Bush vetoes anti torture bill

[PLC1]

First, in reply to the top portion of your post, I refer to my own post #57, in which I detailed what happened in Palestine during Clinton. I quote myself:



To clarify, the PLO only made the accusation... it was the general public that dragged him through the streets and brutally tortured and ultimately murdered a member of there own nation. It was the mothers and fathers who brought their own children out to desecrate the body of the accused. Granted this is one example, but I know of about 6 more, and this is fairly common among middle eastern cultures.

That is, indeed, a horrifying example of mob violence, not too unlike the lynchings that were carried out at one time in this country. Does that mean that the Palestinian culture views torturing and killing as morally right?

Why do you think the middle eastern man tortured and ultimately strangled to death his own daughter in Canada and called it an "honor killing"? You believe that people with these as moral values are going to be horrified by waterboarding? Time to get a reality check.

That is yet again a horrible example of religious fervor gone wrong. Why do some of the ME countries still abide by an Old Testament kind of justice? Not everyone had made it into the modern world, but then, I don't think that means that they view torturing of prisoners as a positive thing.

And, there has been more done than waterboarding.

Part two answer: I do not think that we have failed so often. History is covered with the success of spreading freedom in other lands.

However we have lost many times, but normally by our own choices. We lost China because our government refused to help our allies there when they were being over run by communists supported by the Soviets. We lost Vietnam because right when we made peace we withdrew all support and in came the Soviet backed north Vietnamese. On down the list it goes. Carter ignored the Shaw of Iran, a very westernized leader, who was than over run by the current fruit bat who doesn't believe the Holocaust happened.

There are other reasons though. Every horrible dictator divides the country into groups and pits those groups against each other, in order keep focus off of themselves. (a tactic used often in the 90s) Saddam, for example had a huge group of people that thought highly of him because he was 'on their side' against another ethnic group. They knew he was a scum bag, but he was their scum bag. Even Castro had a small group of dedicated followers in Cuba. So rarely is a country uniformly against the evil dictator.

Finely, not all dictators are automatically bad. Sometimes people come to power that really, and honestly want to improve things, and move to that end. Is a republic better? Absolutely. But it's hard to convince people in another country that this is better when the person in power is not all that bad.

Last, I'd say, sometimes the people, the public... is just really screwed up.

More like the government horribly screwed up.

Your Vietnam example is an interesting rewrite of history. That unfortunate country fought the French for independence, and won in '54. The leader, Ho Chi Minh, had the temerity to call himself a "Communist", and so bring down the wrath of the US on his head. He fought us for 19 more years before we finally gave up and allowed Vietnam to be both united and independent, which happened soon after the military dictatorship of Nguyan Cao Key was overthrown.

Meanwhile, the Khymer Rouge took over Cambodia, with the blessing of the US government, and proceded to kill off two million or so Cambodians before the Vietnamese invaded and deposed Pol Pot.

The notion that we can spread democracy through force of arms has resulted in more disasters than successes. The Vietnam fiasco is one horrible example. Iraq is becoming yet another.

 

[heyliberal]

Bush, who didn't veto any bill in the first six years of his presidency, has just approved his legacy as the pro torture president.

http://voanews.com/english/2008-03-08-voa10.cfm



Torture is the most valuable tools we have in the war on terror?

Is there one, even one lone, example of torture having prevented a terrorist attack? If so, I suppose the "liberal" media is not willing to share it with the country.

Here all this time, I thought credit was the most valuable tool. The war has thus far been financed on the collective MasterCard after all.

Lets not hurt the terrorists, I think a 5 star hotel at the liberals expense would be fine. Maybe a trip Disneyland would do, with a room full of hookers.

Maybe you liberals could start an "adopt a terrorist program" you can take them into your homes and care for them, what do you think?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Lets not hurt the terrorists, I think a 5 star hotel at the liberals expense would be fine. Maybe a trip Disneyland would do, with a room full of hookers.

