Oh flock...

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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

So says #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney. Unfortunately the report isn't quite that conclusive.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

So says #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney. Unfortunately the report isn't quite that conclusive.

-spence

The reports are classified. Well at least they were classified. Now anything and everything is subject to release. The Pelosi's of the world don't care one bit about our national security , to them it's just politics as usual.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

The reports are classified. Well at least they were classified. Now anything and everything is subject to release. The Pelosi's of the world don't care one bit about our national security , to them it's just politics as usual.

A lot of this report was redacted.

The pro-torture crowd will say that because EIT's were used at any time on some key terrorists, that the harsh methods are justified, regardless of when information was obtained or how credible it was.

This is the clever word game that Cheney has been playing in interviews this week.

Quite the contrary though, I'd note that the inspector who compiled the report states clearly that they couldn't determine if EIT's specifically were responsible for gaining any information.

An interesting note in the report is that KSM told the Red Cross he made a lot of stuff up just to get them to stop using the harsher methods, and that he tried to only give information he believed we already knew.

The net is we will probably never know for sure.

-spence

[justplugit]

While suddenly on the moral high ground investigation, can someone tell me

why there was no investigation into the bomb down Gaddafi's chimney,

which put him on ice for quite awhile, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan aspirin factory and

the recent asasination of one of al qaeda's top 5 leaders?

Makes a few dunkings, sleep deprivation and verbal threats child's play compared to the above.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

While suddenly on the moral high ground investigation, can someone tell me

why there was no investigation into the bomb down Gaddafi's chimney,

which put him on ice for quite awhile, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan aspirin factory and

the recent asasination of one of al qaeda's top 5 leaders?

Makes a few dunkings, sleep deprivation and verbal threats child's play compared to the above.

I'm sure some might say there's room to argue the legality of such actions under US Law and International conventions. I'd note that Clinton has taken a ton of heat for his "illegal" use of force in the Balkans, primarily by the GOP.

...but that's not really the point.

There's a big difference between how you treat someone at arms length vs a person who's under your "control".

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

There's a big difference between how you treat someone at arms length vs a person who's under your "control".

-spence

Ya mean there's a difference between killing with a knife or killing
with a rocket ?

Only difference is the guy who gets bombed never knows what hit him.
They're both dead.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Only difference is the guy who gets bombed never knows what hit him.
They're both dead.

If someone stands before you, and you know they mean you harm, you may shoot them.

But if that same person is in cuffs and rendered impotent, even though you know they still would like to do you harm...do you still kill them?

I think most would agree that wouldn't be moral. Certainly most if not all our laws are designed around such beliefs.

Blame the Jesus, he started all this "turn the other cheek" stuff

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

If someone stands before you, and you know they mean you harm, you may shoot them.


-spence

Does that mean that if a terrorist is 2,000 miles away in a house making a
plan to do harm to innocent victims, you don't send a Tomahawk
to stop him?

Have there been any captured terrorists that have been killed by us in
handcuffs?

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Does that mean that if a terrorist is 2,000 miles away in a house making a
plan to do harm to innocent victims, you don't send a Tomahawk
to stop him?

Depends.

Have there been any captured terrorists that have been killed by us in handcuffs?

The reporting certainly indicates this has occurred many times, but I'm not aware of any credible count.

But it's a slippery slope argument, where we had erected laws to keep us from sliding further than we wanted. These have clearly been passed.

-spence

[Duke41]

They should threaten to make the terrorists read this thread a few time, they would give it all up.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Duke41

They should threaten to make the terrorists read this thread a few time, they would give it all up.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Duke41

They should threaten to make the terrorists read this thread a few time, they would give it all up.

Oh man,Duke, THAT was funny.

[Cool Beans]

Actually what would work best is sit them in a big circle and have Spence read Mother Goose Nursery rhymes (also known as Health care bill) to them... within a few hours we'd know all their secrets.....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

...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.

You must be an EXTRAORDINARILY randy man if "smashing" a stripper is as critical a necessity as protecting yourself against a clear and present danger to your existence.

[scottw]

I was wondering the same thing...cheating on your wife with a stripper is somehow analgous to harsh interrogations of terrorists to protect American lives ?....have to admit, they got me on this one ...and this furthered his understanding of the subject and something about a slippery slope again?....I don't know... the slippery slope is the continued minimalization of the danger...this claim that somehow our standing in the world is diminished by these interrogations is bogus, seems to me that any decent , hardworking individual around the world and particularly those that live directly under the threat that these finatics pose would understand perfectly who we are dealing with and would applaud our efforts to ferret these animals out and thwart their plans...the libs vociferously politicize this with feigned outrage and partial truths which provide fodder for the oppressive regimes that control their media and feed their populations lies and distortions and then organize anti- US marches, burn some American flags and the libs point and say...see...see...the world hates US.....as usual, the lib progressives find themselves on the same side of the fence as America's enemies and see no shame in that....as with the above analogy, Spence's logic is distorted and based on a jaundiced world view which is mostly fallacy and revisionist to fit a template...

like this:

"I'm sure some might say there's room to argue the legality of such actions under US Law and International conventions. I'd note that Clinton has taken a ton of heat for his "illegal" use of force in the Balkans, primarily by the GOP." you ARE kidding right?

and this:
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. noone ever said this, the thread was a discussion about the difference between principles and values

this:
"The neocon "school" would argue that our existence is threatened if we are not the de facto leader of the world. "huh????? make up your mind..is it "neocon school" or neocon "school"?

"Not at all, we all know the Soviet military machine was quite large."hey, he finally got one right!!!!
SHAZAM!

virtually every Spence Alynski statement begins with a false premise and then is expounded upon based on that premise
this was my favorite
"The reporting certainly indicates this has occurred many times, but I'm not aware of any credible count." Spence

so it happened repeatedly just not credibly?

[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 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.

[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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

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.

Haha... I just like fanning the pissing match fires. I've just been reading this thread for comedy's sake now. Nothing really going on in it any more.

[Swimmer]

That was pretty friekin funny Duke.

[Duke41]

Day 4 and this thread still has legs... Way to go keyboard orators of the electronic realm.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Haha... I just like fanning the pissing match fires. I've just been reading this thread for comedy's sake now. Nothing really going on in it any more.

I actually forgot what this is about. And since I usually have nothing of substance to add to threads anyways, I resort to trying to get a rise out of you and Spince.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

I actually forgot what this is about. And since I usually have nothing of substance to add to threads anyways, I resort to trying to get a rise out of you and Spince.

Exactly. 4 pages and about 10 topics covered.

[stripersnipr]

There is nothing so vile and despicable as a someone that would risk and sacrifice the lives of innocents as a means of stroking their own pompous over inflated ego.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

There is nothing so vile and despicable as a someone that would risk and sacrifice the lives of innocents as a means of stroking their own pompous over inflated ego.

Are we still talking about Obama, or have we reverted to Bush talk again?