I believe I covered your ilk in a previous post...

And even ScottW, as confused as he is doesn't typically resort to lame prejudiced remarks :hs:

-spence

Spence you are an %$%$%$%$%$%$%$

Yes, thank you for the correction.

International Law believes that all people are entitled to their mental integrity. Changes like the third Geneva Convention or the UN Convention on torture are meant to establish standards to help combat torture.

I think many people just can't seem to stomach that we do live on a plant with billions of other people who also have their own interests. Instead of complaining that others don't want to play by our rules alone, we should re-learn the lost art of diplomacy.

By doing so you're giving the person, rather than the law, the determination as to if their action is legal or moral. If we say as a country that we "don't torture" because of our beliefs, it makes no sense to have convenient exceptions. This is openly hypocritical.

Quite simply, this is why we have funny little sayings to help guide us through life like about not stooping to their level.

Of course the right-wing reaction to this is to assume I must be wishing we set terrorists up in posh apartments (I'd note that Rush Limbaugh even made money sell t-shirts mocking the luxury conditions at Gitmo, hey Rush, how about you rent a cell?) but that's just phoney rhetoric. Do the minimum under the law, get the job done, be consistent. We have plenty of tools at our disposal.


How much "power" did the Soviet Union pour into Afghanistan, or the US into Vietnam or Iraq?

And to what end?

Did the USSR, at one time a country with a lot of "power" crack because of an opposing hard or soft power?

Our "opponent" in this case is a relatively small group of militant fundamentalists empowered by a very large and complex organism deeply rooted in the cultures and economies of the planet. If it were possible to simply apply "power" and eradicate terror it may be practical to do so.

History has certainly demonstrated that while hard power can be useful, without balance it's useless and often counter productive.

I don't think there's a desire to go that far. Certainly there is a perceived need to reduce the hubris we're often accused of, and that the neocon school of thought was built on.

Personally I believe we need to not compromise our own sovereignty, but must be very measured in policies that give the appearance of "do as I say, not as I do.

Obama softened the tone on NKorea and as a result we were positioned to exploit a window of opportunity. N Korean leadership and S Korean leadership recently met in a landmark event. Even the US has been having discussions with N Koreans here in the US. Granted, there's nothing definitive, but you can't influence or control adversaries from a distance.

After Obama's Middle Eastern trip we saw pro-Western factions declare the surprise majority after June elections in Lebanon. In Iran we saw the people rise up and confront their lack of civil rights in a manner not seen since the Revolution. While I wouldn't give sole credit Obama for both of these significant events (it's obviously about the people), certainly an attitude towards mutual respect has given more confidence to the masses who we share far more with than some would like to admit.

-spence

your still an %$%$%$%$%$%$%$

Oh, boo hoo...................:confused:

The smell from the pissing match going on in here is overwhelming.

yes, it's practically torture :rotf2:

[QUOTE=spence;708049] International Law believes that all people are entitled to their mental integrity. Changes like the third Geneva Convention or the UN Convention on torture are meant to establish standards to help combat torture.

The basis of law is to engage a polity in a cooperative endeavor and to deter those who will not cooperate. International Law, I presume, therefore, is to engage nations to cooperate and to deter those who will not. When nations are not in agreement, International law has no basis. When rogues defy International Law and nations do not cooperate to deter them, International Law has no force. Perhaps, you consider the U.S. a rogue or uncooperative nation in its treatment of terrorist detainees. But, at least, the previous administration put up a legal unlawful combatant defence, which I find very credible. The terrorists, on the other hand, I consider absolute rogues totally unconcerned with the legal niceties of International Law, quite content to receive its unmerited protection while planning to destroy the whole caboodle. A law that protects the agent who will destroy it is an ass. It should prosecute, not protect, that agent.

I think many people just can't seem to stomach that we do live on a plant with billions of other people who also have their own interests. Instead of complaining that others don't want to play by our rules alone, we should re-learn the lost art of diplomacy.

We, the U.S., are a part of those billions who have our own interests. We don't complain that others don't want to play by our rules, we may complain about having to play by others' rules. As far as the lost art of diplomacy, as you often like to say, that cuts both ways.

By doing so you're giving the person, rather than the law, the determination as to if their action is legal or moral. If we say as a country that we "don't torture" because of our beliefs, it makes no sense to have convenient exceptions. This is openly hypocritical.

When there is a clear and present danger to the prime principle of existence, a "convenient exception" may trump the high dudgeon of beliefs.

Quite simply, this is why we have funny little sayings to help guide us through life like about not stooping to their level.

Funny little sayings are not so humorous when "their" presumably low level seriously threatens to level you.

Of course the right-wing reaction to this is to assume I must be wishing we set terrorists up in posh apartments (I'd note that Rush Limbaugh even made money sell t-shirts mocking the luxury conditions at Gitmo, hey Rush, how about you rent a cell?) but that's just phoney rhetoric. Do the minimum under the law, get the job done, be consistent. We have plenty of tools at our disposal.

