That we have evidence for it, at least one reporter from the BBC found that, once again the other side has nothing but demagoguery.
Oy, the Weasel Whisperer…
Why not just execute our President, Vice presiedent and his cabinet by firing squad on satellite TV then deed our entire country to the rest of the world, I bet everyone would like us then. Or how about we think about how we can act in a moral but self intersted way.
I say don’t torture unless you have reason to believe they have specific information that will help the war.
Iraq is now being rebuilt with its own oil money. We get oil after all this done (and we should) but the question is when will it all be done.
Afghanistan was directly involved in 9/11, we could be big about it and help them out but if they go Taliban again, I say we invade again.
YES get the U.N. involved. After all the crap that Bush was saying about the ineffective U.N., they broker the peace between Lebanon and Israel while Condi flies around posturing.
Maybe it would be a good idea to replace Rumsfeld but in time of war, the buck stops with Bush, we need to impeach him. I don’t know why we are so ready to allow him to foist off responsibility for fuck-ups on underlings, when a force 5 hurricane cracks the levees and floods a major city, I don’t care if there is a person in your administration whose specific responsibility is to look after the situation, if you are President then YOU are on the hook; when your occupation plan goes to shit, I don’t care that there is a cabinet position assigned to the problem, when Americans start dying, the buck stops with YOU.
We can try to diffuse the situation with Iran but its not like they are rational actors. 9/11 happened before Iraq or Afghanistan or most of the rhetoric with Iran. They may not be the people who did it but they are loosely on the same team. Much of the terrorism is an Islam thing, we can try to be delicate about it but there is a faction of people in islam that think this is some sort of jihad.
I applaud your efforts not to “rub their nose in it” but don’t the developments over the last 3 years at least imply that we are right and they are so fucking wrong it boggles the mind (I don’t want to get into a litany of every point they were wrong about or every mistake they made along the way, but it wouldn’t be a short list)? I am not liberal by most accounts, I am fiscally conservative, I am socially moderate and I have a little trouble with the idea that there are equally compelling arguments on both sides of this debate. I’m not saying that there aren’t some good issues being presented, after all we are in the midst of a struggle against radical jihadists.
Whoa, dude!
First of all, take a breath, spell, and punctuate. It gets hard to follow you sometimes. This is true in many of your posts, and you need to pay attention to that kind of thing at this particular message board; to not do so loses you credibility.
Now, I have no problem with what you might call enlightened self-interest. (I also have no problem with Bush, Cheney, et al being executed on TV, but that’s a different story 
). But let’s look at what you’ve just said here.
-
Torture is never a reliable source of information. A person who is being tortured may tell you a real secret. On the other hand, s/he may make up anything that s/he thinks will make you stop torturing him or her. It’s not a sound way of getting information.
-
“Iraq is now being rebuilt with its own oil money. We get oil after all this done (and we should) but the question is when will it all be done.” On what planet is anything in Iraq being done with its own oil money? And why in heavens name should we get oil after all this is done? When Iraqis actually asked us to come help them (about 15 years ago), we didn’t. When they didn’t ask us, we did. There’s a small chance that all of this will work out okay for the Iraqis in about 50 years or so, but I suspect that in their shoes, you would not view yourself as owing us anything.
-
Afghanistan per se was not directly involved in 9/11. Its government, in essence the Taliban, allowed and supported Al Qaeda, but that’s not quite the same thing as the country itself being directly involved. Keep your facts straight. If you let them get mushed together, people like those in the current administration can put things over you, like somehow managing to convince over half of the American public that Iraq was involved in 9/11.
I don’t know what you mean by “be[ing] big about it and help[ing] them out.” We didn’t help out the nation of Afghanistan. We overthrew its then current government. We had and still have a pretty reasonable hope that we were doing so in the interests of the majority of its citizens, but we did not go in there to help. We went in there for two reasons: to find and punish Al Qaeda, especially bin Laden, and to punish the Afghani government for supporting Al Qaeda. -
I know you’re kind of young, but do you have any recollection of the Iranian hostage situation that ended in 1980? The Iranian situation is not new.
-
What are you suggesting? That we go out and eliminate all Islamic fundamentalists? Why stop there? Let’s go and take out any other group that bothers us! Hey, these Urugayans over here are rather annoying.
