Nancy Pelosi is such a POS

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: freegeeks

dude you clearly need a reality check. When it comes to security and boots on the ground it's the US and the western world who decides who lives or who dies.

The USA, France, UK, Germany... are all responsible for NOT doing anything about Darfur. The UN has no standing army. If the will is not there from the big powers, nothing is going to happen. It's all to easy to blame the UN while it's the rich western world that turns a blind eye. Everything else is just bs

I need no reality check. The UN has a security force, or the capacity to form a security force from member nations, to go stop genocide.

It seems every country likes to b1tch and moan about the imperialistic powers of the US, how we're the worlds traffic cop, how we blatantly bully other countries.

Well, Darfur has been a perfect opportunity for the vaunted UN to show exactly what their made of.

Where is the UN's security force - in appropriate numbers for the task at hand - in Darfur? How long has the UN been letting this go on?

Do not for a second start pointing fingers at the US in regards to Darfur. People b1tch that we went into Afghanistan, people b1tch that we overthrew Saddam, people fret that we'll go take on North Korea.

Well UN lovers, go look at all the butchered and maimed people in Darfur and you'll see exactly what happens when the US doesn't get involved and waits waits waits waits waits waits waits waits waits waits waits waits waits on the UN to do something.

The US should be running news on how the complete lack of action by the UN has allowed the genocide in Darfur to occur and continue. The UN...I burst out laughing just now...

Chuck

What part of the UN not being its own nation, having its own military, its own policies, but rather being a forum for actual nations to set policies, do you not understand?

(That's partly rhetorical, because the answer is, all of the above).

Where is OUR using our position at the UN to push for nations to join us in the effort you describe?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: ayabe

So I guess by your logic we will never deal with the fact that the Saudi's are the ones who financed and principally carried out 9/11 since it's not politically convenient. So we're waiting, and 50 years from now your grandchild is going to be making the same argument, well it's been 50 years already, why now?

You can't have it both ways, it's taken 92 years because the time is never right. We are still dealing with the aftershocks of WWI in this instance and many others every single day. Most of the problems we are dealing with in Iraq are also because of WWI.

But maybe you're right afterall, we do torture people and have secret prisons, so I guess it would just be symbolic and empty rhetoric. We don't hold those values anymore.

We will never directly deal with SA unless another attack (or few attacks) occur against us on the 9/11 scale because Yes, we are so dependant on them for oil. It's sad, but true. If SA was some sh1thole country that we had no dependance on, and we traced the 9/11 attackers back to that country, then we all know for a fact that country would have had the hurt locker put on it. In 100 years we still won't have b1tch slapped SA for 9/11, because that oil will still be flowing out the ground. When that stops, then maybe we'll do so. Until then, expect nothing to be said. You did notice though that for the first time, they cracked down on a bunch of their militants. Baby steps or symbolic gesture, good topic for debate...

Do we torture people? Probably. Do we get information we want out of them that we wouldn't otherwise get? Probably. Do we have secret prisons? Almost assuredly. Do we have secret prisons so we don't have to deal with groups like Human Rights Watch or the Red Cross, groups who's goal is not protecting the US but rather making sure no one gets cold or cuts and scrapes in the game of war and terrorism? Almost assuredly.

In reality, when it comes down to it, most Americans understand that bad things have to be done to bad people so bad things don't happen to civilians. It's only the dreamers and warped that think differently, and fortunately, they're not tasked with the job of keeping us safe.

None of this has to do with the fact that this symbolic gesture is being made to the grandkids and greatgrandkids of the people who were actually murdered, and is being done at a time that is far from our best interests militarily. So, if it's not to our best interests, who's it?

Chuck

Very well said.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: chucky2
Do we have secret prisons so we don't have to deal with groups like Human Rights Watch or the Red Cross, groups who's goal is not protecting the US but rather making sure no one gets cold or cuts and scrapes in the game of war and terrorism? Almost assuredly.

Watch for Chuck's next thread - the medical knowledge gained by Nazi experiments, the good news side the liberal media won't tell you!

How disgusting to dishonestly minimize the wrongs this way. Just despicable.

Such people degrade the US and remove the moral high ground from the US, making us the equal of or worse than many enemies.[/quote]

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Craig234

NOT trusting Pelosi over Bush is what would be amazing.

Don't believe for one second Pelosi would actually make a sacrifice on behalf of the country that wouldn't benefit her...

You sound like the typical fringe righty who throws around character assassination completely baselessly.

