Torture Monkey stands firm

[Starfish]

I stated this in an earlier thread, but it bares repeating here: The reason Bush is still popular among certain people is that all you have to do is wave around a flag and a bible and they'll overlook your corruption and incompetence.

If this is directed towards me, you are way over-simplifying. My defense of Bush is against the rude disrespect I see towards our president. I don't believe in name-calling--it's immature and useless. I see his mistakes, like anyone else, but I cut him some slack because we are dealing with a new and different kind of enemy. If what he has done is illegal--then bring on the system. You know Congress would have impeached him if they had grounds. If you blame him for the deaths in the war, then you have to blame every president during any of our past wars, regardless of the party.

I see a lot of accusations, without substance. And you know that if there was evidence, Congress would have been all over it. I believe he is honestly trying to protect us, in spite of the grief he gets in return. Maybe his methods are wrong--I don't know. But I believe he's a decent man, with a tough job, making decisions most wouldn't have the guts to make. And basing those decisions on information that none of us here have access to.

 

[Father Heathen]

No, it was directed at Bush supporters in general, and it is the only sense I can make out of it. As for past wars, unlike the current farce, most of them were justified. And to be honest, I sincerely believe Bush is not worthy of my respect.

 

[Starfish]

The invasion had nothing to do with protecting our country, Starfish. It had to do with PNAC and oil, in my opinion. Iraq was no threat to the US and the Administration knew it.
As far as no more 9/11s. Do you know why we were attacked in the first place? Those responsible made their reasons quite clear in the international press, but America's press did not publish this. Most Americans have no, or completely incorrect, ideas of why we were attacked.

In re: national security. We are both militarily and economically weaker due to this "war." At the same time we've generated many more enemies and increased the threat of a repeat attack.

As for Bush's election, he did not win the popular vote, even despite massive fraud and vote-rigging on the part of the Republican Party. In the end, he was appointed by the courts.

I am not trying to insult or name call either you or Bush, but I suspect you are not aware of the many, serious crimes and usurpations that the Bush administration has commited over the past five or six years.

Of course it's about the oil. The oil gives them tremendous financial power. It's in our best interests that there is stability in those oil-laden countries. Until we can cut our dependence on it--which is a lot more complicated that most realize--we have to do what we can to keep things somewhat stable there. I'm sure most of us wish we could just pull out and let them just fight among themselves, make it or break it on their own, but eventually the fight will end up on our doorstep.

As for the election--it's long past time to get over it. I suspect the resentment towards him stems from the beginning and nothing he would ever do would have pleased you.

 

[Starfish]

No, it was directed at Bush supporters in general, and it is the only sense I can make out of it. As for past wars, unlike the current farce, most of them were justified. And to be honest, I sincerely believe Bush is not worthy of my respect.

And because we disagree with you, we are brainless fools sucked in by flags and Bibles?

 

[rheff78]

If you don't know what I'm talking about wouldn't you be better finding out about the UN before writing it off as a waste of time ?

Umm, no. Just because I'm not familiar with ONE topic in the course of the United Nations history doesn't mean that I can't make an educated assumption about the UN.

 

[Valjean]

If this is directed towards me, you are way over-simplifying. My defense of Bush is against the rude disrespect I see towards our president. I don't believe in name-calling--it's immature and useless. I see his mistakes, like anyone else, but I cut him some slack because we are dealing with a new and different kind of enemy. If what he has done is illegal--then bring on the system. You know Congress would have impeached him if they had grounds. If you blame him for the deaths in the war, then you have to blame every president during any of our past wars, regardless of the party.

I see a lot of accusations, without substance. And you know that if there was evidence, Congress would have been all over it. I believe he is honestly trying to protect us, in spite of the grief he gets in return. Maybe his methods are wrong--I don't know. But I believe he's a decent man, with a tough job, making decisions most wouldn't have the guts to make. And basing those decisions on information that none of us here have access to.

Congress is a pucillanimous lap-dog. It's abdicated the powers and function assigned it by the Constitution.

 

[Valjean]

Of course it's about the oil. The oil gives them tremendous financial power. It's in our best interests that there is stability in those oil-laden countries. Until we can cut our dependence on it--which is a lot more complicated that most realize--we have to do what we can to keep things somewhat stable there. I'm sure most of us wish we could just pull out and let them just fight among themselves, make it or break it on their own, but eventually the fight will end up on our doorstep.

As for the election--it's long past time to get over it. I suspect the resentment towards him stems from the beginning and nothing he would ever do would have pleased you.

We did not go in there to "stabilize" the region. It was already stable. We went in to take the oil for ourselves. This was all planned pre 9/11. Regions had already been assigned to BP, Exxon, &c.

As for resentment toward Bush, I'm aware of no particular animus at the beginning of his term. Perhaps if the administration had not been hijacked by the Neocons his would have been an uneventful administration.
9/11 provided the shock that allowed the Neocons to push PNAC foreward, and they wasted no time doing so.

 

[Autodidact]

First off, illegal war? Tell me how it's illegal. He saought Congressional approval for this action and he got it. There is nothing illegal about this war. Second, I think Fish is getting a bad rap here. I'm sure if there were another alternative then she would be for it. She's right about one thing, the United States is not going to be perfect in all the world's eyes, no matter what it does. We're caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Do we take the necessary steps to try and insure the secruity of the nation, or try to please everyone else and open us up to futher attacks? Alll you can do is make the best decision you think is right for the nation. And I put it to you again, can anyone think of an alternative?

