Skipjack,
Unacceptable to whom? Those with the main burden of fighting the war or those with very little or no skin in the game?
We have the most money in the project. We have the most men to lose. We decide what is acceptable. You want a bigger say at the table? Get a bigger army. Heck, you would probably have more say if you just covered half the cost. How does $100 bn a year sound for starters?
Not your war?
Well all right then.
US Bashing
Re: US Bashing
So how do you propose to get the hard cases to talk? Kisses and hugs?seedload wrote:Torture is bad. The US should not engage in it. Either should the British. Whatever either of our countries has done it is not nearly as pervasive and disgusting as what happens all over the world. Does that make it right? No. We should continue to make all efforts to end it.alexjrgreen wrote:I really, really wish you were right, but you're in denial here. Ask some searching questions and you won't like the answers any more than I do.
http://www.americantorture.com/the_book.html
regards
There is a war on. In war time we relax the rules of civilization.
But if you would care to suggest a better method with a proven track record I'm all ears.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Its a tad amusing if we are at war to call the other side terrorists.
I can imagine the headlines back in WWII days..
"German terrorists fly over London and drop bombs"
It just doesn't quite have the right ring about it..
(I should point out that having a large section of relatives killed by German bombs, I'm quite at liberty to joke about it..)
But aside from that:
> It is my opinion that it is IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of the poor,
> since poor is entirely relative to middle class and rich
I'd agree with that, its the degree of what being poor means at the bottom. Its perhaps different in the US, but in the UK we have many homeless and many poor who are paying high rents or mortgages to landlords and banks/(money lenders..) who get rich off the fat of the working class for very little work themselves.
Property prices are not based on the cost of the building, but the shortage of building land. (Which when you consider we have only built on I hear 10% of UK land, leaves an awful lot left over doing nothing..) An artitifcal shortage to push the price up perhaps... is what it looks like to me.
If the poor had low cost housing and didn't live hand to mouth, which is entirely doable, it would only require the richest to be a little less rich.. Then I believe much of the misery and often reasons behind why the poor take up arms and go to war, or become terrorist if you must say rather than freedom fighter, could be avoided by the simple act of being fair, rather than money grabbing greed..
> Communism can fix this by making everyone the same degree of
> poor, except the people who cheat, and they become the new
> wealthy. (party leadership)
Nicely put, and reminds me of my concerns for any new system of government/etc. that cheaters are a very common thing. (And most interesting to study in MMORPG's for example where its perhaps easier to spot them..) Its just that our wonderful capitalist system has its fair share of cheaters too, so its just as bad..
I do wonder if its possible to make a system you cannot cheat..
> I cant help wondering how the supposedly best intelligence agencies
> in the world could make such mistakes.
Thats probably because at least in the UK, we retired a lot of our older more experienced people to save money and hired a lot of new fancy freshly educated folk who didn't know their ass from their elbow as the saying goes.
There is also, a lack of seriousness about the job in some quarters, or perhaps its dedication is missing. Somewhat typified by my experience of us having a security talk about watching out for suspicious packages and the next day someone leaves a well stuffed rucksack on the government building gates, only for everyone but me to ignore it as they walk past and then security when informed, go and bring it in to open it up and have a look..
Or to find no one willing to accept responsibility for a missing security services laptop you find on your travels.
Or that person you report for their deep interest in uranium enrichment, only to be told they have no procedures in place for such a thing and not to worry about it..
> I ask him about the country he lives in he loves it, even though he
> tells me that most of the people there live in terror because they
> could easily be killed at a bus stop if a gang member wanted their
> cell phone, or shoes, or whatever else they liked
I thought for a moment you was talking about London!
> He has no love for the government that really is only interested
> in taking money from people and not protecting them.
Sounds more like the UK even now..
Its also amusing and ironicly interesting how we can afford to send troops to keep the peace in another country, but we lack the police on the street to keep our own growing gang culture under control.. as if the death of our own citizens suddenly takes second place..
I can imagine the headlines back in WWII days..
"German terrorists fly over London and drop bombs"
It just doesn't quite have the right ring about it..
(I should point out that having a large section of relatives killed by German bombs, I'm quite at liberty to joke about it..)
But aside from that:
> It is my opinion that it is IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of the poor,
> since poor is entirely relative to middle class and rich
I'd agree with that, its the degree of what being poor means at the bottom. Its perhaps different in the US, but in the UK we have many homeless and many poor who are paying high rents or mortgages to landlords and banks/(money lenders..) who get rich off the fat of the working class for very little work themselves.
Property prices are not based on the cost of the building, but the shortage of building land. (Which when you consider we have only built on I hear 10% of UK land, leaves an awful lot left over doing nothing..) An artitifcal shortage to push the price up perhaps... is what it looks like to me.
