Proof that humans can discuss and realise they are on the same side of the argument, even if other people already knew it

I agree I misunderstood.I understand yr interest in the hypocrisy and do no not openly advocate torture I just see the reality and why it is used.So if I attacked I apologize.

*sigh* Please read the articles. These atrocities were perpetrated by the Iraqis...

"American Run" means the same as "Microsoft is run by Bill Gates" (well...not anymore :-) Yes...he is in charge, and is ultimately responsible, but I suspect he's not personally checking the books of his Downers Grove, IL campus.

Sure. When politicians and Presidents stop doing all those horrible things, we can get together, along with our intermarried cat and dog, take a ski trip in hell, and watch the lions and the deer frolic lovingly in the fields of Africa.

On a more important note, I'm not sure how the obnoxious, yet standard operational procedure, of lying politicians has any relation to whether or not the "takes time" argument has merit.

Please see ...
Non sequitur
Excluded middle
Straw man
...of the "Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric"

We are talking about a culture that, as a majority, is willing to turn a blind eye to fathers who kill their own daughters for getting raped. I guess the only statement I can make about these atrocities (which they are) is ...

Old habits die hard.

They all speak in absolutes. The President is no different. Perhaps if their constituencies weren't sheep, then there'd be a chance to speak otherwise, but as far as that goes, the angry masses only understand absolutes.

People want absolutes, not wishy washy statements. Understand that saying, "We'll try to prevent this from happening again" sounds weak. No politician wants to sound weak.

Now, I will concede to you that he should correct misstatements promptly, and he should stop attempting to collect credit for a job not yet done. But again I think that those problems are endemic to Washington as a whole.

Addressing the point specifically, if these people want to continue to be barbarians, then I'm all for it. When they want to join the enlightenment era, then give us a call. That's how I feel about it. No matter how much we desire to impose our values on others, it's just not going to work unless they want to change their ideas on morality. And they don't, so screw 'em. Their legal codes were barbaric before we got there, and they'll be barbaric long after we leave.

Additionally, if anyone thinks that this action has to do with democracy and freedom, I think they're mistaken. In my opinion, the goal in going there was geopolitical in nature. That being to influence others in the region. Obviously, while our presence there may have influenced Iraq's neighbors in one way or another, the current situation is a result of poor planning. And that is definately open for critique.

One more thing, I think you're statement "I'll treat the "not going to happen overnight" argument as if it wasn't completely without merit" as rather absolutist. How is that argument NOT without merit? Only because the President speaks in abolutist terms? That in turn, seems without merit. More stubborn.

handpicked by...?

I don't think I will. Is it not obvious that there is a difference between the president giving a speech and saying "mission accomplished" or " And one thing is for certain; there won't be any more mass graves and torture rooms and rape rooms" and saying "we're making progress" or "we're going to try to stop the torture/rape rooms?"

one set of comments makes for big bold headlines which the president obviously craves, while the other doesn't. shouldn't the president pay a price for going after the headlines with more ferocity than he is fixing the problem?

this brings to mind two things in my head. On one hand you have the geneva conventaion which if you read it or are briefed about it says that tortue is a "no no" and we don't do that so that when are boys and girls are caught as POW's they won't get this kind of treatment....granted this hasn't been followed to the letter of the law in this war. There have been beheadings and other atrocities. However on the other hand using torture to gain valuable infornatmion (ie like alledgedly used at abu grab and at gitmo) is a good thing so a terrorisot dosen't plant a dirty bomb in a subway that lil johnny is riding on. I don't advocate tortue nor do I think I am spelling it correctly, however in war you are driven to things that get the job done. I"m not trying to compare a real life scenario with TV however law and order had a great episode where a general said "I"d put panties on every head in abu grab to save just one life" to me that holds true.

"giving the people what they want" doesn't exactly square with who the president views himself. "i don't watch polls" and "i don't flip flop" don't indicate a man who speaks a certain way because it's what people want to hear, no?

of course they are. but does that mean that a case on the scale of this one should go unmentioned?

I agree 100%, but that's one of the arguments circa January 2003.

of course it is absolutist. that's the point. you can't declare victory, realize you're losing, and then move the goalposts down field a few miles.

We have never subject horses to waterboarding! That is simply inhuman!

We have never subjected horses to waterboarding! That is simply inhumane!

*sigh* Please read the articles. These atrocities were perpetrated by the Iraqis...

handpicked by...?

