Troop surge is working

M.Dancer · April 3, 2007

There have been more Canadian and American Nazi's than there were German Nazi's ---

have you all forgotten William Beattie?

even in the 30's and 40's there were German, Brazilian, Chilean, Spanish, Polish, Serbian, Turk, Italian ... even French Nazi's -- read your history

Guthrie,

What are you smoking and can I have some????

The nazi's were German pal, the arian super race. There were several people that joined the SS, and fought with them yes. The last defenders of Berlin in 1945 were French nazis.

People from Brazil are not strpping bombs to themselves and blowing up markets, Danish people are not driving car loads of explosives onto military convoys. Buddist monks are not flyng airplanes into buildings. Your arrguments here make about as much sense as someone in 1940 saying we should not attack or resist Germany because they are not nazis, they are not gassing people.

Another point, you would take your family to Yeman, Syria, and Iran on vacation, good when do you leave:) Of course you would because if anything happened to you, we would all see you on TV crying and whining about how the Canadian gov't should come and save you.....

Like I said, read your history. Wise up a little. Maybe quit such ugly, bigotted and misinformed beliefs.

Like I said, Woody can't back up his absurd claims....with good reason too!

Maybe I should ask figleaf if s/he will be reporting this kind of language......

M.Dancer · April 3, 2007

Woody, considering reading the rules here.........

RESEARCH YOUR POST
If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc). It is also important to structure your post in a way that everyone can understand. That means writing complete sentences and paragraphs with the appropriate grammar. If for some reason, you enjoy writing long confusing sentences and paragraphs riddled with poor grammar and spelling mistakes, your post, and therefore your opinions, will likely be discarded. Therefore, it is in your best interest to make sure that your post includes sufficient sources and contains a well-researched and well-organized argument.

Guthrie · April 3, 2007

There have been more Canadian and American Nazi's than there were German Nazi's ---

have you all forgotten William Beattie?

even in the 30's and 40's there were German, Brazilian, Chilean, Spanish, Polish, Serbian, Turk, Italian ... even French Nazi's -- read your history

Guthrie,

What are you smoking and can I have some????

The nazi's were German pal, the arian super race. There were several people that joined the SS, and fought with them yes. The last defenders of Berlin in 1945 were French nazis.

People from Brazil are not strpping bombs to themselves and blowing up markets, Danish people are not driving car loads of explosives onto military convoys. Buddist monks are not flyng airplanes into buildings. Your arrguments here make about as much sense as someone in 1940 saying we should not attack or resist Germany because they are not nazis, they are not gassing people.

Another point, you would take your family to Yeman, Syria, and Iran on vacation, good when do you leave:) Of course you would because if anything happened to you, we would all see you on TV crying and whining about how the Canadian gov't should come and save you.....

Like I said, read your history. Wise up a little. Maybe quit such ugly, bigotted and misinformed beliefs.

and whatever you're smoking, just say no! It could be what's gotten your brain so fuzzy

M.Dancer · April 3, 2007

There have been more Canadian and American Nazi's than there were German Nazi's ---

have you all forgotten William Beattie?

even in the 30's and 40's there were German, Brazilian, Chilean, Spanish, Polish, Serbian, Turk, Italian ... even French Nazi's -- read your history

Guthrie,

What are you smoking and can I have some????

The nazi's were German pal, the arian super race. There were several people that joined the SS, and fought with them yes. The last defenders of Berlin in 1945 were French nazis.

People from Brazil are not strpping bombs to themselves and blowing up markets, Danish people are not driving car loads of explosives onto military convoys. Buddist monks are not flyng airplanes into buildings. Your arrguments here make about as much sense as someone in 1940 saying we should not attack or resist Germany because they are not nazis, they are not gassing people.

Another point, you would take your family to Yeman, Syria, and Iran on vacation, good when do you leave:) Of course you would because if anything happened to you, we would all see you on TV crying and whining about how the Canadian gov't should come and save you.....

Like I said, read your history. Wise up a little. Maybe quit such ugly, bigotted and misinformed beliefs.

and whatever you're smoking, just say no! It could be what's gotten your brain so fuzzy

RESEARCH YOUR POST
If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc). It is also important to structure your post in a way that everyone can understand. That means writing complete sentences and paragraphs with the appropriate grammar. If for some reason, you enjoy writing long confusing sentences and paragraphs riddled with poor grammar and spelling mistakes, your post, and therefore your opinions, will likely be discarded. Therefore, it is in your best interest to make sure that your post includes sufficient sources and contains a well-researched and well-organized argument.