Uh yeah, interrogation. Oh yeah, and actually pursuing the terrorists, not some dictator in another country who had nothing to do with it.

 

[Starfish]

It's a waste of time for the US to be in the UN. Just like the League of Nations, it has good intentions but no real power to do anything. I think it does help the smaller, poorer nations have a say in world affairs, but lacks any REAL power. Just my opinion.

Yes. The concept was good, but where is the power of the UN? What has it done?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course it's about the oil. The oil gives them tremendous financial power. It's in our best interests that there is stability in those oil-laden countries. Until we can cut our dependence on it--which is a lot more complicated that most realize--we have to do what we can to keep things somewhat stable there.

I think that it's fair to say that any person or group who advocates scrapping or renegotiating NAFTA, or any government that risks the treaty by choosing not to abide by it (coughsoftwoodcough) is not overly interested in maintaining stability of the United States' oil supply, since the treaty includes the provision that the US's largest supplier of oil (i.e. Canada) will not restrict the oil supply to the US unless it restricts the supply to its own citizens as well.

 

[KasMage]

If you can say Bush is the reason there hasn't been another 9/11, you have to blame him for the first one. If he has the control to stop terrorist attacks, then he pretty much dropped the ball in 2001.

Why is the War in Iraq being compared to World War I? I don't like merciless bombing more than anybody else, but you certainly can't call out Roosevelt for firebombing on anywhere near the same level you can call out Bush for torturing. First, Roosevelt didn't torture. The military hasn't ever allowed torture until now. Second, the War in Iraq doesn't even relatively measure up to World War II. The Japanese were a bit bigger of a fish than the Iraqis.

 

[Starfish]

If you can say Bush is the reason there hasn't been another 9/11, you have to blame him for the first one. If he has the control to stop terrorist attacks, then he pretty much dropped the ball in 2001.

Why is the War in Iraq being compared to World War I? I don't like merciless bombing more than anybody else, but you certainly can't call out Roosevelt for firebombing on anywhere near the same level you can call out Bush for torturing. First, Roosevelt didn't torture. The military hasn't ever allowed torture until now. Second, the War in Iraq doesn't even relatively measure up to World War II. The Japanese were a bit bigger of a fish than the Iraqis.

The responsibility of 9/11 falls on the previous administration as well. Would any president elected in 2000, been able to prevent it? Who knows?

Roosevelt was president in WWII, followed by Truman. Fire bombing and the bomb dropped on Japan caused far worse suffering than water boarding. (Has anyone ever died from it?) From what I've read, the military doesn't torture --it's illegal. The CIA does the water boarding, because they aren't subject to international military law. And the reason the CIA has been exempt, is because Al Quadea follows NO laws.

Do you allow a lesser number to suffer, to save a far greater number? If the US hadn't dropped the bomb on Japan, they'd have had to take the country inch by inch at the expense of thousands of more lives, American and Japanese. These are horrible decisions to have to make. In all logic, why would Bush advocate water boarding if it didn't produce results? What would he possibly have to gain by it?

 

[KasMage]

I'm not going to place any blame for 9/11 on Bill Clinton, because Bill Clinton actually tried to do something about Osama Bin Laden. Freezing assets, launching cruise missiles, embargoing Afghanistan; these are all things Bill Clinton did that George Bush didn't do. When George Bush entered office, he literally stopped investigations of Osama Bin Laden dead in their tracks. He thought Clinton blew it out of proportion. Good call, right?

And again, World War II and the War in Iraq do not in any way compare. You can argue that firebombing ended the war sooner. You cannot argue that water boarding does anything to get information from suspects. Very, very, very few people do, and the fact that the President believes it does not make it so. There are a lot of decisions that haven't produced results throughout every nation's history. Why would you think that a President would never make a mistake? He doesn't have anything to gain by it, but for some reason, he refuses to admit it doesn't work. Don't ask me why he thinks it works (even though there isn't a single documented case of it gathering useful information, even among the three individuals the government has officially admitted to water boarding). Maybe he just wants to produce the illusion of security that people get when they don't have any idea what water boarding has produced (or more accurately, hasn't produced). Or maybe he just flat out doesn't care. I don't know, but this isn't the first time he's made a decision that hasn't worked out.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I think that the people who what to justify the war In Iraq should be rounded up and ask them, "Are you willing to go to Iraq and fight?" If yes, give them a gun and ship them to Iraq. If no, ship them to Iraq without the gun.

 

[Father Heathen]

And because we disagree with you, we are brainless fools sucked in by flags and Bibles?

I wouldn't put it like that, but I think religion and general jingoism does play a huge part in swaying conservatives, to the point that some follow blindly without examining the facts. Again, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular here.

 

[Smoke]

In all logic, why would Bush advocate water boarding if it didn't produce results?

The fact that Bush does it is the only justification you need?

 

[Starfish]

The fact that Bush does it is the only justification you need?

 

[Father Heathen]

The fact that Bush does it is the only justification you need?

Well, he is a good Christian man and true American. What more do you need?

 

[Smoke]

Well, he is a good Christian man and true American. What more do you need?

I need a president who doesn't make Richard Nixon look like a grand old gent, for one thing, and one who thinks being a true American means upholding the Constitution, not the preachers. I'm funny that way.

 

[Father Heathen]

Bah, The Constitution just gets in the way of protecting freedoms.