoning genocide in Sudan, the French supporting Saddam Hussein, or Russia backing up Iran; it is a fact of life. If you think it is evil, don't heat your home this winter, and give up motorized transportation.

Guess what ? 50 years from now, there won't be any left.

Finally, for those lacking perspective, if the terrorists again hit the civilized world hard enough, draconian measures in immigration and trade would follow, resulting in the collapse of the world economy, a plunge in living conditions throughout the globe, and a return to pre-Enlightenment times.

They never hit the world very hard. The biggest "hit" was only about 4000 death. Look at what a single tsunami did, or an earthquake, or a storm. It's all in the head.

 

[ron damon]

Instead of "Europeanising Turkey", this business is going to wreck havoc to the entire European construction.

Why? Are you against Turkey in Europe? I really appreciate a (sober) French perspective.

But that's the point: it WAS OBVIOUS THAT IT WAS GOING TO FAIL.

But why? Are they beyond modernization? What fundamental reason prevents them from advancing? 100 years ago nobody saw in China, Japan (~150), Korea or India any potential, yet all of them flourished under (diverse) direct intervention by western powers...

Ahh the irony, does anyone here realize that were I one of the pile of angry Leftists that clutter this thread, I'd started this reply by calling vanesch a racist for his/her remarks on Turkey?

 

[Anttech]

You can't deter Muslim terrorists. They are more than happy to die. If you apply game theory to them, the only rational option left for you is to kill them first. And to do that you need intelligence..

Racism, and decpetive

Instead of "Europeanising Turkey", this business is going to wreck havoc to the entire European construction.

Fact, and from percepective.