Maybe you liberals could start an "adopt a terrorist program" you can take them into your homes and care for them, what do you think?

I am continually amazed at the number of people who believe that you can kill your enemies faster than you make them.

Gahan Wilson drew a cartoon poking fun at this absurd concept, you can view it here:
http://www.gahanwilson.com/
It's the first single cartoon on the page.

 

[Andy]

I am continually amazed at the number of people who believe that you can kill your enemies faster than you make them.

Gahan Wilson drew a cartoon poking fun at this absurd concept, you can view it here:
http://www.gahanwilson.com/
It's the first single cartoon on the page.

Seem to work in WW1/2... so I figure that is correct.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Seem to work in WW1/2... so I figure that is correct.

Yeah, right, and how long did the peace last? The 20th century was one of the bloodiest in human history.

In more than 10,000 years of human history war has not solved the problems we face, all it does is postpone them for a decade or two and the cost is insanely high. Children solve their problems by fighting with each other, eventually most of them grow up and realize that working together is far more productive. Nation/States need to grow up, humanity needs to mature and move from the rock-logic of the last age (crush anything in your way) towards water-logic (in which we seek our own level and find ways to accomplilsh what needs to be done).

 

[Andy]

That is, indeed, a horrifying example of mob violence, not too unlike the lynchings that were carried out at one time in this country. Does that mean that the Palestinian culture views torturing and killing as morally right?

Do you normally bring out your children to take part in immoral activity? You are suggesting that mothers brought out their children to see and participate in something that really they don't like and believe is morally wrong? Not a very logical conclusion.

That is yet again a horrible example of religious fervor gone wrong. Why do some of the ME countries still abide by an Old Testament kind of justice? Not everyone had made it into the modern world, but then, I don't think that means that they view torturing of prisoners as a positive thing.

Not sure what you are talking about, but I don't think it changes my point. The point is, a person that says strangling to death your own daughter is "honorable" isn't going to be horrified by waterboarding.

More like the government horribly screwed up.

Your Vietnam example is an interesting rewrite of history. That unfortunate country fought the French for independence, and won in '54. The leader, Ho Chi Minh, had the temerity to call himself a "Communist", and so bring down the wrath of the US on his head. He fought us for 19 more years before we finally gave up and allowed Vietnam to be both united and independent, which happened soon after the military dictatorship of Nguyan Cao Key was overthrown.

What exactly did I rewrite? We didn't give up. The democrat LBJ spent his presidency preventing us from wining, while forcing us to fight, the Vietnam war. When Nixon came into the office, he removed the shackles from our military, and bombed the north VC into oblivion until the Paris Peace Accords. At which point Nixon negotiated an end to the war. Which was basically, you stop or we continue to bomb every thatched hunt, every shiny thing seen from the sky, and every small light from a torch, to a lit cigarette that we can see at night, for 500 miles passed the boarder. That was 1973.

The truce was between the Chinese backed VC, to the U.S. backed South Viet. Then, using the watergate scandal as cover, the VC began their invasion. The democrats, more interested in political gain, than helping an ally (sounds a bit familiar), using the scandal to weaken the president, openly refused to help our allies in South Vietnam. In 1975, our ally made a final despreate call for help from their ally, and we refused, and VC rolled tanks into Saigon. The communization of South Viet, plummeted the country into economic stagnation, where they still are to this day.

Ho Chi Minh was a Communist. Why should he call himself something other than what he was? Why do you think Vietnam is an economic door mat to the growing developing asian free market tigers around them?

Meanwhile, the Khymer Rouge took over Cambodia, with the blessing of the US government, and proceded to kill off two million or so Cambodians before the Vietnamese invaded and deposed Pol Pot.

I can't find anything on US supporting Khymer Rouge, so if you can provide a source. Other than that, one communist for another, either way the people are oppressed. Granted Pol Pot was a far worse Communist than KR, but like the current election, yeah Hillary is worse than any of the others, but they are all bad.