Tsk...there you go again...

Handpicked by...the article does not say. We keep running into this problem. Lots of conclusions not supported by the journalism. I will totally eat my words when you find a referencable source telling us who handpicked the prison guards perpetrating these atrocities.

I encourage you to do so.

I will point out that, from the article, the only things we DO know is...

1. It appears the prison was under the direct oversight of deputy minister, Pusho Ibrahim Ali Daza Yei (Not American)

2. "The government investigated the facility but never announced the results." Unfortunately, the article is not clear as to WHAT government. I took it to be the new Iraqi government. I could be wrong...however, from this article, we have no idea either way.

Why will you not? There is no doubt the president is doing all the things you have claimed. There is no doubt that he, as well, would be torn apart in moments by even a halfway decent high school debate team.

However, you are still not clear as to how the President grabbing headlines with moronic statements discredits the idea that correcting this culture's thousands of years of torture, abuse, repression and dictatorships "will take time."

Will it NOT take time? How does what the idiot president says to the cameras directly affect whether this would, or would not, take time?

Please, please, at least attempt to defend your statement

with at least one...just one...argument that directly addresses WHY the "overnight" argument is without merit.

Just one.

Pretty please...?

i'm not sure what language i'm supposed to do that in if english isn't working. "things take time" is a valid argument only when it isn't accompanied by "mission accomplished" or we're done with the rape rooms." the president (and his defenders) simply can't have it both ways. either we accomplished the mission and this is what success looks like, or we didn't, and he should come clean.

Great in theory (and I might, perhaps, even agree in theory), however three flaws...

1. Torture provides inherently unreliable information. The larger, and more "drawn out" the information is (see below) the less reliable the information is.

2. In wartime, torture has been effective for obtaining immediate facts, which can be a starting point for more intelligence. I.E. Determining where the remainder of the enemy soldiers intend to attack the following dawn, names and ranks of senior officers, locations of operational headquarters.

THE REASON THESE TYPES OF INFO can obtained, is generally due to slips by the soldiers under stress, and not the result of "giving up" information. When they are not thinking, they might say something innocuous, like a distance driven, the type of errand they were on, ETC. Things that seem harmless, but can be reconstructed from existing information to determine, for example, which camp in the area is the actual operational headquarters.)

However, when people start "giving up" information (plots, plans. names, locations of things) usually it falls under the category of "Saying anything to end the pain" and THAT info is the stuff that usually leads to little or nothing.

Torture, if it is arguably effective at all, is only effective for an extremely short period of time after capture (hours.)

3. And, perhaps most importantly, we don't...from this article...have any reason to assume they were being tortured for information as enemy combatants. In fact, the article infers, the motivations were probably more sociologically motivated (cultural division revenge.)

I see what you are saying.

You're saying that the statement "Things take time" is completely valid, and factual, however the fact that President Bush says, "Mission Accomplished" one day, and then says "Things take time" the next, makes Bush an idiot...but has nothing to do with whether things actually take time or not.

Is that correct?

it has nothing to do with whether he's an idiot or not. i don't even think he is. a true idiot wouldn't even try this strategy, sure he'd get caught.

it's about the fact that politics is based on a set of assumptions. being right earns you capital, being wrong costs you. bush has been spectacularly wrong on a number of issues, yet pays little or no price for it. in fact he receives praise for "being bold" when he's just boldly wrong. then when circumstances leave him naked, he reverts to "rome wasn't built in a day." until the very recent past, people with microphones were quite willing to point things like this out. now it's like groundhog day every time he claims victory, like none of the other times ever happened.

in an age where nearly every word the president says can be readily found and crosschecked against reality, he still gets away with it. kind of like rolo tomasi.

Yes. Totally agreed. BUT...what does Bush using the "Rome wasn't built in a day" excuse have to do with the fact that Rome, indeed, was NOT built in a day?

You said the argument that "This takes time" was nonsense. WHY IS THIS ARGUMENT NONSENSE?

Were not actually discussing whether the President should or should not be using this as a defense for errors...we are discussing why YOU think the "This takes time" argument is invalid.

P.S.

Huh??? I thought the definition of a true idiot was someone who couldn't think far enough into the future to determine WHAT would, or would not, get him/her caught.

(OK...actually, I thought the definition of "Idiot" was anyone with an IQ score under 20...which falls well within the category of developmentally disabled which is defined as anyone with an IQ below 70...but I digress :-)