We have a track record o Bush evading putting himself in war - not only not going but taking up a spot from someone else by abusing political connections - in a war he *supported*. But you ignore that, and make these big claims about Pelos you have zero but 'too many beers redneck' style commentary for backing up. What a waste in a discussion.

You are not helping he nation or the world with such blind views. Bush has proven himself willing to deceive the public, to serve interests other than the public interest. He's aligned himself with the far right on foreign and domestic policy who have goals largely against the public interest, as reflected in the accelerating shift of wealth to the very top form his policies - though his victims overseas are paying red blood rather than green money for his policies.

Why is the right so in love with authoritarian figures, who score points not by good policy but simply be being authoritarian in tone?

I understand it somewhat in Russia; Germany has not been immune to it either, but here in the US, it's hard to understand the lack of rationality.

I don't trust either Craig234. But because Bush is POTUS, I'll bend further to give him the benefit of the doubt. That Bush is actually taking steps after 9/11 to change the ME - for long term benefit, not short term - is something I agree with. So I believe I understand why he's doing what he's doing. Do I agree the war has been handled right? No. The lack of another 100k troops and the complete lack of a ready to go infrastructure package for Afghanistan and Iraq are huge mistakes IMHO. Huge. They are what has allowed the Iraqi civilian population to focus on their sh1t situation and start getting petty, rather than prospering with their countrypeople. I don't blame the Afghani's for selling poppi, as they have little other sources of income.

Desperate people do desperate things...just look at the Katrina footage and accounts for a small taste of what it's like in these countries.

But I have no delusions on what Pelosi is about. And sh1t like this is exactly what I expect from her.

When she starts delivering actual product - not intentionally laced with items that have no business in these billls - on the huge major issues for Bush to look at, then I'll start changing my opinion of her.

Chuck

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: chucky2
Do we have secret prisons so we don't have to deal with groups like Human Rights Watch or the Red Cross, groups who's goal is not protecting the US but rather making sure no one gets cold or cuts and scrapes in the game of war and terrorism? Almost assuredly.

Watch for Chuck's next thread - the medical knowledge gained by Nazi experiments, the good news side the liberal media won't tell you!

How disgusting to dishonestly minimize the wrongs this way. Just despicable.

Such people degrade the US and remove the moral high ground from the US, making us the equal of or worse than many enemies.

[/quote]

wow. You are VERY VERY out of touch with reality of how the world works. It's ok to be a dreamer though. They have their place too

 

[Pabster]

Agree 100% with OP. Pelosi is a POS.

It isn't just this flap, it is the sum of her pathetic existence since ushering in "the most ethical Congress ever"...

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: ayabe

So I guess by your logic we will never deal with the fact that the Saudi's are the ones who financed and principally carried out 9/11 since it's not politically convenient. So we're waiting, and 50 years from now your grandchild is going to be making the same argument, well it's been 50 years already, why now?

You can't have it both ways, it's taken 92 years because the time is never right. We are still dealing with the aftershocks of WWI in this instance and many others every single day. Most of the problems we are dealing with in Iraq are also because of WWI.

But maybe you're right afterall, we do torture people and have secret prisons, so I guess it would just be symbolic and empty rhetoric. We don't hold those values anymore.

We will never directly deal with SA unless another attack (or few attacks) occur against us on the 9/11 scale because Yes, we are so dependant on them for oil. It's sad, but true. If SA was some sh1thole country that we had no dependance on, and we traced the 9/11 attackers back to that country, then we all know for a fact that country would have had the hurt locker put on it. In 100 years we still won't have b1tch slapped SA for 9/11, because that oil will still be flowing out the ground. When that stops, then maybe we'll do so. Until then, expect nothing to be said. You did notice though that for the first time, they cracked down on a bunch of their militants. Baby steps or symbolic gesture, good topic for debate...

Do we torture people? Probably. Do we get information we want out of them that we wouldn't otherwise get? Probably. Do we have secret prisons? Almost assuredly. Do we have secret prisons so we don't have to deal with groups like Human Rights Watch or the Red Cross, groups who's goal is not protecting the US but rather making sure no one gets cold or cuts and scrapes in the game of war and terrorism? Almost assuredly.

In reality, when it comes down to it, most Americans understand that bad things have to be done to bad people so bad things don't happen to civilians. It's only the dreamers and warped that think differently, and fortunately, they're not tasked with the job of keeping us safe.

None of this has to do with the fact that this symbolic gesture is being made to the grandkids and greatgrandkids of the people who were actually murdered, and is being done at a time that is far from our best interests militarily. So, if it's not to our best interests, who's it?