The notion that we can spread democracy through force of arms has resulted in more disasters than successes. The Vietnam fiasco is one horrible example. Iraq is becoming yet another.

I think it's a prefect example myself. South Vietnam was growing under free market system. Did you know that prior to the invasion, SV had opened their own international air port? Viet-air or something like that. Of course under Communistic rule, it was shut down and wasn't reopened for nearly 20 years.

Iraq will be another if a democrat is elected and does not support our allies. It will be, or will not be, based on what we do. We protected Japan from the Chinese-Soviets. We helped, and rebuilt them. They are now one of our greatest allies, and a shining example of what we can do for other nations. Hong Kong is the same. How about South Korea? Another great example of the spread of freedom by the U.S.

So yes, our government has really screwed up some situations, normally by inaction really. But we have also done some great things.

 

[PLC1]

Do you normally bring out your children to take part in immoral activity? You are suggesting that mothers brought out their children to see and participate in something that really they don't like and believe is morally wrong? Not a very logical conclusion.



Not sure what you are talking about, but I don't think it changes my point. The point is, a person that says strangling to death your own daughter is "honorable" isn't going to be horrified by waterboarding.




What exactly did I rewrite? We didn't give up. The democrat LBJ spent his presidency preventing us from wining, while forcing us to fight, the Vietnam war. When Nixon came into the office, he removed the shackles from our military, and bombed the north VC into oblivion until the Paris Peace Accords. At which point Nixon negotiated an end to the war. Which was basically, you stop or we continue to bomb every thatched hunt, every shiny thing seen from the sky, and every small light from a torch, to a lit cigarette that we can see at night, for 500 miles passed the boarder. That was 1973.

The truce was between the Chinese backed VC, to the U.S. backed South Viet. Then, using the watergate scandal as cover, the VC began their invasion. The democrats, more interested in political gain, than helping an ally (sounds a bit familiar), using the scandal to weaken the president, openly refused to help our allies in South Vietnam. In 1975, our ally made a final despreate call for help from their ally, and we refused, and VC rolled tanks into Saigon. The communization of South Viet, plummeted the country into economic stagnation, where they still are to this day.

Ho Chi Minh was a Communist. Why should he call himself something other than what he was? Why do you think Vietnam is an economic door mat to the growing developing asian free market tigers around them?



I can't find anything on US supporting Khymer Rouge, so if you can provide a source. Other than that, one communist for another, either way the people are oppressed. Granted Pol Pot was a far worse Communist than KR, but like the current election, yeah Hillary is worse than any of the others, but they are all bad.



I think it's a prefect example myself. South Vietnam was growing under free market system. Did you know that prior to the invasion, SV had opened their own international air port? Viet-air or something like that. Of course under Communistic rule, it was shut down and wasn't reopened for nearly 20 years.

Iraq will be another if a democrat is elected and does not support our allies. It will be, or will not be, based on what we do. We protected Japan from the Chinese-Soviets. We helped, and rebuilt them. They are now one of our greatest allies, and a shining example of what we can do for other nations. Hong Kong is the same. How about South Korea? Another great example of the spread of freedom by the U.S.

So yes, our government has really screwed up some situations, normally by inaction really. But we have also done some great things.

Actually, yes, our government has done some great things. There is the Marshall plan, for example, and the interstate highway system.

Since the '50s, however, with the out of control growth of government, and the resurgence of government by lobbyist, one must wonder whether they are able to accomplish anything.

The country started downhill when Johnson decided to ramp up the war against Vietnam from "military advisors" to an invasionary force of half a million. Now Bush, or Lyndon Johnson II, as I like to think of him, has invaded yet another country in the name of keeping us safe. In Johnson's time, the bogyman was communism. Now, it's Islamic terrorism.

The first bogyman died, so now we need another.

Here are some links to our government's support of Pol Pot and his murderous regime:

http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/hermansept97.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_PolPot.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19063

Or, you could just google something like "pol Pot + US", or perhaps Khymer Rouge + US, or something. You'll find plenty of references.