AndrewL · April 5, 2007

ho hum......Given that thereare laws regarding warfare, and given that you seem to be oblivious to them,regarding all warfare, lawful and unlawful as illegal, why do you bother debating an issue when you clearly ignore the parameters of the debate?

Wow, you cant honestly be this ignorant. Must be willful ignorance....

A

Guthrie · April 5, 2007

ho hum......Given that thereare laws regarding warfare, and given that you seem to be oblivious to them,regarding all warfare, lawful and unlawful as illegal, why do you bother debating an issue when you clearly ignore the parameters of the debate?

Wow, you cant honestly be this ignorant. Must be willful ignorance....

A

I think the psychological term is, "cognitive dissonance."

M.Dancer · April 5, 2007

ho hum......Given that thereare laws regarding warfare, and given that you seem to be oblivious to them,regarding all warfare, lawful and unlawful as illegal, why do you bother debating an issue when you clearly ignore the parameters of the debate?

Wow, you cant honestly be this ignorant. Must be willful ignorance....

A

Good comeback. Have figleaf report you, okay?

AndrewL · April 5, 2007

ho hum......Given that thereare laws regarding warfare, and given that you seem to be oblivious to them,regarding all warfare, lawful and unlawful as illegal, why do you bother debating an issue when you clearly ignore the parameters of the debate?

Wow, you cant honestly be this ignorant. Must be willful ignorance....

A

Good comeback. Have figleaf report you, okay?

Comeback? Just stating the obvious.

The obvious fact in question is your inability to recognize that you provided a definition of terror where terrorism is OK as long as it is deemed legal (non-criminal) terror by whatever institution. If you cant see the bullshit and moral depravity in that type of definition you are either not very bright (something that is becoming clearer to me), or you are just willfully being stupid, for whatever childish reason... ***Yawn***

Andrew

ScottSA · April 5, 2007

Comeback? Just stating the obvious.
The obvious fact in question is your inability to recognize that you provided a definition of terror where terrorism is OK as long as it is deemed legal (non-criminal) terror by whatever institution. If you cant see the bullshit and moral depravity in that type of definition you are either not very bright (something that is becoming clearer to me), or you are just willfully being stupid, for whatever childish reason... ***Yawn***

Andrew

But that's the way the world works, Andrew. People make laws, and then actions are judged against those laws. One of the laws says that combatants attacking other combatants is an act of war, and that combatants attacking civilians is an act of terrorism. There's a funtional and legal difference between me attacking a biker who is trying to kill me and my family, and me laying about a 90 year old lady with a tire iron because I'd like her purse, don't you agree? It's not a great leap to expand that analogy into armed combatants vs unarmed civilians, and in any event that's what greater minds than ours have already done.

Things are a bit more complicated out there in the big wide world than they may seem to people sitting in dorm, smoking a doob and pontificating that "that's not cool, man".

Liam · April 5, 2007

But that's the way the world works, Andrew. People make laws, and then actions are judged against those laws. One of the laws says that combatants attacking other combatants is an act of war, and that combatants attacking civilians is an act of terrorism. There's a funtional and legal difference between me attacking a biker who is trying to kill me and my family, and me laying about a 90 year old lady with a tire iron because I'd like her purse, don't you agree? It's not a great leap to expand that analogy into armed combatants vs unarmed civilians, and in any event that's what greater minds than ours have already done.
Things are a bit more complicated out there in the big wide world than they may seem to people sitting in dorm, smoking a doob and pontificating that "that's not cool, man".

Wow... a quote of yours I actually agree with.

