Oh flock...

[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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

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.

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

-spence

[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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

So your disputing JohnnyD's contention that the USSR was a completely failed government at the time of its collapse? A government with the power you describe should be able to continue militarily dominating its own people.

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

Wow! Really funny blabble.

Putin's more recent and remarkable success is due to A) Russian nationalism and B) Really high oil revenues.

Nationalism and oil revenues. Never heard of those ethical values. Isn't the failure to live up to ethical standards and the rule of law what this thread is essentially about?

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

-spence

So when you have time, you'll blabble back.

[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

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

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

Agreed.

[scottw]

oh... waaaaaa...Spence Alynski, the great condescender can dish it out but can't take it, he simply pointed out that your "ideas" are flawed and "presented" in a most slippery way...it's one thing to deal with substance but when you continually deal in false assertions and outright misstatements of fact it becomes a personality thing...the only way to respond to you is line by line as you create falsehoods and straw dogs in nearly every line...you should like the RED Spence...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

oh... waaaaaa...Spence Alynski, the great condescender can dish it out but can't take it, he simply pointed out that your "ideas" are flawed and "presented" in a most slippery way...it's one thing to deal with substance but when you continually deal in false assertions and outright misstatements of fact it becomes a personality thing...the only way to respond to you is line by line as you create falsehoods and straw dogs in nearly every line...you should like the RED Spence...

Agreed.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Agreed.

Disagree.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Disagree.

Butch, you have to keep in mind that Spence likes to play devil's advocate. And he'll usually come up with something that's worded in a way that makes it sound a little convincing, if not confusing enough to have some people believe him. He definitley knows the right language to spin things to sound good to people like JD who is like Marci to Spence's Peppermint Patty.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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


I don't feel any more "obligated" than you do. You post much more than I do. BTW, my "who cares?" response was, as I made clear, specifically to your opinion of the neocon "school", not to your whole thread. And it was an exact copy or your response to Fly Rod in his thread on John Edwards.

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!

There, I've gone from red to purple, so I guess I've started to recover from the thrashing of your non-violent techniques. Actually, the reason I've gone to color responses is purely technical. I don't know how or what buttons to push to block off the quotes to which I'm responding, so I tried the bold fonts, but that looked too "violent"/angry. Then I tried the color stuff, which is fun/playful. Now that I see that this will be interpreted as having some psychological meaning, I'm at a loss as what to do. Oh, well, I'll just go on having fun with the colors. I suppose, when I use green again, it'll mean that I have been convinced to support man-made global warming.

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

I certainly don't mean to attack you, personally, Spence. From what I've seen in these threads, I'd say your a great guy. You're certainly fun to argue with. We could probably have some long, fruitless, entertaining debates over some brewski. I try, I think, to respond to your ideas. In rereading my post, it is clear to me that I directly responded, line by line, to a statement you made, and when I referred to you, it was the persona you presented with your words, not whoever YOU actually are. And, yes, your diction is, quite often, to me, not precise enough. It loses the impact it should have because it is too hedgy, as if avoiding being too direct. Maybe, rather than seeing my opinion as an attack, you might take it, or leave it, as a correction, such as those statements, to which you refer, that some perceive to be anti-american, but are actually meant to strengthen America. Of course, you are rather specific and direct when you attack (in your red, violent mode) others in these threads.