Rush is a covenient straw man. Knocking him down has nothing to do with this discussioin. To what "plenty of tools" are you referring?

How much "power" did the Soviet Union pour into Afghanistan, or the US into Vietnam or Iraq? And to what end?

As for the Soviet Union, apparently not enough power and too much self interest. The US in Vietnam, had we stayed, we would probably now have an ally in South Vietnam comparable to South Korea. In Iraq there was not enough power initially, which the surge corrected. Also, we finally convinced, and/or, the Iraquis finally saw we were on their side and the insurgents were not. Hence, a democratic ally there instead of a nemesis. Of course, if we relinquish our POWER relaltionship with Irag too soon, and we abandon that country as we did South Vietnam, the "insurgents" backed by a superior POWER of money and arms can destroy the good our POWER helped to create.

Did the USSR, at one time a country with a lot of "power" crack because of an opposing hard or soft power?

Yes, without the "hard power" of US military might as a deterrence to the USSR paper tiger might, and US economic POWER, the Soviets could still be cranking.

Our "opponent" in this case is a relatively small group of militant fundamentalists empowered by a very large and complex organism deeply rooted in the cultures and economies of the planet. If it were possible to simply apply "power" and eradicate terror it may be practical to do so.

I agree--Power may ENABLE us to apply your idealistic methods

History has certainly demonstrated that while hard power can be useful, without balance it's useless and often counter productive.

The "balance" would not be possible without the "hard power."

I don't think there's a desire to go that far. Certainly there is a perceived need to reduce the hubris we're often accused of, and that the neocon school of thought was built on.

"Perceived" needs are subjective to the eyes of the beholder. Those who perceive us as hubristic, in my opinion, do so out of various agendas and personal animosities. I am not aware of a "neocon school".

Personally I believe we need to not compromise our own sovereignty, but must be very measured in policies that give the appearance of "do as I say, not as I do.

I don't think we are requiring others to "do as I say", rather we are asking them not to threaten our existence and we will be happy to engage you with commerce and friendly relations.

Spense:Oh so morally superior; wow I am in awe of the depth of your superior intellect and sound unswaying moral hacking. So safe at home, so easy, unicorns & candycanes.
Now I remember why...

I didn't read the whole thing but this part did completely amused me. The USSR was a completely failed government in its final years, politically and economically.

Even without US involvement, the USSR would have eventually failed.

yeah, I wonder what Europe would look like right now if we'd just left the Soviets to their own devices? they've never REALLY needed us over there in Europe :confused: wait....I know ...the "lost art of diplomacy", that's all that was really needed, it has such a long and successful history of dealing with tyrannical regimes...

The Soviet Union fell apart for a number of reasons.

Certainly the Soviet economy was quite fragile, and that Reagan positioned the USA quite artfully. He deserves a lot of credit...

I'd also note that Reagan had no fear of engaging his adversaries.

But ultimately it was about the people. Lech Walesa and Pope John Paul 2 particularly had tremendous influence on the collapse of the USSR by empowering the common man.

-spence

Ahhh...the old Col. Jessep argument. I'd note that at the end of "A Few Good Men" he does go to jail.

-spence

that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me Hot Bottom...I think I'm getting weepy :)

If the USSR failed because it was a completely failed government, that would contradict Spence's contention that it had a lot of power.

To which US involvement in the USSR collapse are you referring?
Star Wars, the arms race, clandestine black ops, spy missions, CIA interventions, diplomacy, flaunting of moral superiority?

As Spence says, the collapse was a confluence of many things. Would those things have gathered without the specter of the US, its promise of freedom and, yes, its military might as a perceived balance and guaranty to the revolutions in Eastern Europe?

Or was it that the USSR failed because it lacked high ethical standards? If it had just cleaned up its ethics act, it wouldn't have needed power? They just didn't live up to the moral high ground of communism/socialism? Those systems do have a different ethic than free market systems.

What do YOU think were the reasons for the collapse? Did the "US involvement" really have no consequence? BTW, glad to have amused you. You are very likeable when you laugh.

Not at all, we all know the Soviet military machine was quite large. I've seen estimated figures as large as 330 B USD in 1988.

No, because as Duke says we've never had the high ground :hihi:

I think it was the wrong system at the wrong time. Clearly we're better but the only reason Russia is strong today is because their leadership saw the writing on the wall and acted accordingly. Putin's more recent and remarkable success is due to A) Russian nationalism and B) Really high oil revenues.

I'll get to your other blabble later...out of time.

-spence

Just when you think you're making some headway with those pesky North Koreans and Iranians with your "softer" tone

UAE Seizes North Korean Weapons Shipment to Iran


By Bill Varner

Aug. 28 (Bloomberg) -- The United Arab Emirates has seized a ship carrying North Korean weapons bound for Iran, in violation of a United Nations arms embargo, diplomats said.

The UAE two weeks ago notified the UN Security Council of the seizure, according to the diplomats, who spoke on condition they aren’t named because the communication hasn’t been made public.