But now here's the rub... what about people detained in Afghanistan who were there defending the Taliban, the seated government? If they were there as combatants and were captured as combatants (not the ones there attending terrorist training camps), and shipped of to Guantanamo, shouldn't they be afforded the same Geneva Covention rights the US gave to captured Viet Cong? How about Iraqi insurgents who, unlike the factional militias targeting civilians, are conducting (what they see as) a guerilla warfare against foreign invaders. Should they get captured, shouldn't they be entitled to Geneva Convention rights (e.g., no torture) or do they deserve Abu Ghraib?

bush_cheney2004 · April 5, 2007

But now here's the rub... what about people detained in Afghanistan who were there defending the Taliban, the seated government? If they were there as combatants and were captured as combatants (not the ones there attending terrorist training camps), and shipped of to Guantanamo, shouldn't they be afforded the same Geneva Covention rights the US gave to captured Viet Cong? How about Iraqi insurgents who, unlike the factional militias targeting civilians, are conducting (what they see as) a guerilla warfare against foreign invaders. Should they get captured, shouldn't they be entitled to Geneva Convention rights (e.g., no torture) or do they deserve Abu Ghraib?

They deserve Abu Ghraib sans illegal torture. Legal "torture" is fine (sensory and sleep depravation, psy ops, Fruit Loops, etc.) If not lawful combatants, they deserve 'Gitmo and military tribunal (Geneva Convention III/IV).

ScottSA · April 5, 2007

But that's the way the world works, Andrew. People make laws, and then actions are judged against those laws. One of the laws says that combatants attacking other combatants is an act of war, and that combatants attacking civilians is an act of terrorism. There's a funtional and legal difference between me attacking a biker who is trying to kill me and my family, and me laying about a 90 year old lady with a tire iron because I'd like her purse, don't you agree? It's not a great leap to expand that analogy into armed combatants vs unarmed civilians, and in any event that's what greater minds than ours have already done.
Things are a bit more complicated out there in the big wide world than they may seem to people sitting in dorm, smoking a doob and pontificating that "that's not cool, man".

Wow... a quote of yours I actually agree with.

But now here's the rub... what about people detained in Afghanistan who were there defending the Taliban, the seated government? If they were there as combatants and were captured as combatants (not the ones there attending terrorist training camps), and shipped of to Guantanamo, shouldn't they be afforded the same Geneva Covention rights the US gave to captured Viet Cong? How about Iraqi insurgents who, unlike the factional militias targeting civilians, are conducting (what they see as) a guerilla warfare against foreign invaders. Should they get captured, shouldn't they be entitled to Geneva Convention rights (e.g., no torture) or do they deserve Abu Ghraib?

Well, that is a bit of a rub, which gets much less frictive once you start excluding all the folks who were in fact fighting for the sitting government. But here's the rub to your rub, and that's the fact that anyone shipped to Gitmo from Afghanistan is there not because they heroically defended their homeland against the big nasty invader, but because they are suspected of involvement in terrorist activity. I know that there are some unclear categories out there in the grey area between terrorist and enemy POW, but my understanding is that those prisoners are presumed to be terrorists rather than POWs, and they are the ones at Gitmo. I don't know what the situation is with Abu Griab; I don't know what the status of the inmates is, nor why they have the status they have. The US didn't bother taking a lot of POWs after the initial invasion: those are the folks with very clear POW status. What I do know is this, however. If you trace back each and every prisoner, there is a status and a reason for that status, under law. The US is a nation under rule of law, as much as some would like to think it's not.

Canadian Blue · April 6, 2007

Well, that is a bit of a rub, which gets much less frictive once you start excluding all the folks who were in fact fighting for the sitting government. But here's the rub to your rub, and that's the fact that anyone shipped to Gitmo from Afghanistan is there not because they heroically defended their homeland against the big nasty invader, but because they are suspected of involvement in terrorist activity.

Suspected, so that could lead to people who may not be terrorists being sent to Gitmo with no legal rights.

I know that there are some unclear categories out there in the grey area between terrorist and enemy POW, but my understanding is that those prisoners are presumed to be terrorists rather than POWs, and they are the ones at Gitmo. I don't know what the situation is with Abu Griab; I don't know what the status of the inmates is, nor why they have the status they have.

They are only presumed to be terrorists, and there have been cases when people who were not involved with terrorism got sent to Gitmo. At the very least America should be allowing these guys to have legal counsel, and should be treating them humanely.

What I do know is this, however. If you trace back each and every prisoner, there is a status and a reason for that status, under law. The US is a nation under rule of law, as much as some would like to think it's not.

They have a pretty funny way of showing it.

bush_cheney2004 · April 6, 2007

They have a pretty funny way of showing it.

No funnier than imprisonment without trial with Canadian Security Certificates, only recently challenged in court.