Chuck

The problem is that we are implicitely or explicitly supporting regimes/groups who are the antithesis of our core values.

You say it's necessary that we debase ourselves to the level of our enemy in order to defeat him in the name of security. Well that sir, is not an American value. Nor is holding people in Gitmo that we KNOW without a doubt were not in the Taliban or AQ but dare not release them out of fear of international embarrassment and scorn. So instead we just make them invisible.

What exactly has torture prevented? Nothing, all terror-thwarting triumphs have all been proven to be red herrings. There isn't a single shred of evidence that anything we have done at Gitmo or whatever secret bunker in Bulgaria has ever prevented anything. In fact, it's indisputable that torturing people usually ends up producing bad intelligence.

I'm not trying to derail the thread, but your "ends justify the means" argument is Cheney's modus operandi and whatever infinitely small and unprovable "victories" these tactics might offer us in the short term; they are dwarfed wholly and rendered moot by the long term damage caused to our reputation by our foolishness. Our grandkids are will be paying for our follies 50 years from now in spades.

In times of crises, our reputation and what we represent is what made people stand with us in the face of evil and tyranny. 20 years ago, almost everyone wanted to be our friend and at least not be our enemy. Well that is gone, and we may well find ourselves without any allies when the next time the chips are down.

One small baby step in the right direction towards redeeming ourselves in the world community is a small price to pay for having to move supplies in through Kuwait or where ever instead. Our long term security relies on our rep as the "good guys" and this trumps any short term disadvantages.

Something like 77% of the people of Turkey don't like us, so what's another 10%? They have laws on the books to jail people for going against the party line on this and journalists have been murdered for suggesting otherwise.

Also, as intimated earlier, Turkey needs our help getting in to the EU, if they want to play this game we can too. It's called diplomacy, something this Administration doesn't understand or believe in. As an aside, I agree with France and they shouldn't be allowed in, period.

One final point, Russia has acknowledged the genocide which makes us look even worse.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: chucky2

It in no way helps your case. The people who were killed are all dead. The kids of the people who were killed are all dead.

I fail to see your point here. This applies to Holocaust victims too.

This is simply a symbolic gesture that easily could have waited until Iraq calmed down and/or we weren't so dependant on Turkey.

Which will end when, 10 years from now? Are you starting to get it?

At 92 years, it's so long overdue as to be almost useless in its issuance. There is absolutely no difference in 92 years, 94 years, 96 years, or 98 years...it's all a stupidly long time to acknowledge something of such magnitude. To do it now though is a tatical mistake that will buy us nothing with Turkey who right now is helping us and showing some restraint with the Kurds.

Why, with everything we have going on in the ME now, would we pass a symbolic gesture for something that happened 92 years ago???

Absolutley F'ing dumb...just ineptly dumb....

Chuck

It has already been delayed for 4.5 years due to Iraq, and years before that due to strategic US air base locations in Turkey. Your contention that it happened "a long time ago" doesn't help your case; it helps mine. It delineates how long overdue the recognition of this horrible tradegy is. To minimize its impact is, really, to either be morally inept or simply willfully ignorant.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: chucky2
Do we have secret prisons so we don't have to deal with groups like Human Rights Watch or the Red Cross, groups who's goal is not protecting the US but rather making sure no one gets cold or cuts and scrapes in the game of war and terrorism? Almost assuredly.

Watch for Chuck's next thread - the medical knowledge gained by Nazi experiments, the good news side the liberal media won't tell you!

How disgusting to dishonestly minimize the wrongs this way. Just despicable.

Such people degrade the US and remove the moral high ground from the US, making us the equal of or worse than many enemies.

wow. You are VERY VERY out of touch with reality of how the world works. It's ok to be a dreamer though. They have their place too [/quote]

No, I'm not out of touch at all; I'm in touch with how the world works and with moral principles in issues of war.

But I understand that you feel less confused by believing that all the wrongs are somehow justified and needed. It's sad, because that's how evil actually happens.

I notice how Chucky 'defends' torture by saying it's not just for fun, but to get info. Oh, that's ok then! It's that CIA torture just for fun we need to ban.

It's interesting how similar the rationalizers of violence on 'our side' and on 'their side' can be. You would fit in well with the terrorists as one who argues with anyone raising doubts about their use of violence. You could be the enforcer who explains that the only thing the US understand is violence, and how if not for the terrorism, the US would be far more intrusive in the Middle East.

