Oh flock...

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You had not mentioned Bush's policy. No way I can get that from "It's about the obvious duplicity that undermines our real objectives."

My wife believes I have an autistic trait to assume others know what I'm thinking. Personally I do think that in the context of the discussion this was obvious. The incidents in question happened in 2004.

The rule of law IN GENERAL is "a cornerstone element" of our society. But not all SPECIFIC laws are condusive to that stability. Some laws are useless or outdated remnants. Some are rules that benefit special interests at the expense of others. Some are just stupid. And some can be destructive.

There's a big difference between civil and criminal law, and I'd wager that that the majority of criminal law is as applicable today as it was when it was founded.

The laws we're generally talking about have to do with issues like human rights and torture. These I think have been pretty consistent this century...

We certainly have no international treaty with stateless terrorists.

We establish laws that say torture is wrong, that establish rules of conduct based on ethics.

The limits are based on our morals, not theirs, as we are in control.

And the "rule of law", as I have said previosly in this thread, is not our highest principle. Our highest principle is to exist in the manner in which we were created--to preserve our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. And we neither compromise that, nor tarnish what we did in Irag by CIA type interrogations of those who wish to destroy the democracy we helped to establish in that country.

This conflicts with two simple observations:

1) We are in a long-term struggle
2) If our policy undermines the basic premise (see above), it is by nature self defeating

What is glalringly obvious to others, is that we stubbornly remain the powerful, rich, free society, and they remain jealous. Although, those now "running" our country may wish to change that.

How so? Admitting a course correction might be necessary could very well be a sign of strength to those we need to influence.

I'd note that the policy shifts towards North Korea look like they could possibly bear some fruit, and Obama's trip to the Mid East this spring might have very well influenced the power shift in Lebanon and the Green Revolution in Iran.

-spence

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=spence;707991]There's a big difference between civil and criminal law, and I'd wager that that the majority of criminal law is as applicable today as it was when it was founded.

I am not talking about the MAJORITY of laws.

The laws we're generally talking about have to do with issues like human rights and torture. These I think have been pretty consistent this century...

This century is only a bit more than 8 years old. Perhaps you mean the 20th. There were significant changes and additions then. For instance, U.N. laws on torture changed significantly from applying only to SIGNATORIES to the U. N. conventions to, uselessly, stupidly, self-destructively (in my opinion) to INCLUDE JUST ABOUT ANYBODY IN THE WORLD, signer or not, specifically to "outlaw" what you consider illegal CIA interrogations. By stupidly signing on to such a broad inclusion, you abdicate legal sovereignty to a fickle "World Court" that has no particular interest in the existence of the USA.

We establish laws that say torture is wrong, that establish rules of conduct based on ethics.

Our laws should apply only to those who are in the purview of our social contract. Torture of US citizens would be ethically wrong by those rules so long as those citizens are not engaged in some form of overthrow of our government.

The limits are based on our morals, not theirs, as we are in control.

Our morals are of no interest to "them." They have different morals and laugh at us as puny fools to offer them sanctity in morals they would destroy. And we deserve their scorn when we do so.

This conflicts with two simple observations:

1) We are in a long-term struggle
2) If our policy undermines the basic premise (see above), it is by nature self defeating

So far, I am not seeing in the history of the world, that ethics, rather than power, wins struggles. It has been reputed that RELIGIOUS fervor has, in times and places, changed the course of history. But in this "long-term struggle" it is our opponent who has that fervor, and we have all but abandoned it. Which policy, which basic premise?

How so? Admitting a course correction might be necessary could very well be a sign of strength to those we need to influence.

It could very well be a sign of weakness and a chink in what they hope is the eventual crumbling. Anyway (perhaps I have an autistic trait similar to yours)--in referring to those now running our country wishing to "change that", the "that" is the U.S. being an object of jealousy and the "change" would be us becoming just one of the guys in the fraternity of nations--no better, perhaps a little worse and required to apologize for our oppressions and transgressions.