ScottSA · April 6, 2007

Well, that is a bit of a rub, which gets much less frictive once you start excluding all the folks who were in fact fighting for the sitting government. But here's the rub to your rub, and that's the fact that anyone shipped to Gitmo from Afghanistan is there not because they heroically defended their homeland against the big nasty invader, but because they are suspected of involvement in terrorist activity.

Suspected, so that could lead to people who may not be terrorists being sent to Gitmo with no legal rights.

I know that there are some unclear categories out there in the grey area between terrorist and enemy POW, but my understanding is that those prisoners are presumed to be terrorists rather than POWs, and they are the ones at Gitmo. I don't know what the situation is with Abu Griab; I don't know what the status of the inmates is, nor why they have the status they have.

They are only presumed to be terrorists, and there have been cases when people who were not involved with terrorism got sent to Gitmo. At the very least America should be allowing these guys to have legal counsel, and should be treating them humanely.

What I do know is this, however. If you trace back each and every prisoner, there is a status and a reason for that status, under law. The US is a nation under rule of law, as much as some would like to think it's not.

They have a pretty funny way of showing it.

I'm not feeding the troll this time.

Liam · April 6, 2007

They deserve Abu Ghraib sans illegal torture. Legal "torture" is fine (sensory and sleep depravation, psy ops, Fruit Loops, etc.) If not lawful combatants, they deserve 'Gitmo and military tribunal (Geneva Convention III/IV).

What is "legal" torture? I'm seriously asking in a non-ironic, non-cynical way. What makes torture legal? By what legal code, by what moral code is torture "legal"?

Let's dispense with the "24" notions of obtaining reliable information under duress of the ticking bomb in the local daycare center, because most cases where the government has crossed the line have been in rather pedestrian cases of wrong place, wrong time. But even if not, if torture was a reliable way of getting good intel -- and all indications are that the tortured will tell his tormenter anything to stop the abuse -- can it ever be legal (in a just society) and is it ever moral? Is it something Jesus would condone? ("... what you do to the least of my brothers, you do unto me...")

bush_cheney2004 · April 6, 2007

What is "legal" torture? I'm seriously asking in a non-ironic, non-cynical way. What makes torture legal? By what legal code, by what moral code is torture "legal"?
Let's dispense with the "24" notions of obtaining reliable information under duress of the ticking bomb in the local daycare center, because most cases where the government has crossed the line have been in rather pedestrian cases of wrong place, wrong time. But even if not, if torture was a reliable way of getting good intel -- and all indications are that the tortured will tell his tormenter anything to stop the abuse -- can it ever be legal (in a just society) and is it ever moral? Is it something Jesus would condone? ("... what you do to the least of my brothers, you do unto me...")

Jesus? Are you serious? Jesus is still milking torture to this day (why do they call it Good Friday?).

Of course it can be legal and effective. There are all kinds of environmental and psychological methods that many consider to be "torture", including taking away cable TV in a cell!

Reliable intel? Gotta take the good with the bad. Better than none.

Guthrie · April 6, 2007

There is no,

moral code {in which} torture is "legal"?

there is a utilitarian code in which it would be perfectly legal at the point where it's overall benefit is greater than it's overall cost

there are a number of credos that allow any and all acts - capitalism is among them -

none have any claim to morality or moral high ground AND allow torture

Liam · April 6, 2007

Torture has been shown time and again to be the least reliable way of getting good intel. Most victims of torture simply want the beatings to stop and are willing to say whatever it takes to make them stop. Torture simply reinforces the notion the torturer already has in that he will not stop till the prisoner confesses to what the torturer already "knows". It is abosultely unreliable as a means of routine intel gathering.

On top of that, torture entirely undermines the West's "soft" power. Prior to abuses by the Bush Administration at Guantanamo and Aby Ghraib and elsewhere (secret prisons in eastern Europe, etc.), the US had quite a bit of *moral* influence in the world. The Bush cronies have frittered that away by being cowboys and torture junkies and they have entirely undermined the US in terms of moral authority in the world.