If the poor had low cost housing and didn't live hand to mouth, which is entirely doable, it would only require the richest to be a little less rich.. Then I believe much of the misery and often reasons behind why the poor take up arms and go to war, or become terrorist if you must say rather than freedom fighter, could be avoided by the simple act of being fair, rather than money grabbing greed..
> Communism can fix this by making everyone the same degree of
> poor, except the people who cheat, and they become the new
> wealthy. (party leadership)
Nicely put, and reminds me of my concerns for any new system of government/etc. that cheaters are a very common thing. (And most interesting to study in MMORPG's for example where its perhaps easier to spot them..) Its just that our wonderful capitalist system has its fair share of cheaters too, so its just as bad..
I do wonder if its possible to make a system you cannot cheat..
> I cant help wondering how the supposedly best intelligence agencies
> in the world could make such mistakes.
Thats probably because at least in the UK, we retired a lot of our older more experienced people to save money and hired a lot of new fancy freshly educated folk who didn't know their ass from their elbow as the saying goes.
There is also, a lack of seriousness about the job in some quarters, or perhaps its dedication is missing. Somewhat typified by my experience of us having a security talk about watching out for suspicious packages and the next day someone leaves a well stuffed rucksack on the government building gates, only for everyone but me to ignore it as they walk past and then security when informed, go and bring it in to open it up and have a look..
Or to find no one willing to accept responsibility for a missing security services laptop you find on your travels.
Or that person you report for their deep interest in uranium enrichment, only to be told they have no procedures in place for such a thing and not to worry about it..
> I ask him about the country he lives in he loves it, even though he
> tells me that most of the people there live in terror because they
> could easily be killed at a bus stop if a gang member wanted their
> cell phone, or shoes, or whatever else they liked
I thought for a moment you was talking about London!
> He has no love for the government that really is only interested
> in taking money from people and not protecting them.
Sounds more like the UK even now..
Its also amusing and ironicly interesting how we can afford to send troops to keep the peace in another country, but we lack the police on the street to keep our own growing gang culture under control.. as if the death of our own citizens suddenly takes second place..
Re: US Bashing
Huh? Are you arguing torture is a necessary part of our policy in Iraq and in our war on terror? We need to torture? I don't think you mean that. Maybe you are just on auto-argue.MSimon wrote: So how do you propose to get the hard cases to talk? Kisses and hugs?
There is a war on. In war time we relax the rules of civilization.
But if you would care to suggest a better method with a proven track record I'm all ears.
But, to take your bait, I suggest that we forgo torture and instead put a special enphasis on Intelligence, Surveilance, and Reconnaissance (ISR). We should use cool new 'gadgets' to get full motion capture of our enemies and do so on unit command level. Then I would give my commanders access to classified national data resources. With this technology, I would allow my commanders to SECURE areas and make the people there feel safe. By doing so, I would open lines of communication with them and get information from the good guys rather than trying to whip it out of the bad guys. Once I have secured and area and gathered intelligence from the people of that area, I would move on to the next while not abandoning the one I was leaving.
I suspect that torture is not necessary to make this plan work. In fact, I suspect torture undermines the plan as it tends to make more enemies and turn off more friends.
-
alexjrgreen
- Posts: 815
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
- Location: UK
From a broader perspective you view things differently.seedload wrote:BTW, sorry for the previous post in which I mock the Ranger Monument
Ironically, this small monument is endangered by coastal erosion. The Colleville Cemetary, only 8 miles away, is much larger.
For an extensive list of WWII monuments, follow this link. Click on the British flag for the English version. How ungrateful!
Torture rarely, if ever results in useful information. Given enough torture people will admit to anything.
That was pretty much established 500 years ago when the catholic church was using torture to hunt witches and protestants, infidels, etc.
Maybe you have missed the last 500 years of development? Is it that what you want the rest of the world to think of the US? Luckily the wast majority of the US people dont think that, as was clearly shown in the last election.
Or to find a more recent comparison. In WW2 the Germans considered very simillar tactics as you are describing as totally legitimate, when they were hunting for partisans. Partisans are terrorist according to the Haager Landwar Convention (they dont wear a uniform). Strangely enough the Germans have until today had to appologize over and over again for their tactics here. But maybe you are saying they were right after all? Is it that what you want to say?
If not, then please explain to me the difference, because I and the rest of the world does not see it.
And that is the reason for all the US bashing going on lately.
That was pretty much established 500 years ago when the catholic church was using torture to hunt witches and protestants, infidels, etc.
