Politics: A new beginning

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
P.S. To open up a whole 'nother can of worms -- do you believe tht there are any legal limits on what our government could do to the prisoners in Gitmo? (i.e Would it be legally acceptable to flay them alive, or to dissolve them in acid?)

Yes, I'm going to have a serious discussion with this, or with someone who wants to send a memo to the Bushies that they took 9/11 too seriously.

La la land, guys. You're welcome to slit your own wrists. Leave me and the rest behind, though. We'll sit back and applaud your values, of course.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

P.S. To open up a whole 'nother can of worms -- do you believe tht there are any legal limits on what our government could do to the prisoners in Gitmo? (i.e Would it be legally acceptable to flay them alive, or to dissolve them in acid?)

I'm with the smart bird up above here. U.S. citizens on U.S. soil? Sure, or where will that line get drawn before I'm on the wrong side of it.

But captured by the military on a foreign battle field while not wearing a uniform or representing an internationally recognized government? I'd hope that the military asked for a showing, like "did sgt. smith capture this guy at Tora Bora" or something as light, but objective and recordable, as that. If the answer is yes, then I don't see a legal basis for an objection to skinning them alive. Except maybe some of those human rights treaties we sometimes sign that, I think, say that "all people are entitled to human rights" and not just "citizens of signatory countries are entitled to human rights while in the hands of other signatory countries or their representatives".

I'm all about keeping our word.

Hello

[Hank Chinaski]

New marching orders Comrades. The Washington Post feels that Dean may not have a solid foreign policy plan.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec17.html
accepting "bad news?" (here that catching Sadaam was a "good thing") - No.

Mr. Dean's carefully prepared speech was described as a move toward the center, but in key ways it shifted him farther from the mainstream. A year ago Mr. Dean told a television audience that "there's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies," but last weekend he declared that "I never said Saddam was a danger to the United States."

Realizing things could get worse- and there are Bad people out there (besides W)? No.

Mr. Dean's exceptionalism, however, is not limited to Iraq. It can be found in his ..........readiness to yield to the demands of North Korea's brutal communist dictatorship, which, he told The Post's Glenn Kessler, "ought to be able to enter the community of nations."

Electable in November? Washington Post thinks not.

It is Mr. Dean's position on Iraq, however, that would be hardest to defend in a general election campaign. Many will agree with the candidate that "the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help and at unbelievable cost." But most Americans understand Saddam Hussein for what he was: a brutal dictator who stockpiled and used weapons of mass destruction, who plotted to seize oil supplies on which the United States depends, who hated the United States and once sought to assassinate a former president; whose continuing hold on power forced thousands of American troops to remain in the Persian Gulf region for a decade; who even in the months before his overthrow signed a deal to buy North Korean missiles he could have aimed at U.S. bases. The argument that this tyrant was not a danger to the United States is not just unfounded but ludicrous.

Want to repeat this one part of the Washington Post editorial
"The argument that this tyrant was not a danger to the United States is not just unfounded but ludicrous."

Again, does the Washington Post think he realizes there are challenges in the Mid-East that demand US involvement? No.

Mr. Dean may be arguing Saddam Hussein's insignificance in part because he is unwilling to make a commitment to Iraq's future. He appears eager to extract the United States from the Middle East as quickly as possible, rather than encourage political and economic liberalization. His speech suggests a significant retreat by the United States from the promotion of its interests and values in the world. Mr. Edwards laid out a detailed and ambitious plan to prevent the spread of dangerous nuclear materials; Mr. Clark is proposing a new Atlantic Charter under which the United States would build an alliance to take on the transformation of the Middle East, among other initiatives. Mr. Dean's biggest idea is to triple U.S. contributions to a global AIDS fund -- an essential but narrow cause in which the United States would allow international institutions to take the lead. His most serious departure from the Democratic mainstream is not his opposition to the war. It is his apparent readiness to shrink U.S. ambitions, in Iraq and elsewhere, at a time when the safety of Americans is very much at stake.

let me repeat this part of the Washington Post editorial, "His most serious departure from the Democratic mainstream is not his opposition to the war. It is his apparent readiness to shrink U.S. ambitions, in Iraq and elsewhere, at a time when the safety of Americans is very much at stake."

I suppose the Washington Post is supporting another candidate, but geeez, this is some pretty tough treatment of the Dean. It almost sounds like his foreign policy equals Jimmy Carter's, or the Washington Post thinks so at least.

[sgtclub]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3335965.stm

[Kodafi agrees to give up WMD]

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Don't be stupid. You're free to say whatever you want. I am the moderator, but all I did was tell you that calling people "tards" is offensive. It has nothing to do with PC, unless by that you mean that pointing out that something is offensive is necessarily PC.

No offence was intended. It's just that "tards" is easier to type than "mentally challenged." I thought we were all fairly intelligent adults here that don't get caught up in in that kind of thing. Next time I'll substitute "X" instead with an appropriate footnote.

