Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Hank, we have had this discussion before. There is a fundamental difference between recognizing that bad things happen in a war and in enshrining those bad things as policy approved at the highest level.

I can virtually flat out guarrantee you that we didn't torture German prisoners in WWII away from the battlefield in order to learn how far along the Luftwaffe was with the heavy water project, or with where V-1s and V-2s were being aimed. And I strongly suspect (but am slightly less confident, if only because of the attitudes of the era) that the same is true about Japanese prisoners away from the battlefield.

This is not about Sergeant Rock in the hedgerows with Fritz trying to find out where the sniper that killed Gus is hiding. This is about what happens outside of the blood rage of immediate action, and decisions made in the light of cool reason. The fact that you ignore this distinction puzzles me.

Is your ivory tower ivory?

Abu gharib much?

This is the first war where papers and TV intrude in what's going on, and so it is upon the administartion to protect soldiers. We didn't need to protect Sgt. Rock because the NYT still saw one side as good.

[SlaveNoMore]

Not Bob
Hank, we have had this discussion before. There is a fundamental difference between recognizing that bad things happen in a war, and in enshrining those bad things as policy approved at the highest level.

Not for nothing, but in the "good" WWII, firebombing major cities and slaughtering civilian populations was indeed enshrined as policy and approved at the highest level.

[LessinSF]

http://glassbooth.org/

Ron Paul shares a 71% similarity with your beliefs

Ron Paul was born on August 29, 1936. He is a Republican from Texas. Paul has served 10 terms as a congressman from the 14th and 22nd districts of the U.S. House of Representatives. Prior to that he was a general physician in Lake Jackson, Texas. Paul placed third in the 1988 presidential election with a 0.5% of the vote, running as the Libertarian Party nominee--while remaining a registered Republican.

Trade and Economics very similar
Drugs very similar
Civil Liberties and Domestic Security very similar
Iraq and Foreign Policy very similar
Taxes and Budget similar
Crime and Punishment similar
Social Security very different
Abortion and Birth Control very different

[SlaveNoMore]

LessinSF
http://glassbooth.org/

Ron Paul shares a 71% similarity with your beliefs

Lyndon Larouche is probably upset by this.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He asked, so I told L'il Ty that there are still pirates around. Alas, he then had nightmares for a week.

He was a ninja for Halloween. I think these things are connected.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Is your ivory tower ivory?

Abu gharib much?

This is the first war where papers and TV intrude in what's going on, and so it is upon the administartion to protect soldiers. We didn't need to protect Sgt. Rock because the NYT still saw one side as good.

Uh, no. Remember Vietnam? My Lai? Lt. Calley? Sy Hersh? David Halberstam? Walter Cronkite getting blamed after Tet?

And Abu Gharib was NOT ON THE FRONT LINES. It was a prison, and those who worked there were not infrantrymen or in the combat arms.

Throw Haditha back at me instead, and I would still say that there is a fundamental difference between a company commander giving way to blood lust and lawyers in the Justice Department saying that so long as major organ damage doesn't occur that it ain't a violation of the law.

You're a lawyer, right? What's the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder in your state?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Uh, no. Remember Vietnam? My Lai? Lt. Calley? Sy Hersh? David Halberstam? Walter Cronkite getting blamed after Tet?

And Abu Gharib was NOT ON THE FRONT LINES. It was a prison, and those who worked there were not infrantrymen or in the combat arms.

Throw Haditha back at me instead, and I would still say that there is a fundamental difference between a company commander giving way to blood lust and lawyers in the Justice Department saying that so long as major organ damage doesn't occur that it ain't a violation of the law.

You're a lawyer, right? What's the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder in your state?

my point was that some people in harm's way might try to get some of their comrades a benefit.

oh. WWII. you don't think we tortured. I mean sanctioned by the government torture.

what is your basis for the opinion?

as to crim law, I have made an effort not to know anything. when my lowlife cousins call I can tell them i don't know what the fuck.

Specialists. Trust them to do their speciality. 2007 some people still think torture makes sense. You, armed by blogs-a -plenty think not. Do you not ask yourself why people whose job it is to interrogate don't agree? I mean the spartans tortured and it wouldn't continue if it didn't help. do armies still pray to Bal?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Not for nothing, but in the "good" WWII, firebombing major cities and slaughtering civilian populations was indeed enshrined as policy and approved at the highest level.

Fair point, though a different problem. We also had concentration camps for Japanese-Americans and a segregated Army and Navy.