I agree with what I believe you to be saying in the way of involving the UN and holding Bush responsible, although I don’t equate Bush’s performance vis a vis the hurricanes Katrina and Rita (which were category 4 at their absolute height, not 5) with his actions in Iraq. The former was negligence and ineptitude, and Bush’s primary culpability was in not ensuring that he had competent people in charge rather than handing out jobs like political gold stars. The latter was inexcusable agression, IMO, and a criminal act. Nonetheless, if you hold your breath waiting for Bush to be held accountable, you’re going to turn blue and pass out. It won’t happen during his administration, and probably not during his lifetime. If the Republicans continue to exercise anything like the kind of control they have during the past eight years, the historic record may be so altered that even historians are unable to properly assess the situation. It would certainly not surprise me to discover that many, many documents had been destroyed. But that’s not important. The point here is, don’t wait for Bush to be punished; it’s not going to happen in a relevant timeframe, and probably won’t happen period.
Uruguayans hell! Those damned Yapp Islanders have been working my last nerve for some time now, and I’m this close to snapping.
Don’t get me started on the Fijians. . .
The thing of it is, for once they’re probably right; Al Qaeda would like us to withdraw from Iraq now.
We’ve served our purpose there, you see. We’ve been The Great Satan, invading a sovereign nation, yadda, yadda. Now what we’re doing is preventing a full-out catastrophe that might end up with an Islamic fundamentalist regime. Since, regardless of who wins in that catastrophe, the US will be blamed, Al Qaeda wins in their own eyes. That being said, do I think that Al Qaeda knows or cares about the result of a Connecticut primary? No, I do not. But I do think it would suit Al Qaeda just fine if we left Iraq tomorrow.
It depends on what you think is the purpose of the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq. If, as was suggested above by Evil Captor, it’s predominantly insurgent violence with an eye toward a better bargaining position with the Shia majority when the US has left, then I have my head up my ass. But I think that there are both terrorists and insurgents in Iraq who want to drive out the U.S. with an absolutely sincere belief that they will then be able to take over from the fledgling government elected this past year. I think our leaving will be the signal to let the bloodbath begin, and I think you’ll have a serious fight between extremists on all sides, that will make the civilian casualties and property damage that the US has caused directly so far look like a swat on the behind.
So I kind of agree with both sides here. Yes, they’ve been wrong about a million times thus far. But it doesn’t mean they can’t stumble on a truth now and then. And at this point, I suspect my assessment and theirs are not too far divergent, when it comes to what we expect as consequences of our possible actions as of this moment. When it comes to looking at underlying causes, there’s a whole different thing - what the right wingers see and what I see are so different that they might as well be on different planets.
But mostly my intent was to prevent a pile-on onto Scylla, who was the only right wing Doper who was willing to come in here and present that viewpoint. He really is a thoughtful, intelligent, and well-intentioned person, and he doesn’t deserve the flippant remarks. On the other hand, he also shouldn’t hand them out so fast. But it’s a bit harder when you’re outnumbered about ten to one, as he was last night. I don’t know about you, but I want to *understand * the alternative viewpoint, not just hear my own recited back to me.
Actually, I wouldn’t mind taking out the Fijian government, which assumed power in a very polite and pretty-much bloodless coup in the mid-eighties. Unfortunately, despite the politeness, they’re not all that nice a bunch of people, IMHO.
er, where are the Yapp Islands? :o
There’s always Grenada! Oh, wait, we did that one…
That is so 1983. Now, if you wish to go back to pop collared shirts and enormous hair, fine. Just don’t take the rest of us with you.
And Oy!: The Yap (damn my typographicalicitynessism) Islands are in Micronesia.
Is this not what the Israel/Hezbollah war was about, diffusing the situation with Iran into regional conflict? At this early date, it doesn’t seemed to have worked. Doesn’t seem to have defused anything either.
Actually, I thought the eighties were kind of fun, from a purely social standpoint (I did not enjoy the Reagan administration!). Does that make me, like, totally weird or something (that I enjoyed the eighties, I mean)?
Thank for for fighting my ignorance wrt the Yap Islands. 
BTW, I never got around to saying that I think DMC’s list is magnificent. There are almost certainly things missing from it, but I agree with every single point s/he advocates.
This thread is a perfect example of the reasons I like to hang out in the Pit. No one is screaming “CITE?!?” in my face, because I’m clearly expressing opinions, not documented facts. No one has to mop me up from the floor because I’ve just been slammed with some incredibly well-documented, oh-so-superciliously-polite post demolishing whatever I just said and making it clear I was talking out of my rear. But no one is screaming obscenities at one another, there’s actual exchange of viewpoint, interspersed with humor, and you can say “Oh, bullshit!” when someone says something ridiculous without getting a mod warning.
I likes me the Pit.
ok, ok, I’m too much of a coward to post in Great Debates. Or even read Great Debates. I admit it, OK?