Maybe you have missed the last 500 years of development? Is it that what you want the rest of the world to think of the US? Luckily the wast majority of the US people dont think that, as was clearly shown in the last election.
Or to find a more recent comparison. In WW2 the Germans considered very simillar tactics as you are describing as totally legitimate, when they were hunting for partisans. Partisans are terrorist according to the Haager Landwar Convention (they dont wear a uniform). Strangely enough the Germans have until today had to appologize over and over again for their tactics here. But maybe you are saying they were right after all? Is it that what you want to say?
If not, then please explain to me the difference, because I and the rest of the world does not see it.
And that is the reason for all the US bashing going on lately.
-
ravingdave
- Posts: 650
- Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am
Skipjack wrote:Lets just say that we share the same opinion on the fact that Iran is probably among the most dangerous countries right now.
I still cant quite get over the fact though that the same Mujahedin that were supported by the US in their struggle against the USSR, turned into, terroristic, fundamental, massmurdering, acid at little girls throwing nightmares of any western oriented person with a government that probably hated the US more than they hated the USSR back in the days (makes you wonder).
Yeah the Afghan war was just one of many ways that allowed Reagan to drain the USSR of money and slowly bleed them to death (awesome strategy, he is among my personal top ranking politicians of the 20st century, actually). The issue was that the US did not care to pick up the pieces when the USSR was gone. Instead they let them fall into anarchy, from which rose a new faction that through fear and terror aquired leadership in the country (the Taliban).
Had the US bothered to stay and direct things, maybe this could have been avoided (maybe not).
My fear is that the same thing could happen in Iraq as soon as the US troops are gone. It might be as far away as the next election there.
Even the NATO- friendly Turkey, that US urges us so much to let into the EU is very close to "turning".
One reason why the havent yet is their constitution by Kemal Pasha (Attaturk). He had the foresight to ensure the separation of state and religion in his country to the point that the military has the right (actually the duty) to assume power if this is in danger.
The EU leaders are to stupid to understand the importance of this part of the turkish constitution, as they make it the main reason to not include the turks into the EU (this constitution is considered undemocratic... well just wait until the mullahs take over, then you will see a lack of democracy or sure...). Anyway, besides this constutional law, the religious right has gained in about every election in recent decades.
I take exception to only one thing you say here, and that is the characterization of the "Religious Right" as being associated with Islamic Fundamentalism. Historically, the Right was associated with the aristorcracy, while the left was associated with the peasantry. This is why the "Right" is always talking about "Freedom" and the Left is always talking about "Equality."
I dare say the Muslim Fundamentalists are far more likely to be Collective and Socialist than Enterprenurial and Capitalist.
I am reminded of an old cartoon showing two Central American peasants and one turns to the other and says, "Do we have a right wing dictator or a left wing dictator ? I forget ! "
Maybe it makes no difference to most people, but it does to me. The Left wing dictators are responsible for the bloodiest death dealing in history, and so the ideology of death should be identified as such.
David
I am not positioning the religious party of Recep Tayyip Erdogan (read up on that man, he will get you scared!) on the right. That is what the news media says and I think they themselves position themselves there as well.
Personally I find the separation into left and right somewhat troublesome anyway (it has more to do with the placement of a party on the chairs in the parliament than it has to do with its actually ideals).
Anyway for all who doubt what I said about an islamisation of Europe, check the internet on the things Erdogan himself said.
E.g. he said in Cologne, when they were doing the foundation for a much disputed new mosque ( with jodeling muhezin) there (in turkish in front 20,000 male adult turks) "in 20 years this place will belong to us".
Great prospects indeed!
I am sure these people that will inhabit Germany then, will "love" the US sooo much for making this possible (remember the choice of your allies).
Well I will make sure I am loong gone before that happens. I am actually going to move to the US. If his vision comes true, so will millions of other Germans (cant be bad, can it?).
Looking foreward to meeting you for a beer soon
))))
Personally I find the separation into left and right somewhat troublesome anyway (it has more to do with the placement of a party on the chairs in the parliament than it has to do with its actually ideals).
Anyway for all who doubt what I said about an islamisation of Europe, check the internet on the things Erdogan himself said.
E.g. he said in Cologne, when they were doing the foundation for a much disputed new mosque ( with jodeling muhezin) there (in turkish in front 20,000 male adult turks) "in 20 years this place will belong to us".
Great prospects indeed!
I am sure these people that will inhabit Germany then, will "love" the US sooo much for making this possible (remember the choice of your allies).
Well I will make sure I am loong gone before that happens. I am actually going to move to the US. If his vision comes true, so will millions of other Germans (cant be bad, can it?).