That being said, as I've said here before, I'm only here because of Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb, so I have no problem with that -- and I think that, contra the revisionists occasionally cited here, the Emperor would never have cut a deal to surrender absent the loss of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And I have less of a problem with US bombing than with British and German bombing because we at least were being as accurate as technology permited in going for largely military targets (but see the non-nuclear firebombing of Tokyo, which probably killed more civilians that either of the nuclear bombings or of the Dresden bombing).

Interestingly, I don't recall the Luftwaffe being charged with war crimes for the terror bombings of England in 1940 or the V-1 or V-2 programs, but I could be wrong.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Specialists. Trust them to do their speciality. 2007 some people still think torture makes sense. You, armed by blogs-a -plenty think not. Do you not ask yourself why people whose job it is to interrogate don't agree? I mean the spartans tortured and it wouldn't continue if it didn't help. do armies still pray to Bal?

I don't base my moral disgust with torture on what I read in blogs, Hank.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I don't base my moral disgust with torture on what I read in blogs, Hank.

i am also disgusted that it may be necessary. i only take issue when you imply Bush/Cheney invented it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Bob
And I have less of a problem with US bombing than with British and German bombing because we at least were being as accurate as technology permited in going for largely military targets (but see the non-nuclear firebombing of Tokyo, which probably killed more civilians that either of the nuclear bombings or of the Dresden bombing).

It's OK to torture because we haven't developed an effective truth serum yet?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
i only take issue when you imply Bush/Cheney invented it.

They didn't invent it. But they have routinized and legalized it. We prosecuted Japanese as war criminals for waterboarding POWs. It's hard to imagine that we could ever do that again, now that we've told the world that we're OK with it.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
They didn't invent it. But they have routinized and legalized it. We prosecuted Japanese as war criminals for waterboarding POWs. It's hard to imagine that we could ever do that again, now that we've told the world that we're OK with it.

We tell other nations all the time that they cannot have nukes.

Hypocritical? You betcha.

Sound policy? Absolutely.

The anti-American brigade - moving ever so slowly to the front of the Dem party - is so blind in their hatred if Bush that they ignore that the USA, while clearly not mistake-proof, also exerts its power with the utmost care and highest discipline.

I actually trust our government - and most especially our military - to almost always use whatever force or action is necessary, and that is it. Of course there will be mistakes, but that is the unfortunate side effect of volume: it's a bitch being the policeman of the world.

PS - if these Europeans, other than Great Britain, really loathed our military so much, they'd raise their fucking taxes and actually build a useful standing Army.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
We tell other nations all the time that they cannot have nukes.

Hypocritical? You betcha.

Sound policy? Absolutely.

That's not actually the deal we have with them. There are a series of non-proliferation treaties under which we -- and other nuclear nations -- agreed to move to give up nukes over time, etc. Your point about hypocrisy is well taken. The idea that we can forego our obligations under these treaties but expect other nations to live up to theirs -- it doesn't work so well. As for sound policy, if you want other countries to cooperate with a non-proliferation regime, they don't respect the hypocrisy.

The anti-American brigade - moving ever so slowly to the front of the Dem party - is so blind in their hatred if Bush that they ignore that the USA, while clearly not mistake-proof, also exerts its power with the utmost care and highest discipline.

You are sadly misinformed about the Democratic party. As for "the utmost care and highest discipline," you haven't been paying attention to what we've been doing in Iraq, which makes a mockery of your words from top to bottom, but the rest of the world has.

I actually trust our government - and most especially our military - to almost always use whatever force or action is necessary, and that is it. Of course there will be mistakes, but that is the unfortunate side effect of volume: it's a bitch being the policeman of the world.

"necessary"? How can you use that word after our invasion of Iraq? You've got to come up with something else, because that's a joke. Try, "we thought it was a good idea at the time, kinda," although that gets you into trouble with the "what a good policeman for the world we are" thing,

PS - if these Europeans, other than Great Britain, really loathed our military so much, they'd raise their fucking taxes and actually build a useful standing Army.

What would Europe do with a larger standing Army? They don't want to invade Iran or North Korea.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
“What we are going to have to put in place is a combination of the Manhattan Project, the Apollo project, and the Marshall Plan, and scale it globally,” Mr. Gore told Fortune. “It’d be promising too much to say we can do it on our own, but we intend to do our part.”

This guy has the ability, in one quick sound byte, to remind all of america why we are lucky the Supreme court protected our institutions and stopped the Forlida vote steal. Can anyone fathom the depths of this man's hubris?

PB K-race: Stack up all the most embarrassing Gore quotes you can find, and we'll try to match them one-for-one with embarrassing Bush quotes. Rule: quote has to be in haec verba.