I'd note that the policy shifts towards North Korea look like they could possibly bear some fruit, and Obama's trip to the Mid East this spring might have very well influenced the power shift in Lebanon and the Green Revolution in Iran.-spence[QUOTE]

How many policy shifts toward North Korea have born fruit? I must admit, I have forgotten what our latest policy is. I remember, in the past, our policies have eventually given NK fruit rather than bearing it. Power shift in Lebanon? From whom to whom? And, again, I'm not familiar with the Green Revolution in Iran.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This century is only a bit more than 8 years old. Perhaps you mean the 20th. There were significant changes and additions then.

Yes, thank you for the correction.

For instance, U.N. laws on torture changed significantly from applying only to SIGNATORIES to the U. N. conventions to, uselessly, stupidly, self-destructively (in my opinion) to INCLUDE JUST ABOUT ANYBODY IN THE WORLD, signer or not, specifically to "outlaw" what you consider illegal CIA interrogations. By stupidly signing on to such a broad inclusion, you abdicate legal sovereignty to a fickle "World Court" that has no particular interest in the existence of the USA.[/COLOR]

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.

Our laws should apply only to those who are in the purview of our social contract. Torture of US citizens would be ethically wrong by those rules so long as those citizens are not engaged in some form of overthrow of our government.

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.

Our morals are of no interest to "them." They have different morals and laugh at us as puny fools to offer them sanctity in morals they would destroy. And we deserve their scorn when we do so.

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.

So far, I am not seeing in the history of the world, that ethics, rather than power, wins struggles. It has been reputed that RELIGIOUS fervor has, in times and places, changed the course of history. But in this "long-term struggle" it is our opponent who has that fervor, and we have all but abandoned it. Which policy, which basic premise?

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.

It could very well be a sign of weakness and a chink in what they hope is the eventual crumbling. Anyway (perhaps I have an autistic trait similar to yours)--in referring to those now running our country wishing to "change that", the "that" is the U.S. being an object of jealousy and the "change" would be us becoming just one of the guys in the fraternity of nations--no better, perhaps a little worse and required to apologize for our oppressions and transgressions.

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.

How many policy shifts toward North Korea have born fruit? I must admit, I have forgotten what our latest policy is. I remember, in the past, our policies have eventually given NK fruit rather than bearing it. Power shift in Lebanon? From whom to whom? And, again, I'm not familiar with the Green Revolution in Iran.

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

[detbuch]

[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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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 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...

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

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

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

[COLOR="Blue"]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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think you're forgetting "populist" power.

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

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.

"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".

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

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.

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

-spence

[detbuch]

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

Actually, as for WHATEVER the neocon "school", in your biased opinion "would argue" (as if you knew), I'll answer a la Spence--WHO CARES?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Actually, as for WHATEVER the neocon "school", in your biased opinion "would argue" (as if you knew), I'll answer a la Spence--WHO CARES?

You obviously, as you feel obligated to respond line for line.

I'd note your text has gone from green to red, further proof that non-violent techniques can be perfectly effective at breaking an adversary!

And you're perhaps spending more time attacking me and how I speak than you are the ideas I present. More fodder for my assertion that conservatives tend to be obsessed with personality rather than substance.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

.[/U]

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

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]

[QUOTE=spence;707991]My wife believes I have an autistic trait to assume others know what I'm thinking.

what your wife means by autistic trait is that you are trapped in your own little world in your head, an alternative universe that you've created that is full of "most peoples" and "everybody's" and "some people's" to whom you've assigned traits and characteristics not necessarily based on reality but that will fit nicely or correspond to your world view, you continually rely on "truisms" that you've invented and are simply false but stated as fact before you wander off into some diatribe ....... you must drive her crazy...

[spence]

[QUOTE=scottw;708007]

Originally Posted by spence

My wife believes I have an autistic trait to assume others know what I'm thinking.

what your wife means by autistic trait is that you are trapped in your own little world in your head, an alternative universe that you've created that is full of "most peoples" and "everybody's" and "some people's" to whom you've assigned traits and characteristics not necessarily based on reality but that will fit nicely or correspond to your world view, you continually rely on "truisms" that you've invented and are simply false but stated as fact before you wander off into some diatribe ....... you must drive her crazy...

I really can't wait for your one thousandth post...figuring with all reasonable probability you'll have to add value to a thread sooner or later. Hell, even a thousand monkeys with typewriters.......

-spence