The council committee that monitors enforcement of UN sanctions against North Korea wrote a letter to Iran asking for an explanation and one to the UAE expressing appreciation for the cooperation, the envoys said. No response has been received or further action taken, they said.

The UAE and Iranian missions to the UN didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. The Financial Times reported the weapons seizure earlier today.

UAE seized N.Korea arms shipment bound for Iran 28 Aug 2009 22:38:46 GMT
Source: Reuters
* Arms included rocket launchers, detonators, RPGs

* Seizure of shipment took place on Aug. 14


By Louis Charbonneau

UNITED NATIONS, Aug 28 (Reuters) - The United Arab Emirates has seized a cargo of North Korean weapons being shipped to Iran, which would have violated a U.N. embargo on arms exports from the communist state, Western diplomats said on Friday.

The weapons seized on Aug. 14 included rocket launchers, detonators, munitions and ammunition for rocket-propelled grenades, they said. The ship, called the ANL-Australia, was Australian-owned and flying a Bahamas flag.

Diplomats said the UAE reported the incident, which occurred two weeks ago, to the Security Council sanctions committee on North Korea. The committee sent letters to Tehran and Pyongyang on Aug. 25 informing them of the seizure and demanding a response within 15 days.

"Based on past experience ... we don't expect a very detailed response," one of the diplomats said on condition of anonymity.

Scottw,Detbuch please let us not let facts get in the way of the wise one Spence, the real adults are in charge rediscovering the lost art of diplomacy. This will all work out-I am sure it is just a misunderstanding and those are defensive weapons or a clerical error.
They sure are bearing fruit and unicorns.

For someone that hasn't brought anything to the discussion aside from criticisms of character as opposed to criticisms of facts without any supported recourse, you're quite condescending.

Please troll elsewhere. At least scottw, spence and detbuch put some thought into their posts with some actual evidence to support their position along with the friendly jabs. You're kind of just acting like a #^&#^&#^&#^&.

Reagan also had no fear extending government spending, so much so that adversaries could not keep up. No cries of wealth distribution there. I guess when its in everyone's "best interest" and the great sake of "national security" anything goes.

...Like smashing an inordinately hot stripper after you've promised honor and obey your wife.

Speaks to the slippery slope the above statement has stepped out upon.

Spence brings up some good points. He has used good analogies to further my understanding; the aforementioned above being one of them.

Good point. We should dig up some quotes from conservatives bragging about how Reagan "outspent" the commies :hihi:

-spence

Good morning warriors of the key board. Day 3.

:rotf2:

You seem to be assuming that nations are never in agreement. This is often not the case.

You're mixing issues here. There is an argument to be made for the Bush policy toward treatment of unlawful combatants, but that doesn't supersede existing US law prohibiting torture.

So there's no line in the sand? Perhaps we should have used donkeys to rape detainees because it would have been funny?

If we are to have standards of behavior established as law, they can't have exceptions after the fact. Bush could have gone to Congress to ask for torture laws to be revised, but he did not.

This is the attitude Bin Laden is banking on.

Frankly I believe we shouldn't let a terrorist define what be believe to be our prime principals. I seem to remember a thread a few months ago where we were taught that Conservatives were different than Liberals in that their "principals" were unshakable.

He's audience represents a large block of Americans, many of whom share his attitudes.

Tools, plenty of tools for legal interrogation which when performed by professionals is quite effective.

The Surge wouldn't have likely been successful had Sunni's not came to the realization that if they continued to fight US Troops that Shiites would gain complete control.

While I'm sure there have been gains in Iraq due to the use of hard power and influence, a good much of it has either been short lived or counter productive.

I'd also note that Iraq is nearly asking us to leave now.




I think you're forgetting "populist" power.

Not idealistic at all, just pragmatic. I'm all for hard power to be applied when appropriate, but we can't loose sight of the long-term strategy.

I think some are personally upset that hubris has tarnished our image which hurts our long-term objectives. This sounds like a reasonable "agenda."

The neocon "school" would argue that our existence is threatened if we are not the de facto leader of the world.

-spence

Spence we were never weak before
 

And no one ever found out about these interogations because at the end of the interogation they killed the interogee.

It does look like a lot of detainees got the crap kicked out of them so it wouldn't surprise me if there were quite a few.

-spence

Its funny how it, at the time of capture, would have been ok to shoot them in the head, but since we did not kill them, we can't use any interrogation techniques that may be "uncomfortable"?

I sure "Mr. Towlie-ban" is just happy we didn't kill him and happy we don't kill our prisoners. He knows someday, he will be released and be able to go home. Torture, even that like was done to John McCain seems far more humane than killing them on the battlefield.

I as a retired military man, I feel that one of the only reasons we take prisoners is, not to show mercy, but the chance to gain information from them. Limit the chance of gaining information, or make me read him Miranda rights to him, will greatly increase his chance of being shot instead of captured......

Way too much hassle to keep them alive, nowadays.

And McCain, who suffered it, is very anti-torture, no?

Lovely how we JUST found out that waterboarding helped in the last round of interrogation... :smash: