Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 08-28-2009, 07:00 AM   #61
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyTuna View Post
Philosopher; another name for dead man walking. Spense wistfully feels we should shield ourselves with Unicorns & Candycanes, rather than confront terror.

Spense, do you feel comfortable that others died so you can be safe & cozy philosophizing behind a key board that we should shift policy to gain a moral "superiority" and perhaps endanger US lives. When was the last time moral superiority stopped a bullet?

PS: At the next battle in Afghanistan, would you be so kind to speak with the dune coons-I mean Taliban...bring a basket for your head.
I believe I covered your ilk in a previous post...

Quote:
Unless we're willing to do anything, then we're doing nothing.
And even ScottW, as confused as he is doesn't typically resort to lame prejudiced remarks

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 08-28-2009, 07:08 AM   #62
Duke41
got gas?
iTrader: (0)
 
Duke41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
This is nonsense. People around the world have long looked to the unique thing that is the USA as a source of inspiration.

-spence
Spence you are an %$%$%$%$%$%$%$
Duke41 is offline  
Old 08-28-2009, 07:47 AM   #63
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

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.
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
spence is offline  
Old 08-28-2009, 08:42 AM   #64
Duke41
got gas?
iTrader: (0)
 
Duke41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,716
your still an %$%$%$%$%$%$%$
Duke41 is offline  
Old 08-28-2009, 10:46 AM   #65
Swimmer
Retired Surfer
iTrader: (0)
 
Swimmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sunset Grill
Posts: 9,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
They had said this new report wasn't going to be good, but I didn't think it would contain stuff like this.

-spence

Oh, boo hoo...................

Swimmer a.k.a. YO YO MA
Serial Mailbox Killer/Seal Fisherman
Swimmer is offline  
Old 08-28-2009, 11:12 AM   #66
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
The smell from the pissing match going on in here is overwhelming.
JohnnyD is offline  
Old 08-28-2009, 11:21 AM   #67
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
yes, it's practically torture
scottw is offline  
Old 08-28-2009, 11:31 AM   #68
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
[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.

Last edited by detbuch; 08-28-2009 at 11:52 AM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 08-28-2009, 01:19 PM   #69
TommyTuna
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 41
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...

TommyTuna is offline  
Old 08-28-2009, 02:37 PM   #70
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
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.
JohnnyD is offline  
Old 08-28-2009, 04:31 PM   #71
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
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...
scottw is offline  
Old 08-28-2009, 04:32 PM   #72
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
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
spence is offline  
Old 08-28-2009, 04:35 PM   #73
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyTuna View Post
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...
Ahhh...the old Col. Jessep argument. I'd note that at the end of "A Few Good Men" he does go to jail.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 08-28-2009, 04:39 PM   #74
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post


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

-spence

that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me Hot Bottom...I think I'm getting weepy
scottw is offline  
Old 08-28-2009, 05:41 PM   #75
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
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.

Last edited by detbuch; 08-28-2009 at 05:58 PM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 08-28-2009, 06:19 PM   #76
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
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.

Quote:
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

Quote:
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 is offline  
Old 08-28-2009, 06:25 PM   #77
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
.[/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 is offline  
Old 08-28-2009, 07:20 PM   #78
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
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.
detbuch is offline  
Old 08-28-2009, 08:35 PM   #79
TommyTuna
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 41
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.

TommyTuna is offline  
Old 08-28-2009, 11:14 PM   #80
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyTuna View Post
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 #^&#^&#^&#^&.
JohnnyD is offline  
Old 08-29-2009, 02:41 AM   #81
EarnedStripes44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North Cambridge, MA
Posts: 1,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
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.
EarnedStripes44 is offline  
Old 08-29-2009, 03:41 AM   #82
EarnedStripes44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North Cambridge, MA
Posts: 1,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
We do not "always" believe that the ends justify the means, but at some critical times, they very well may.
...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.
EarnedStripes44 is offline  
Old 08-29-2009, 07:27 AM   #83
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44 View Post
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
spence is offline  
Old 08-29-2009, 07:40 AM   #84
Duke41
got gas?
iTrader: (0)
 
Duke41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,716
Good morning warriors of the key board. Day 3.
Duke41 is offline  
Old 08-29-2009, 07:49 AM   #85
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke41 View Post
Good morning warriors of the key board. Day 3.
JohnnyD is offline  
Old 08-29-2009, 08:12 AM   #86
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
[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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.




Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
"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."

Quote:
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
spence is offline  
Old 08-29-2009, 08:45 AM   #87
Swimmer
Retired Surfer
iTrader: (0)
 
Swimmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sunset Grill
Posts: 9,511
Spence we were never weak before

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
This argument isn't about the timing of the release.

It's about the obvious duplicity that undermines our real objectives.

And for being weak, it takes a far stronger person to live by their own word.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
And no one ever found out about these interogations because at the end of the interogation they killed the interogee.

Swimmer a.k.a. YO YO MA
Serial Mailbox Killer/Seal Fisherman
Swimmer is offline  
Old 08-29-2009, 09:28 AM   #88
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swimmer View Post
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
spence is offline  
Old 08-29-2009, 10:20 AM   #89
Cool Beans
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Cool Beans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,044
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.
Cool Beans is offline  
Old 08-29-2009, 11:23 AM   #90
RIROCKHOUND
Also known as OAK
iTrader: (0)
 
RIROCKHOUND's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 10,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cool Beans View Post
Torture, even that like was done to John McCain seems far more humane than killing them on the battlefield.
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...

Bryan

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
RIROCKHOUND is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com