Where do people get the idea that torture is never a source of reliable information? I know that torture is not a judicially reliable source of confessions or other testimony but what makes you think that information received under torture is never reliable? Or you are saying that because torture sometimes (or even often) leads to unreliable information we should just throw away the whole idea of torture? There is enough “good” information that comes from torture, that we have to at least think about it. The biggest problem I have with torture is that it is immoral and tends to corrupt the institutions that use it, not that it is useless. I am torn on torture but not becuase I think its useless.
I was under the impression that a lot of this was being financed by loans (yes, some of the reconstruction money is foreign aid but I thought a lot of it was loans which would eventually be repaid with oil), I could be wrong, I thought I read that somewhere. Do you think Israel has any obligation to rebuild southern Lebanon?
I meant help them out in terms of reconstruction.
How old do you think I am? I remember the hostage crisis. I am not sure where I said that conflict with Iran was new. I was referring to the Iran nuclear weapons kerfuffle but I guess we can go back to the Crusades and talk about the conflict between the western Christian world and islam in general if you want.
I’m saying that I don’t think we need to spend a whole lot of time or effort trying to curry favor with islamic jihadists. Why does acknowledging that the “enemy” is a group of islamic jihadists always turn into “so you just want to kill all the muslims?” Thats like saying that because we ridicule Christians who think the world is 5000 years old, we hate God.
I’m not holding my breath but it would be proof that God exists.
So you think that Israel is the pressure valve for Middle Eastern tension?
Since there is no way of telling the difference between garbage and real information, and there are equally effective ways of getting information (the best is to befriend the subject to the point where they say more than they intended), I see no value in torture. I see a lot of negative value in torture, both in what it does to us as torturers, and what it does to our image in the world when we, the supposed Good Guys [sup]TM[/sup], engage in something so despicable.
I think that was part of the original BushCo rationale for invading Iraq (“and it will all be paid for by Iraqi revenues, which they will happily give us for having liberated them!”), but I haven’t seen anyone realistically suggest it in a very long time, because it’s pretty obvious that Iraq doesn’t have any oil revenues, and probably won’t for decades.
Wrt Israel and Lebanon, there you’ve got me. I think Israel gets the raw end of the deal when it comes to press coverage and liberal thinking. On the other hand, Israel is far wealthier than Lebanon, and they are, for however valid reasons, destroying large parts of the country. And this time, unlike the first time they invaded, they are not welcome by the citizens. On the whole, I think it would be wise for Israel to volunteer to fund much if not all of the rebuilding effort.
It’s a good point, col, because you’re right - the situation between Israel and Lebanon is a pretty good parallel to the post 9/11 situation between the US and Afghanistan. I find it quite understandable that we did what we did, and that Israel is doing what they are doing. And in both cases, I think the smart thing for the stronger nation (i.e. the US and Israel) to do is to pay through the nose to make things as close as possible from a material standpoint to what they were (or better) prior to military action, even though technically it might not be absolutely morally required. That’s a tough one, and I have to admit you have me stumped.
Ah, then please see my previous paragraphs.
Sorry, I’m still getting used to the fact that there are real live adults who were born in the 80s (hell, I still have trouble remembering that real live adults were born in the 60s!), and I guess I’m overcompensating by assuming youth everywhere.
You’re right, the purely nuclear issue is new. But the contemporary hostility between Iran and the US has its roots in two things, closely related: the US’s support of the Shah for many years, and the Ayatollah Khomeni’s absolute hatred of the US, which seemed then to become the default position for hard core followers of Islam (at least of the Shia sect). I don’t see the nuclear issue as being qualitatively much of a change from the situation as it’s been for the past 26 years, but then, I may be underevaluating the possible threat there. But see a little further down.
You’re right, my response was facile and dismissive, and you didn’t deserve that.
There’s nothing in Islamic fundamentalism that outright says that the US is evil anymore than there’s anything in the Bible that states that the Soviet Union was evil. I think religion is the window dressing here, not the core issue. I don’t pretend to know what the core issues all are, and there are certainly some that we can’t do a darned thing about, like the fact that this is 2006 and there are a fair number of fundamentalists on both sides who seem to think it would be much better if we rolled back the clock at least a hundred years and better yet several hundred. This is a bigger problem for us wrt to Islamic fundamentalism, because it’s western culture, as most visibly personified by the US, that now permeates theirs and in the view of many conservatives there, threatens their way of life. But there are definitely political issues as well, and I’m willing to bet dollars to donuts (whatever that actually means) that if the west hadn’t mucked around in the region for a couple of hundred years prior to this, there wouldn’t be the hostility toward the west that there is now.