As for Iraq, sooner or later the public will become so fed up with the unending war, that the troops will be called home without having made that country into an ally on a par with Japan. When that happens, those who call themselves "conservatives", whatever in the world that word means nowdays, will repeat ad nauseum for the next several decades that the "liberals would not let us win," just as they do with the Vietnam fiasco.

 

[Andy]

The country started downhill when Johnson decided to ramp up the war against Vietnam from "military advisors" to an invasionary force of half a million. Now Bush, or Lyndon Johnson II, as I like to think of him, has invaded yet another country in the name of keeping us safe. In Johnson's time, the bogyman was communism. Now, it's Islamic terrorism.

You can not be seriously suggesting that the Communists were not a threat, and that Islamofacists are not a threat now? That's on par with that nut in Iran saying the holocaust never happened.

Here are some links to our government's support of Pol Pot and his murderous regime:

http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/hermansept97.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_PolPot.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19063

Or, you could just google something like "pol Pot + US", or perhaps Khymer Rouge + US, or something. You'll find plenty of references.

Ah, ok. I was checking through wiki, and other historically accurate web sites. I do not normally consult sources of this type. Tend to have a high spin rate, and low accuracy rate. Or in most cases a one sided truth.

What I'm getting from this is that we didn't support pol pot until after he was being mashed by the VC. This doesn't surprise me given who was in charge.. namely Carter and Co. Carter was a waste of a president and thought that after the fall of our allies in Iran, that maybe he should do something for once. And of course ended up supporting a mass murderer over another mass murderer. It also appears that the only thing that can be said for sure is that we gave support for anti-communists, and not directly for KR. At least that is what I read in your links.

There were some stronger accusations made, but then the cited sources for most of it were editorials. I'm left wondering how much, or little of it I should believe.

As for Iraq, sooner or later the public will become so fed up with the unending war, that the troops will be called home without having made that country into an ally on a par with Japan. When that happens, those who call themselves "conservatives", whatever in the world that word means nowdays, will repeat ad nauseum for the next several decades that the "liberals would not let us win," just as they do with the Vietnam fiasco.

Well that wouldn't surprise me. But then, by your own admission, the only reason we would screw it all up is because we as a people, choose too. If it's true, then it is true. Liberals always support the enemies. They always have since WW2, and I wager they always will.

Liberals are consistently horrible on military international matters. So it would not surprise me in the slightest if a democrat wins the election, the Iraq will almost certainly become a nightmare.

 

[PLC1]

You can not be seriously suggesting that the Communists were not a threat, and that Islamofacists are not a threat now? That's on par with that nut in Iran saying the holocaust never happened.

I'm seriously suggesting that Vietnam was not a threat to the United States, not in '65, not in '54, and not now. It is not, never was, and never will be a threat to the United States. It was the country of Vietnam that we attacked in '54 and then ramped up the attack in '65, not "communists." The Soviet Union and Communist China were threats. Vietnam never was.

Ah, ok. I was checking through wiki, and other historically accurate web sites. I do not normally consult sources of this type. Tend to have a high spin rate, and low accuracy rate. Or in most cases a one sided truth.

What I'm getting from this is that we didn't support pol pot until after he was being mashed by the VC. This doesn't surprise me given who was in charge.. namely Carter and Co. Carter was a waste of a president and thought that after the fall of our allies in Iran, that maybe he should do something for once. And of course ended up supporting a mass murderer over another mass murderer. It also appears that the only thing that can be said for sure is that we gave support for anti-communists, and not directly for KR. At least that is what I read in your links.

In the name of supporting "anti Communists", we recognized the government of Pol Pot as legitimate. You can blame "Carter and Co." if you want.

There were some stronger accusations made, but then the cited sources for most of it were editorials. I'm left wondering how much, or little of it I should believe.

I'm sure you will continue to believe what you want to believe, just as most of us do.