You need to develop your moral understanding of war, IMO. I can suggest some reading for you, for example a book by a war reporter from many wars who you would probably also claim doesn't understand war like you do, but won't waste the typing. You can pleasantly surprise me by asking for the title - I'd buy you a copy if you wanted.

 

[Lemon law]

The Chucky2 delusion is----None of this has to do with the fact that this symbolic gesture is being made to the grandkids and greatgrandkids of the people who were actually murdered, and is being done at a time that is far from our best interests militarily. So, if it's not to our best interests, who's it?

The delusion is that a policy based on moral depravity will in fact turn out best in the end. It usually does not end up working that way and chucky2 blindly assumes it does.
One look at Iraq should convince him otherwise but some people pay no attention to reality as they use deprave means to wear the self bestowed crown of morally superior.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234
When, exactly, is the 'right time' to recognize a genocide still denied by a government decades later? 62 years? 82 years, 1 month, and 11 days? 82 years, 1 month, and 13 days?

-snip-

My choice would be when it's actually happening. Then maybe try to stop it.

90 years later when no involved is still alive (unless they're something 106 yrs old.) makes zero sense. The Dems are always going on GWB alienating alies etc. So WTF'ing point of this grandstanding? Nothing righteous as some of you would like to make out. Why anger a needed allie? So we can look all moral and sh!t at their expense?

What's more pressing. Oh geez about dozen freakin things. Immigration policy & border control, Iraq, health care, SS, decaying infrastructure, crime & prison overcrowding, education, condition of national parks, lobbying & campaign reform, civil rights issues vis-a-vis FISA, a zillion things really.

I can't think of anything LESS important.

Fern

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Fern

What's more pressing. Oh geez about dozen freakin things. Immigration policy & border control, Iraq, health care, SS, decaying infrastructure, crime & prison overcrowding, education, condition of national parks, lobbying & campaign reform, civil rights issues vis-a-vis FISA, a zillion things really.

I can't think of anything LESS important.

Fern

That's not how Congress operates, though. And it's not how it should operate. Just because all those things you listed can be argued as more important, doesn't mean there isn't a constituency in the US that doesn't want to see this stance on denouncing and recognizing the Armenian genocide. Remember, this is a Congressional committee decision; Congressmen rely on their committees for accurate, expert information. Not everything is 100% politically motivated despite what a few other people in this thread will tell you.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: chucky2

Nancy and the Democrats could care one iota about the troops,

all they care about is their own jobs and getting a Democrat into the WH in '08 - that's it.

It is not the job of Nancy & the Democrats job to "care" about the troops at this point in time.

They are not the ones that put them in harms way.

It is your Traitor In Chief that did so.

Their job should be to look out for their jobs and a get a Democrat in the WH in '08 for the sake of the country and the world from out of the hands of GOP supporters like you.

LOL, and you think Billary and Obama have the balls to pull them out? They will do whatever their lobby tells them to do... if you think otherwise then you are as dumb as you post.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: chucky2
Do we have secret prisons so we don't have to deal with groups like Human Rights Watch or the Red Cross, groups who's goal is not protecting the US but rather making sure no one gets cold or cuts and scrapes in the game of war and terrorism? Almost assuredly.

Watch for Chuck's next thread - the medical knowledge gained by Nazi experiments, the good news side the liberal media won't tell you!

How disgusting to dishonestly minimize the wrongs this way. Just despicable.

Such people degrade the US and remove the moral high ground from the US, making us the equal of or worse than many enemies.

wow. You are VERY VERY out of touch with reality of how the world works. It's ok to be a dreamer though. They have their place too

No, I'm not out of touch at all; I'm in touch with how the world works and with moral principles in issues of war.

But I understand that you feel less confused by believing that all the wrongs are somehow justified and needed. It's sad, because that's how evil actually happens.

I notice how Chucky 'defends' torture by saying it's not just for fun, but to get info. Oh, that's ok then! It's that CIA torture just for fun we need to ban.

It's interesting how similar the rationalizers of violence on 'our side' and on 'their side' can be. You would fit in well with the terrorists as one who argues with anyone raising doubts about their use of violence. You could be the enforcer who explains that the only thing the US understand is violence, and how if not for the terrorism, the US would be far more intrusive in the Middle East.