Looking foreward to meeting you for a beer soon
))))-
Mike Holmes
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm
My children, 5 and 8, argue with each other using the rhetoric, "Well she did it, too!" And with what very basic wisdom do we respond to the child?
Two wrongs don't make a right. It's acceptable because other countries do it? Or the ends justify the means?
In any case, this is irrelevant. The subject of the thread is why other countries bash us. Let's see, if we take the attitude that we can torture people, can you possibly be surprised that other countries - countries that don't use torture - find it abhorrent? It's not exactly a public relations bonanza.
Again, question if you will the neccessity to accomodate other nations, and what the goodwill is worth. But in the battle for hearts and minds, at least, these policies aren't the best.
Better methods? Human intelligence on the ground? Technological intelligence like spy sattelites. Uh, economic incentives? Don't always work, and people get killed like in 9/11? Well, as somebody said above, it's not a perfect world.
Iran is on the verge of potentially becoming a concilliatory nation. All they need is to stop actively hating us for about ten minutes. Believe it or not, Hollywood, is doing more to make our case for us than anyone. The fact that the failing Amedinijad had to ban Hollywood films is proof that they're having an effect: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Iran_bans_Hollywood_movies
We're winning the culture war, slowly but surely. Don't listen to the whack-jobs in Iran, listen to the pulse of the typical moderate Iranian (especially the urbanites in Tehran), who really just wants things to relax. The people there will speak on this, eventually. These guys were the Persian Empire, for heaven's sake... the current slide into fundamentalism is a historical aberration.
Now if it was a totalitarian regime like in North Korea... then you'd have something to worry about, possibly. But it looks like we're getting to them as well.
Mike
Two wrongs don't make a right. It's acceptable because other countries do it? Or the ends justify the means?
In any case, this is irrelevant. The subject of the thread is why other countries bash us. Let's see, if we take the attitude that we can torture people, can you possibly be surprised that other countries - countries that don't use torture - find it abhorrent? It's not exactly a public relations bonanza.
Again, question if you will the neccessity to accomodate other nations, and what the goodwill is worth. But in the battle for hearts and minds, at least, these policies aren't the best.
Better methods? Human intelligence on the ground? Technological intelligence like spy sattelites. Uh, economic incentives? Don't always work, and people get killed like in 9/11? Well, as somebody said above, it's not a perfect world.
Iran is on the verge of potentially becoming a concilliatory nation. All they need is to stop actively hating us for about ten minutes. Believe it or not, Hollywood, is doing more to make our case for us than anyone. The fact that the failing Amedinijad had to ban Hollywood films is proof that they're having an effect: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Iran_bans_Hollywood_movies
We're winning the culture war, slowly but surely. Don't listen to the whack-jobs in Iran, listen to the pulse of the typical moderate Iranian (especially the urbanites in Tehran), who really just wants things to relax. The people there will speak on this, eventually. These guys were the Persian Empire, for heaven's sake... the current slide into fundamentalism is a historical aberration.
Now if it was a totalitarian regime like in North Korea... then you'd have something to worry about, possibly. But it looks like we're getting to them as well.
Mike
-
MirariNefas
- Posts: 354
- Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:57 am
Internment camps for Japanese Americans, institutional racial discrimination, institutional sexism, forced sterilization of criminals, testing dangerous substances like LSD or radionucleotides on uninformed, innocent participants, depending on your perspective maybe nukes, and there's probably more. Yeah, Guantanamo is kinda bad, but I don't think it makes the list of really bad governmental moral infractions.Skipjack wrote: One might just as well say that you are worse because most countries in Europe do not have anything remotely as bad as Guatanamo Bay... Both seems kinda silly. No, even taken all by itself, this is an unacceptable thing. I think it is the most shameful thing that has happened in the US in decades (I am actually having a hard time thinking of something worse in the last century, help me out please!).
No, the German "terrorists" were the saboteurs who set bombs in England and America while disguised as civilians. They were summarily executed when caught.Its a tad amusing if we are at war to call the other side terrorists.
I can imagine the headlines back in WWII days..
"German terrorists fly over London and drop bombs"
We call AQ "terrorists" because they are unlawful combatants (as oposed to a conventional armed force), not as an arbitrary epithet.
We DON'T torture people. We have used some coercive techniques that are psychologically unpleasant but do no real harm, and that only on three senior AQ that we knew beyond a shadow of a doubt had information on plots to kill innocent people all over the world. And doing so likely saved hundreds or thousands of lives.Let's see, if we take the attitude that we can torture people, can you possibly be surprised that other countries - countries that don't use torture - find it abhorrent?
Oh, and these coercive techniques ARE used every day -- as training for the American military.
If the world wants a standard to live up to, we have given it to them.