Maybe it’s too late. Maybe the hatred of western culture has so thoroughly been incorporated into fundamentalist Islamic culture that there is no political means of fixing it (as if I knew how to fix it anyway). But I’d like to think that the true fundamentalists (as opposed to people who use fundamentalism to achieve their political ends, not that we’d know anything about that here in the US) constitute a comparatively small segment of the ME population and possibly can be won over if we do the right things (and no, I don’t know what the right things are, and I’m not saying do any damn thing they want to placate them - I’m saying mostly stopping doing the wrong things, and trying to make up for the bad things we’ve already done).
The big problem we have, of course, is the concept of the militant fundamentalist, the Jihadist who believes it’s perfectly morally acceptable, in fact laudable, to blow up a hundred innocent people to somehow (and it’s never been clear how this is presented to the volunteers here) further Islamic fundamentalism in the world. But I will point out this: sincere radical fundamentalism (in any religion) is often, and suicide bombing is (I’d think) always, a last resort for people who feel they have nothing else of value. To ignore the fact that fundamentalism has been on the rise due to purely political and economic factors is to miss an important point. There may be a way to fix this. Then again, there may not. I’m not remotely an expert on either MENA affairs or Islamic fundamentalism, and I’ll bet you there are as many opinions on that particular point as there are experts.
I just hate to give up on the possibility of finding or creating a solution that does not specifically target Islamic fundamentalism as “the enemy.” For one thing, there are plenty of fundamentalist Muslims who don’t think blowing up civilians is a good thing, just as there are plenty of fundamentalist Christians who don’t think blowing up an abortion clinic is a good thing. For another, how the hell do we even find the enemy, let alone fight him? We’re not talking a nation-state here; we’re talking believers within a specific sect or set of sects (say that three times fast!).
It’s a problem, and one I don’t pretend to have the answers to. But I suspect that identifying and targetting Islamic fundamentalists as “the enemy” is about as bad a thing as we can do, if there is any hope of ever seeing the Middle East settle down without outright conquest, permanent occupation, and serious oppression (necessary because we can’t identify the enemy on sight). And I’m not in the least convinced that we’d be capable of carrying out that conquest and occupation, even if it were determined to be necessary. Look at the romp we’ve been having in Iraq!
Amen, brother! But I’d settle for getting Rumsfeld out for now.
OK, if he believed Iraq had WMDs that constituted a threat to the U.S., why didn’t his war plan put any premium on securing the prospective WMD sites??
You know, when our front-line troops would drive Saddam’s armies back, yielding control of such sites to us - and our front-line troops wouldn’t leave a single man to secure the sites as they left them behind in their drive towards Baghdad? (And consequently, the sites were looted to the ground before our special WMD task forces could ascertain whether WMDs were actually there. Heckuva job, Bush/Rummy/Dick.)
Maybe Rumsfeld blew it without telling Bush about it pre-invasion - but if so, why didn’t Bush fire Rummy as soon as it came to light? If Bush had really been concerned about the WMD threat, he should have been mad as hell at Rumsfeld for a botch like that that, per what he ‘believed’, would have enabled the very result the war was supposed to prevent?
Ya know, Scylla, he’s pretty much got you there. Can you rebut seriously and honestly? Again, I’m not playing “Gotcha!” I hope you know me better than that by now. I really want to know, because I’d think what RTF says isn’t exactly news to you. I could be wrong, though.
How do you tell between garbage information from an informant and real information from an informant? I can agree that playing “good cop” is probably a useful tactic but I don’t see how that makes torture useless. If we are talking about independently verifiable information (there is a ton of explosives at 123 Haditha road), then while “good cop” information is more likely to be accurate, the coerced information is just as easy to check. If we are asking questions like “who else was involved in the bombing of the temple” then IMHO “good cop” techniques is just as likely to provide bad information as torture. It is just as easy to finger the perceived quislings (finger all the Iraqi cops in your neighborhood) as it is to finger other terrorists even if your interrogators are being nice to you. These guys really hate us and I don’t know if “being nice” is going to work every time. My concern over torture pretty much boils down to what it does to us but I guess the PR flak is something to think about too (although I would point out to France that they used torture to fight terrorism in Algeria).
Probably my mistake.
I guess I never felt that Iran could really hurt us but if they get the nuke, they can.
I agree wholeheartedly. But it is used as a recruiting tool and is a central part of the indoctrination of these folks.
I need to use a better word but I hate using words created by this administration so I have been avoiding islamofascists.