You need to develop your moral understanding of war, IMO. I can suggest some reading for you, for example a book by a war reporter from many wars who you would probably also claim doesn't understand war like you do, but won't waste the typing. You can pleasantly surprise me by asking for the title - I'd buy you a copy if you wanted.[/quote]

the problem, Craig, is "moral" is an opinion. Moral to us is immoral to another. you know this though. We have tried to come to a concensus regarding the morality in war via the UN, but the fact is, and Im sure you've heard the saying, there are no rules in love and war. Nor should there be. It isnt a game of plasitc soldiers. The US, IMHO, fights about as morally as possible in a given situation. i.e. we dont intentially target civilians, we dont use elderly or kids as shields, etc. But war is war.

As far as torture is concerned...it is effective and it works. Unless you believe either we can coerce an enemy to give us information we want by having tea with them, or you believe we have no right to GET such information, either way, people crack under pressure. Sure it's ugly, but it works. Always? No. Most of the time? Yes.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: chucky2

Nancy and the Democrats could care one iota about the troops,

all they care about is their own jobs and getting a Democrat into the WH in '08 - that's it.

It is not the job of Nancy & the Democrats job to "care" about the troops at this point in time.

They are not the ones that put them in harms way.

It is your Traitor In Chief that did so.

Their job should be to look out for their jobs and a get a Democrat in the WH in '08 for the sake of the country and the world from out of the hands of GOP supporters like you.

LOL, and you think Billary and Obama have the balls to pull them out?

They will do whatever their lobby tells them to do...

if you think otherwise then you are as dumb as you post.

Well thanks for backing up what I say all the time how Corporations own the Government especially the Bigoil "Lobby".

Also thanks for being so honest and up front on how much you hate America. :thumbsup:

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Craig234

What part of the UN not being its own nation, having its own military, its own policies, but rather being a forum for actual nations to set policies, do you not understand?

(That's partly rhetorical, because the answer is, all of the above).

Where is OUR using our position at the UN to push for nations to join us in the effort you describe?

What part of this F'ing link don't you understand?

As for where the US position is? I hope our position is the UN gets non-US peacekeeping in there pronto. What our official position is, I have no idea. I just hope it doesn't involve the US committing any troops, logistical support, or materials to that effort.

As I said before: The attitude of so many around the world, and even here at home, is that the US is a bully, imperialistic, etc. So that they can taste the burden the US has in running around trying to nobly put out others fires (so to speak), I want these super noble anti-USisaBigBully people in these other nations to go have their countrypeople die, their resources depleted, their taxes raised, on behalf of the poor b@stards in Darfur.

That the UN isn't there in real force now for years, which is exactly why when all these people start whining about how the US is imperialistic, a bully, etc. I laugh because their countries don't even have the nuts to do what the US does day in and day out.

Chuck

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: chucky2

Nancy and the Democrats could care one iota about the troops,

all they care about is their own jobs and getting a Democrat into the WH in '08 - that's it.

It is not the job of Nancy & the Democrats job to "care" about the troops at this point in time.

They are not the ones that put them in harms way.

It is your Traitor In Chief that did so.

Their job should be to look out for their jobs and a get a Democrat in the WH in '08 for the sake of the country and the world from out of the hands of GOP supporters like you.

LOL, and you think Billary and Obama have the balls to pull them out?

They will do whatever their lobby tells them to do...

if you think otherwise then you are as dumb as you post.

Well thanks for backing up what I say all the time how Corporations own the Government especially the Bigoil "Lobby".

Also thanks for being so honest and up front on how much you hate America. :thumbsup:

dont forget your communist heroes are just as, if not moreso recently, guilty as those whom you say are corrupt

Shockingly, in the 2006 cycle, the top 20 Senate recipients of lobbyist donations are evenly split between Republicans and Democrats; a sign that lobbyists believe Democrats will have more power soon?

In the House, Republicans have four of the top five slots and 15 of the top 20 slots in donations for the 2006 cycle. Included are Tom DeLay, Roy Blunt, William Jefferson. See any connection between those four?

There are many, many more stats you can look at, many shocking in that Democrats receive contributions at nearly the same rates as Republicans. This may bode well for Democrats' hopes in November -- or it may show that Democrats are as corrupt as their Republican counterparts.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Anybody that thinks this gesture will restore the U.S. to the "moral high ground" in the eyes of the world is a fool.

GWB and co. have destroyed that illusion for a long time to come. Anybody that needs a list of how he has done it must live in a cave.

I also doubt that Pelosi has some inside track on foreign intel that makes her a some kind of Über foreign policy expert.