Well that wouldn't surprise me. But then, by your own admission, the only reason we would screw it all up is because we as a people, choose too. If it's true, then it is true. Liberals always support the enemies. They always have since WW2, and I wager they always will.

Liberals are consistently horrible on military international matters. So it would not surprise me in the slightest if a democrat wins the election, the Iraq will almost certainly become a nightmare.

What, exactly, is your definition of "liberal"?

 

[Andy]

I'm seriously suggesting that Vietnam was not a threat to the United States, not in '65, not in '54, and not now. It is not, never was, and never will be a threat to the United States. It was the country of Vietnam that we attacked in '54 and then ramped up the attack in '65, not "communists." The Soviet Union and Communist China were threats. Vietnam never was.

Then we agree to disagree. Communism was and to some degree, still is a huge threat. It was the expanding empire of communistic states that led to the US being under the threat of nuclear annihilation for years and years. It was the communist take over of Cuba, that led to the Cuban missile crisis, along with failed international policies of JFK. And isn't it amazing how these non-threats become threats later? We did nothing about the take over of Chinese because they were not a threat, now they are. We did nothing about communists taking over Iran because they are not a threat. Now they are. And the history of assuming that nothing would happen, and thus taking no action led to 9/11. So, I disagree, respectfully.

In the name of supporting "anti Communists", we recognized the government of Pol Pot as legitimate. You can blame "Carter and Co." if you want.

I don't see that. But let's say you are right. Yes the America government has messed up at times. And yes, it was Carter and Co. Democrats should never be in charge of the foreign policy ever.

I'm sure you will continue to believe what you want to believe, just as most of us do.

When an editorial is the main source for some point... then yeah I will. I need something more than that.

What, exactly, is your definition of "liberal"?

Well, in direct relation to the topic at hand, I'd say a liberal in this case is one who votes to support a war, and immediately flip flops on the issue for political gain. I don't think you can say that it's in the best interest of Americas security to do thus and so, and then when you start thinking about running for president, suddenly change your tune.

 

[vyo476]

Communism was and to some degree, still is a huge threat.

Perhaps I'm showing my age (I don't remember any of the Cold War, I was four when it ended), but I don't consider communism to be a very strong international force anymore. There's the Cubans and the North Koreans who have more to deal with domestically than they can handle, Vietnam which isn't interested in war, and China which is looking more and more capitalistic every day. Did I miss any?

It was the expanding empire of communistic states that led to the US being under the threat of nuclear annihilation for years and years.

Don't forget, they probably thought the same thing about us.

It was the communist take over of Cuba, that led to the Cuban missile crisis, along with failed international policies of JFK.

What failed international policies were those?

And isn't it amazing how these non-threats become threats later? We did nothing about the take over of Chinese because they were not a threat, now they are.

My dear friend, if we stepped in on every revolution in every minor little country in the world during the 40s and 50s (and 60s, come to think of it) there wouldn't have been any Americans left in America; they'd have needed all of us in the Army to go invadin'.

We did nothing about communists taking over Iran because they are not a threat. Now they are.

I wouldn't say we did "nothing." The Iranians sure wouldn't say we did nothing, both before their revolution and after.

And the history of assuming that nothing would happen, and thus taking no action led to 9/11.

Oddly enough, we agree on this point.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Communism was and to some degree, still is a huge threat.

It was the expanding empire of communistic states that led to the US being under the threat of nuclear annihilation for years and years. It was the communist take over of Cuba, that led to the Cuban missile crisis, along with failed international policies of JFK.

And isn't it amazing how these non-threats become threats later?

We did nothing about the take over of Chinese because they were not a threat, now they are.

We did nothing about communists taking over Iran because they are not a threat. Now they are. And the history of assuming that nothing would happen, and thus taking no action led to 9/11. So, I disagree, respectfully.

You seem to be saying that anytime there is a change of government or political attitude in a country anywhere in the world, we should go and make sure those people change the way that is best for us. Have I got that right?

