Originally Posted by spence
You seem to be assuming that nations are never in agreement. This is often not the case.
The "seem" is all yours. I never (except in this sentence) said anything close to "never."
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.
Your speaking as if it is "wrote fact" that US law was broken. Isn't this being "investigated?" Has the guilty verdict already been rendered?
So there's no line in the sand? Perhaps we should have used donkeys to rape detainees because it would have been funny?
One of your typical non-sequitors.
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.
So much for the importance of the "rule of law." If you don't want to break a law--change it.
This is the attitude Bin Laden is banking on.
Bin Laden banked on the attitude that we would be too soft to fight the war we did and nearly lost his life savings (maybe he did, we're still not 100% sure he is alive). And, if your right, he is banking that there will be enough people like you to turn against what we've done and turn tail in defeat. He may prove right on that.
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.
Frankly, it is your fear and loathing of the prime principle (to exist) and its dominance over the niceties of your rule of law and high standards of ethics that he counts on. The terrorists have not defined the prime principle--it is self evident and even they can't escape it, though some seem to prefer the 70 virgins awaiting their martyrdom to the miserable life they have on this earth. And the thread you refer to did not speak of "unshakeable" principles, rather concrete foundations. Nor did I, in that thread say that the rule of law or high ethical standards were the highest principles. What was discussed at length was liberals lack of a concrete foundation and your slippery, shifty language which you display, IN ABUNDANCE, in this thread.
He's audience represents a large block of Americans, many of whom share his attitudes.
Neither he nor his large block of Americans are posting here. As I said, he has nothing to do with this discussion except to become a convenient, irrelevent, punching bag for you and, may I add, a distraction.
Tools, plenty of tools for legal interrogation which when performed by professionals is quite effective.
You haven't named any tools, just used more squishy, puffy language.
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.
The Sunis could have realized that BEFORE the surge. If they recognized it AFTER the surge, the added POWER was effective, ergo the surge DID WORK. And it is your BIASED opinion that the so-called Suni realization was the ONLY reason it did. In your one-sided view there was no way that Iraqis, in general, were seeing, via our not cutting and running, dieing, and the surge strategy to embed with the people rather than separating from them, that WE supported their government and the insurgents DID NOT. And, of course, you totally disregard the Kurds.
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 think your forgetting "populist" power.
A good much is still living and very productive. The overall economy is better now. Infrastructure is restored and IMPROVED. The stink and fear of Sadam is gone. The majority of people are tasting freedom they never knew before, and feeling a new found "populist power"--IN SPITE of your constantly negative and slippery language.
I'd also note that Iraq is nearly asking us to leave now.
Iraq has "nearly" (more of that pesky slippery verbiage) asked us to leave for a long time. It has always been assumed and promised that we would and that we would do so if they demanded it. THAT HAS NOT YET HAPPENED. And when it does--hooray!
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 hope we stick it out and help Iraq maintain its democratic, pluralistic, secular, (to what extent those are possible) government.
I think some are personally upset that hubris has tarnished our image which hurts our long-term objectives. This sounds like a reasonable "agenda."
Sounds like more of your slippery, shifty, generalized, unspecific, unconcrete, indirect, gobbledygook.
The neocon "school" would argue that our existence is threatened if we are not the de facto leader of the world. -spence
|