Foreign policy and diplomacy are a game of patience. You make moves based on an evaluation of what you might gain vs what you might lose at any given time. If Pelosi can explain how this resolution balances out in our favor, I have yet to hear it. And without significant new information to the contrary, I assume her to be a fool over this.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: chucky2

Nancy and the Democrats could care one iota about the troops,

all they care about is their own jobs and getting a Democrat into the WH in '08 - that's it.

It is not the job of Nancy & the Democrats job to "care" about the troops at this point in time.

They are not the ones that put them in harms way.

It is your Traitor In Chief that did so.

Their job should be to look out for their jobs and a get a Democrat in the WH in '08 for the sake of the country and the world from out of the hands of GOP supporters like you.

LOL, and you think Billary and Obama have the balls to pull them out?

They will do whatever their lobby tells them to do...

if you think otherwise then you are as dumb as you post.

Well thanks for backing up what I say all the time how Corporations own the Government especially the Bigoil "Lobby".

Also thanks for being so honest and up front on how much you hate America. :thumbsup:

dont forget your communist heroes are just as, if not moreso recently, guilty as those whom you say are corrupt

Shockingly, in the 2006 cycle, the top 20 Senate recipients of lobbyist donations are evenly split between Republicans and Democrats; a sign that lobbyists believe Democrats will have more power soon?

In the House, Republicans have four of the top five slots and 15 of the top 20 slots in donations for the 2006 cycle. Included are Tom DeLay, Roy Blunt, William Jefferson. See any connection between those four?

There are many, many more stats you can look at, many shocking in that Democrats receive contributions at nearly the same rates as Republicans. This may bode well for Democrats' hopes in November -- or it may show that Democrats are as corrupt as their Republican counterparts.

I'd say your reading comprehension sucks. 15 out of the top 20 slots in donations in the house were Nazis (I mean Republicans). And I noticed you left out the final line of the article: "Oh, but Jack Abramoff -- 100 percent of his contributions were to Republicans."

All of you whining right-wingers are POS. Nancy Pelosi is the first woman speaker of the house, and a patriot.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: ayabe

The problem is that we are implicitely or explicitly supporting regimes/groups who are the antithesis of our core values.

I agree with you to a certain extent. It's like the cops knowning low level drug dealers, but leaving them on the street so as to get at the bigger fish. It's not they don't want to bust them, but, they need them for a larger purpose. It's a b1tch of a choice though, I don't envy the people that have to make it...

You say it's necessary that we debase ourselves to the level of our enemy in order to defeat him in the name of security. Well that sir, is not an American value. Nor is holding people in Gitmo that we KNOW without a doubt were not in the Taliban or AQ but dare not release them out of fear of international embarrassment and scorn. So instead we just make them invisible.

What exactly has torture prevented? Nothing, all terror-thwarting triumphs have all been proven to be red herrings. There isn't a single shred of evidence that anything we have done at Gitmo or whatever secret bunker in Bulgaria has ever prevented anything. In fact, it's indisputable that torturing people usually ends up producing bad intelligence.

I didn't say when a normal soldier catches a normal insurgent they should take him into the back of a MRAP and start cutting his fingers off.

But if we capture a true high value target, sending in someone from the Human Rights Watch to ask them questions on what they know is pointless. Sending in a skilled interrogator to have the person being interrogated just waste that persons time because they know there's nothing the interrogator can do to get information out of him is pointless. But sending a high value detainie to a place where we can extract meaningful information out of them by less savory means: I say do it. That person has either done, or planned to, conspire against the US to kill US citizens. You're going to sit there and say if I kidnapped your family and they were doing to die in a couple of days if I didn't talk, that you'd want Human Rights Watch there and someone who just asked me nicely where they were? Get F'ing real. You'd be looking for the meanest looking sargent, bringing in the Sodium P., and laying out the pliers, knives, and other stuff for me to see that you all meant business and this wasn't an ice cream social.

I'm not trying to derail the thread, but your "ends justify the means" argument is Cheney's modus operandi and whatever infinitely small and unprovable "victories" these tactics might offer us in the short term; they are dwarfed wholly and rendered moot by the long term damage caused to our reputation by our foolishness. Our grandkids are will be paying for our follies 50 years from now in spades.

That you will never know the true victories because they're kept secret so as to not blow the value of the intelligence is ironic. I find it laughable that you think other countries professional intelligence agencies won't go all the way to collect intelligence when the chips are down...as if the US is the only one that does it. The truth is they all do it because in the end it's effective and relatively quick. That it makes for good media coverage (because, ratings - not security - are what's important afterall, Right?) and turns the average persons stomach are unfortunate by-products.

