stockula said:
... is the business of the US to win popularity contests or to pursue its interests and ensure its security?
This is such a false dichotomy. It is very much in the United States' best interest to be well-liked by the rest of the world. A well-liked United States is an awful lot less likely to inspire people to blow themselves up in an effort to kill Americans.
More importantly, if the United States were well-liked internationally it would go a long way toward delegitimizing radicals and terrorists. If the U.S. were no longer despised and thought to be a more or less "deserving" target, Al-Qaeda and their ilk would have a much harder time trying to convince anyone that they are in any way brave or admirable for "standing up to America," and would be seen as nothing more than the fanatical sociopaths they are. That shift in perception would go a long way towards enboldening moderates the world over to forcefully condemn terrorism - and Islamic governments to take action against radicals - without needing to worry about being condemned as "American lapdogs," "Western stooges," or "un-Islamic."
Oderint dum metuant may have worked for Caligula, but it hasn't worked out so well for the United States. Wake up.
stockula said:
You know, I'd like to throw up my hands and say 'OK, let's try it your way', but the thing is that we have tried it your way and we got 9/11. George Bush has changed the way America deals with Islamic terrorism and it has resulted in crappy air travel experiences and criticism from Europeans, leftists and the New York Times, but it has not resulted in more Americans killed in their offices or from flying on planes. So the way I see it, you folks have NOTHING to conclusively show your approach works better, and Bush's approaches were adopted in light of failed past approaches and have objectively kept Americans safer. So unless you have a better approach, please shut the fuck up.
You're right. Bush did change how the U.S. deals with terrorists. Through Bush's actions, there are now more terrorist attacks than ever before, their recruitment is up, they have more sympathy than ever before, and the U.S. is less able to deal with them because we are focused on not allowing granny to bring knitting needles onto planes.
One attack got through. Just one. But more than twice the number of U.S. citizens have died because of Bush's reaction to that attack than died IN the attack. The US is not safer because of Bush.
Stop pretending to be intelligent. You aren't fooling anyone.
stockula said:
Well yes, considering the folks who performed the acts at Abu Ghraib on one night were being prosecuted several months before the story was leaked to the press. The people who beat John McCain for years are probably considered patriotic heroes of the People's Republic of Vietnam.
I paid good money for this bullshit detector. Please don't burn it out on a single post, OK?
stockula said:
... is the business of the US to win popularity contests or to pursue its interests and ensure its security?
This is such a false dichotomy. It is very much in the United States' best interest to be well-liked by the rest of the world. A well-liked United States is an awful lot less likely to inspire people to blow themselves up in an effort to kill Americans.
More importantly, if the United States were well-liked internationally it would go a long way toward delegitimizing radicals and terrorists. If the U.S. were no longer despised and thought to be a more or less "deserving" target, Al-Qaeda and their ilk would have a much harder time trying to convince anyone that they are in any way brave or admirable for "standing up to America," and would be seen as nothing more than the fanatical sociopaths they are. That shift in perception would go a long way towards enboldening moderates the world over to forcefully condemn terrorism - and Islamic governments to take action against radicals - without needing to worry about being condemned as "American lapdogs," "Western stooges," or "un-Islamic."
That's very easy for you to say sitting in front of your computer. Maybe the chair you're using is hurting that back of your's, so you can claim some slight comparison to torture. I know I can. Listening to your unabashed Right-Wing looney rhetoric is torture all by its lonesome.
And the fact that you support Waterboarding is unconscionable. How about you try it in a controlled environment (or better yet, uncontrolled), see how you like it, then get back to me on how much you support it, because its very easy to support torture and play down prison camps when you have never laid eyes on one, stepped foot in one, or have even heard a fraction of the horror stories come out of one.
Well yes, considering the folks who performed the acts at Abu Ghraib on one night were being prosecuted several months before the story was leaked to the press. The people who beat John McCain for years are probably considered patriotic heroes of the People's Republic of Vietnam.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the prosecutions were limited to a few 'expendable' enlisted personnel. Do you really think it's possible that the folks in charge of the place didn't know what was going on?
The acts in Abu Ghraib did not occur in one night, they were repeated over time. .
mingol
Singapore
July 2005
JUN 15, 2008 05:48 AM