But I'm glad you pointed this out. It reminds me of another favor tactic by the left. Ignore the substance of the argument and attack the messenger.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone_Slothrop
Don't be stupid. You're free to say whatever you want. I am the moderator...

I knew I'd live to regret this. :shakehd:

My very own Earl Warren

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
let me repeat this part of the Washington Post editorial, "His most serious departure from the Democratic mainstream is not his opposition to the war. It is his apparent readiness to shrink U.S. ambitions, in Iraq and elsewhere, at a time when the safety of Americans is very much at stake."

Sounds like being an isolationist to me.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It's just that "tards" is easier to type than "mentally challenged."

Is that why people on Fashion keep saying Guidos instead of italian Americans?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No offence was intended. It's just that "tards" is easier to type than "mentally challenged." I thought we were all fairly intelligent adults here that don't get caught up in in that kind of thing. Next time I'll substitute "X" instead with an appropriate footnote.

But I'm glad you pointed this out. It reminds me of another favor tactic by the left. Ignore the substance of the argument and attack the messenger.

"by the left"?!?!?! Get a grip. It's a bullshit partisan tactic, not a bullshit partisan leftist tactic.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That's only because Clinton was termed out. Gore was no Clinton.

Clinton only became President because Reagan was termed out. GHWB was no Reagan.

OTOH, despite GHWB as VP being Reagan's worst act, without it we wouldn't have W today, thus evidencing Reagan's jedi knight like foresight. I can just picture Reagan saying to a young W, "Dubya, I am your father, join me on the Right side and together we can rule the Free World!"

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Yes, I'm going to have a serious discussion with this, or with someone who wants to send a memo to the Bushies that they took 9/11 too seriously.

La la land, guys. You're welcome to slit your own wrists. Leave me and the rest behind, though. We'll sit back and applaud your values, of course.

Of course it was an extreme example, Bilmore (the Gitmo thing)That's what they call a hypothetical question, Bilmore, designed to spark discussion and take the conversation on to another point.

You also didn't answer the question, because you didn't like where it would lead.

As to the rest, how could you possibly take anything that I said to mean that "the Bushies took 9/11 too seriously"? That's both stupid and offensive. What I said was that the particular policy they adopted with regard to handling enemy combatants was, in my view, incorrect (particularly with regard to U.S, citizens)-- AND that it was neither an inevitable nor undisputably correct policy. You twisted tose statements.

I read your well-reasoned comments, and understood them -- but disagreed for reasons that I also attempted to explain. You said its all line-drawing, and I said that I'd draw the line differently. That makes me unworthy of further discusssion?

Explain how giving Padilla or Hamdi access to lawyers with security clearances "slits our [collective] wrists". You can't.

So, even if we disagree on a point like this one, I'm just nit-picking? Probably partisan too.

Of course, the Franklin quote was a bit facile -- but so are all broad statements of principle as applied to complex real-world situations. However, it makes a legitimate point.

In fighting an enemy such as this one, we run the risk of abrogating and compromising key democratic principles that many of us hold dear -- and thus substantially changing the nature of America. For example, I rather like our First Amendment and I don't want to become Great Britain. We need to watch out for that -- and I also think that the tremendous pressure from all the liberal groups many conservatives decry -- and the efforts of attorneys largely fighting these issues pro bono -- constitute a critically important check to counterbalance the pressures from the other side (including the pressures of world events and the need to respond thereto).

You dismissed it all far too readily Bilmore --- makes me think that you have nothing to say that you haven't said already. That's fine, but just say so. There's no need to be a bitch.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3335965.stm

[Kodafi agrees to give up WMD]

Your spelling is abysmal.

But geez, this is impressive. Maybe he is secretly a genius. Heck, if he gets a similar result from N. Korea before the election, I'll vote for him. (But still hate most all of his domestic policy.)

S_A_M

[SlaveNoMore]

Penske_Account
Clinton only became President because Reagan was termed out. GHWB was no Reagan.

OTOH, despite GHWB as VP being Reagan's worst act, without it we wouldn't have W today, thus evidencing Reagan's jedi knight like foresight. I can just picture Reagan saying to a young W, "Dubya, I am your father, join me on the Right side and together we can rule the Free World!"

The Jedi parallels are apt.

Dooku is a fuck-up, but his padawan Qui Gon was the balls.

And Yoda? Come on, brother. 'Nuff Said

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Your spelling is abysmal.

But geez, this is impressive. Maybe he is secretly a genius. Heck, if he gets a similar result from N. Korea before the election, I'll vote for him. (But still hate most all of his domestic policy.)

S_A_M

I'm not paid for my spelling. I only get paid on a per offensive comment basis.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not paid for my spelling. I only get paid on a per offensive comment basis.

Sheee-yit! If I had that compensation scheme I would have been able to retire off of my infirm socks.