In times of crises, our reputation and what we represent is what made people stand with us in the face of evil and tyranny. 20 years ago, almost everyone wanted to be our friend and at least not be our enemy. Well that is gone, and we may well find ourselves without any allies when the next time the chips are down.

One small baby step in the right direction towards redeeming ourselves in the world community is a small price to pay for having to move supplies in through Kuwait or where ever instead. Our long term security relies on our rep as the "good guys" and this trumps any short term disadvantages.

Reality check!!! Who stands with us in "times of crises"??? In Korea, which countries helped us out? In Vietnam, which other countries helped us try and prevent Communism from taking over that country (after France left)? Somalia? Wow, I know, Gulf War 1! Oh, that's because of the oil (gee, just what they accuse use for in GW2, how ironic). OK, a true US is directly attacked so the world will come help: 9/11. Lets see, which EU countries, China, and/or Russia went and spanked SA for us? Wait!?!?! None?!?! OK, well, surely Afghanistan...OMG, None there either?!!? Yeah, a super amount of help we get from the rest of the world. I'm glad they help us so much when it'll take real sacrifice, sure glad we don't always have to go it alone... :roll:

That you think a recognition of a genocide that occurred an unbelievably long 92 years ago is needed now when we actually do need cooperation from Turkey is just amazing. That you think the rest of the world gives two sh1ts about it is even more amazing.

Something like 77% of the people of Turkey don't like us, so what's another 10%? They have laws on the books to jail people for going against the party line on this and journalists have been murdered for suggesting otherwise.

Also, as intimated earlier, Turkey needs our help getting in to the EU, if they want to play this game we can too. It's called diplomacy, something this Administration doesn't understand or believe in. As an aside, I agree with France and they shouldn't be allowed in, period.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other on this...it doesn't really matter if the Turk populations doesn't like us...for the time being, we need their government to allow us of their country for where our concentration should be: Iraq/WoT et al.

One final point, Russia has acknowledged the genocide which makes us look even worse.

Yeah, Russia acknowledging it makes us look so super bad...LOL, okey dokey...

Chuck

 

[First]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Craig234

What part of the UN not being its own nation, having its own military, its own policies, but rather being a forum for actual nations to set policies, do you not understand?

(That's partly rhetorical, because the answer is, all of the above).

Where is OUR using our position at the UN to push for nations to join us in the effort you describe?

What part of this F'ing link don't you understand?

As for where the US position is? I hope our position is the UN gets non-US peacekeeping in there pronto. What our official position is, I have no idea. I just hope it doesn't involve the US committing any troops, logistical support, or materials to that effort.

As I said before: The attitude of so many around the world, and even here at home, is that the US is a bully, imperialistic, etc. So that they can taste the burden the US has in running around trying to nobly put out others fires (so to speak), I want these super noble anti-USisaBigBully people in these other nations to go have their countrypeople die, their resources depleted, their taxes raised, on behalf of the poor b@stards in Darfur.

That the UN isn't there in real force now for years, which is exactly why when all these people start whining about how the US is imperialistic, a bully, etc. I laugh because their countries don't even have the nuts to do what the US does day in and day out.

Chuck

Oy.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: marincounty



I'd say your reading comprehension sucks. 15 out of the top 20 slots in donations in the house were Nazis (I mean Republicans). And I noticed you left out the final line of the article: "Oh, but Jack Abramoff -- 100 percent of his contributions were to Republicans."

All of you whining right-wingers are POS. Nancy Pelosi is the first woman speaker of the house, and a patriot.

I'd say the same. Did you read the part where it says until 2006? Did your eyes fail you at that point where it said "in the 2006 cycle, the top 20 Senate recipients of lobbyist donations are evenly split between Republicans and Democrats"

Both parties are guilty. BOTH.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: chucky2

Nancy and the Democrats could care one iota about the troops,

all they care about is their own jobs and getting a Democrat into the WH in '08 - that's it.

It is not the job of Nancy & the Democrats job to "care" about the troops at this point in time.

They are not the ones that put them in harms way.

It is your Traitor In Chief that did so.

Their job should be to look out for their jobs and a get a Democrat in the WH in '08 for the sake of the country and the world from out of the hands of GOP supporters like you.

LOL, and you think Billary and Obama have the balls to pull them out?

They will do whatever their lobby tells them to do...

if you think otherwise then you are as dumb as you post.

Well thanks for backing up what I say all the time how Corporations own the Government especially the Bigoil "Lobby".