I was intrigued by your comment:"We did nothing about the take over of Chinese..." Beyond the gammatical error, are you saying that you think the US could have done something to prevent Mao from taking over China? Short of carpet bombing with nukes I can't think of a single thing. You?

Why in the world would you feel that we have the right to dictate to other countries how they should conduct their affairs just so that they do not become a threat to us? Do other counties have that same right?

 

[PLC1]

Well, in direct relation to the topic at hand, I'd say a liberal in this case is one who votes to support a war, and immediately flip flops on the issue for political gain. I don't think you can say that it's in the best interest of Americas security to do thus and so, and then when you start thinking about running for president, suddenly change your tune.

Is Hillary Clinton the arch liberal then, or perhaps the only liberal running for president at the present time?

Obama: Says he wouldn't have voted to go to war.
McCain: Says he supports the war.

Obama and McCain: non liberals.

Hillary: Liberal.

 

[Andy]

Is Hillary Clinton the arch liberal then, or perhaps the only liberal running for president at the present time?

Obama: Says he wouldn't have voted to go to war.
McCain: Says he supports the war.

Obama and McCain: non liberals.

Hillary: Liberal.

As it relates to this one single topic, yes. However:

Almost as soon as the war began in March 2003, Obama had second thoughts about his opposition to it. Watching the dramatic footage of the toppling of Saddam’s statue in Baghdad, and then the President’s speech aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, “I began to suspect,” he would write later in his autobiographical The Audacity of Hope (2006), “that I might have been wrong.” And these second thoughts seem to have stayed with him throughout the entire first phase of the occupation following our initial combat victory. As he told the Chicago Tribune in July 2004, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.”

Not quiet as solid against the war as you have been led to believe. It was after anti-war support for democrats began to be a major campaign issue, he finely choose his side. So much for 'convictions'.

See, to me, liberal is made of mainly of Socialists, but with one over-riding principal, namely self advancement. They all advance socialism/communism until it bucks their ability to hold onto power, then they drop it in favor of whatever advances themselves.

For example, Bill Clintons stance on welfare. He consistently supported socialist system of taking from those who work to give to those who don't in the name of welfare until the time it threatened his power, then he signed welfare reform after vetoing it 2 or 3 times, and even while doing so claimed he would 'fix it' later.

Another example is Hillary who was against the war until 9/11 when it threatened her popularity, then she supported it until it threatened her popularity, then she is against it again.

Obama is the same. Before 2002 he was completely against it, then when it seemed we were doing well, and people supported it, he supported it. Now that his democratic nomination is at stake based on his war stance, he's against it.

 

[PLC1]

As it relates to this one single topic, yes. However:

​

Not quiet as solid against the war as you have been led to believe. It was after anti-war support for democrats began to be a major campaign issue, he finely choose his side. So much for 'convictions'.

Does the definition of the term "liberal" depend on the topic then?

See, to me, liberal is made of mainly of Socialists, but with one over-riding principal, namely self advancement. They all advance socialism/communism until it bucks their ability to hold onto power, then they drop it in favor of whatever advances themselves.

For example, Bill Clintons stance on welfare. He consistently supported socialist system of taking from those who work to give to those who don't in the name of welfare until the time it threatened his power, then he signed welfare reform after vetoing it 2 or 3 times, and even while doing so claimed he would 'fix it' later.

Another example is Hillary who was against the war until 9/11 when it threatened her popularity, then she supported it until it threatened her popularity, then she is against it again.

Obama is the same. Before 2002 he was completely against it, then when it seemed we were doing well, and people supported it, he supported it. Now that his democratic nomination is at stake based on his war stance, he's against it.

OK, so by the definition above, being first against the war then for it, Obama is also a liberal, but the definition seems to be changing:

Socialism http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

so·cial·ism /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Do you mean to say that the Clintons and Obama favor ownership and control of the means of production in the community as a whole? Isn't that government ownership of industry?

Or, do you really mean that liberals are those who favor a large, powerful central government?