I love the US, my home country -- at least how it used to be -- but I've got to be honest when I say that if the Iranians had tortured those British soldiers till they made false statements, I'd be equally angry at the Bush administration for legitimizing torture in such a way that even the most vile of out enemies are immune to criticism. Bush & Co have made torture the coin of the realm. I have no illuions that some lone wolves in prior administrations have not acted like angels, but the Bush folks have made torture a #1 priority in terms of foreign policy. That is their legacy and that is their shame. Ordinarily, we would have prided ourselves at being better people. The Bush approach is that we are no better. It's sad, actually. But what's worse is the impact the administration's actions have on real men and women in the field of operation. I only hope the soldiers who are captured in the years between now and the time when we un-do the Bush damage have captors who are more forgiving than we've been.

In the past it was fairly easy to be proud to be an American, mostly because we were a nation that both said and acted in a way that put rogue nations on notice that we were better. For the most part, we've now cowered to their level. It's utterly shameful and I can't help but think that there's a tight little corner in hell reserved fir Bush, Cheney and all their enablers.

bush_cheney2004 · April 6, 2007

....On top of that, torture entirely undermines the West's "soft" power. Prior to abuses by the Bush Administration at Guantanamo and Aby Ghraib and elsewhere (secret prisons in eastern Europe, etc.), the US had quite a bit of *moral* influence in the world. The Bush cronies have frittered that away by being cowboys and torture junkies and they have entirely undermined the US in terms of moral authority in the world.

Study some more history and Bush will become a mere piker in the US "torture" hall of fame. The US is not the world's moral authority, it it a nation state that acts in self interest both domestically and internationally.

Even the loopiest left wingnut can cite chapter and verse on the former School of the Americas (Ft. Benning GA) training in torture.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1664174,00.html

Hell, even Canada had a go at torturing and killing Somalis. Oh my!

Hate Bush's policies all you wish, but stop pretending the USA has been the moral authority on torture.

Today we get to torture Jesus Christ again so we can get chocolate bunnies on Sunday. What a concept!

Liam · April 6, 2007

So you're actually in favor of torture, then. That's fine if you have the courage to own up to being fine with pulling fingernails off adolescents and depriving suspects of both humane conditions and legal counsel. Own it with pride.

I have no doubts the US has used torture in its history, but what is shocking to me is the cavalier attitude that GOP and Bush sympathizers have about it. (Particularly among those who are self-proclaimed Christians -- need I remind them of the dehumanizing torture of Jesus this time of the year?)

Historically, even the most jaded US politician or goverment lawyer disavowed torture -- it was something bad people did -- and that mystique was part of the US's "global brand": unlike Pakistan, we don't torture people, we believe people have worth and shoud be afforded civil rights.

*In practice* in the dark corridors of the CIA, I am sure a certain degree of torture happened, but *none* of it was authorized by law, none of it was publicly known, and if the fruits of that dark place were ever made public by government leaks, the practitioners of such acts were, at least metaphorically, hung out to dry.

The problem with this administration is that if they have erased the concept that we are better than our enemies. They proudly wear torture on their sleeves like it is some litmus test for patriotism... what do you mean we shouldn't waterboard suspects -- are you un-American?!?!

This is the reality of the times we live in. We're not even talking about torture of the guilty, but the torture of the suspects, the people against whom the state hasn't even acquired the basis of incarceration and accusation. I say if we're the better country, let's try the accused based on the evidence we've acquired through legal and civilized western means. If we're so convinced someone is guilty of a crime, let's put forth the evidence and have done with it. Some bad people will slip through the system, no doubt, but more iinocent people will escape the hell the Bush folks have designed for them. And our national standing will benefit more than it would if we kept practicing in the Khmer Rouge-like practices of waterboarding. I guess I am just more optimistic about America's future than someone who thinks we ought not be better than our opponents.

But if it comes down to it and somethig terrible happens, I can live with the consequences should my plan fall short. I cannot live with the consequences of the Bush plan should it come to fruition.

Guthrie · April 6, 2007

Torture, is the tool of cowards.

bush_cheney2004 · April 6, 2007

But if it comes down to it and somethig terrible happens, I can live with the consequences should my plan fall short. I cannot live with the consequences of the Bush plan should it come to fruition.

You are already living with the consequences of the "Bush plan"....and all the "plans" before that. If you want to pretend to be morally superior (even when one is not), move to Canada.

Liam · April 6, 2007

You are already living with the consequences of the "Bush plan"....and all the "plans" before that. If you want to pretend to be morally superior (even when one is not), move to Canada.

I don't pretend to be morally superior.