Also thanks for being so honest and up front on how much you hate America. :thumbsup:

dont forget your communist heroes are just as, if not moreso recently, guilty as those whom you say are corrupt

Shockingly, in the 2006 cycle, the top 20 Senate recipients of lobbyist donations are evenly split between Republicans and Democrats; a sign that lobbyists believe Democrats will have more power soon?

In the House, Republicans have four of the top five slots and 15 of the top 20 slots in donations for the 2006 cycle. Included are Tom DeLay, Roy Blunt, William Jefferson. See any connection between those four?

There are many, many more stats you can look at, many shocking in that Democrats receive contributions at nearly the same rates as Republicans. This may bode well for Democrats' hopes in November -- or it may show that Democrats are as corrupt as their Republican counterparts.

I'd say your reading comprehension sucks. 15 out of the top 20 slots in donations in the house were Nazis (I mean Republicans). And I noticed you left out the final line of the article: "Oh, but Jack Abramoff -- 100 percent of his contributions were to Republicans."

All of you whining right-wingers are POS. Nancy Pelosi is the first woman speaker of the house, and a patriot.

A patriot? hahahahha dude you need to read up on public records for her. She has voted for nearly every tax cut for the wealthy-because she and her husband are real estate tycoons. Shit they own several multimillion dollar estates, a wine vinyard, a private golf club...and more. It's all public record and was publicized during her campaign. Tell us again how she represents and understands the common man?

Oh and lobbyists? LOL In November of 1995, Rep. Pelosi voted against a provision "to prohibit registered lobbyists from giving gifts to members, officers, or employees of the House and Senate," and was joined by the number-two Democrat in the House, Steny Hoyer

Please. She is as corrupt as they come.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Craig234

No, I'm not out of touch at all; I'm in touch with how the world works and with moral principles in issues of war.

But I understand that you feel less confused by believing that all the wrongs are somehow justified and needed. It's sad, because that's how evil actually happens.

I notice how Chucky 'defends' torture by saying it's not just for fun, but to get info. Oh, that's ok then! It's that CIA torture just for fun we need to ban.

First, I never said torture is "just for fun". Ever. Either go back and re-read what I said or stop putting words in my mouth.

Your whole last sentence here is you making an inference to something I never said. Nice job at distortion, unfortunately it didn't work.

It's interesting how similar the rationalizers of violence on 'our side' and on 'their side' can be. You would fit in well with the terrorists as one who argues with anyone raising doubts about their use of violence. You could be the enforcer who explains that the only thing the US understand is violence, and how if not for the terrorism, the US would be far more intrusive in the Middle East.

The difference is we torture as a last measure on high value targets only (unless a mistake is made or we have people going rogue), whereas the terrorists just kill whoever they want, when they want, however they want. I love how you lump us in with them, thereby inferring we're equal when in fact, we are lightyears ahead of the other side in humane treatment of prisoners. That the US sucks up violence, insults, and ill will to our civilian population, and it takes events like Libya shooting down an airliner and 9/11 to actually provoke a more than words response from us is telling. Again though, you infer we're the same as the other side because we're finally driven to do so. What an apologist you are Craig...if you're white do you also feel responsibility to apologize to blacks because of slavery? I think the answer will be Yes from you... isgust;

You need to develop your moral understanding of war, IMO. I can suggest some reading for you, for example a book by a war reporter from many wars who you would probably also claim doesn't understand war like you do, but won't waste the typing. You can pleasantly surprise me by asking for the title - I'd buy you a copy if you wanted.

Nice elitist approach there....unless you're the reporter in question, or the reporter covered the ME, I don't care much what his/her views are. Ground war against a clear direct uniformed enemy that only occurs in other countries is a far cry different from combatants dressed and indistinguishable as civilians except for the acts they were caught committing. That some of these same high value combatants have a high degree of likelihood to possess information that will lead to the prevention of civilians being harmed just makes your argument even less realistic and more myopic...

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The Chucky2 delusion is----None of this has to do with the fact that this symbolic gesture is being made to the grandkids and greatgrandkids of the people who were actually murdered, and is being done at a time that is far from our best interests militarily. So, if it's not to our best interests, who's it?

The delusion is that a policy based on moral depravity will in fact turn out best in the end. It usually does not end up working that way and chucky2 blindly assumes it does.
One look at Iraq should convince him otherwise but some people pay no attention to reality as they use deprave means to wear the self bestowed crown of morally superior.

Congratulations. Basically nothing in your post had anything to do with what you quoted in mine.

Chuck