America, land of torture? It can't happen here...

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

Postby GreatCarouser » Sat Oct 21, 2006 6:01 pm

OperaTenor wrote:GC, if you're thinking I'm turning a blind eye to Clinton on this one, you're wrong.

No, I'm as appalled by the fact of Clinton opening the door on this crap as I am to GWB throwing the door wide open on it.


No I'm not saying that. My reply was more directed at earlier posts. I think the difference between discussing a possibility and legislating it as the 'law of the land' should be apparent to all. I think the problem is the attitude of our leadership reflected in Shap's Nixon quote a couple of posts earlier. We don't need to match our enemy "atrocity for atrocity"; that's what the bad guys do. We need to leave the atrocities to them and pursue our goals through more principled means. I should add that the Phoenix program of assasination in Viet Nam started under a Democratic watch so that attitude isn't party specific. It speaks to the poverty of our methods if we can't 'win' without resorting to the same methods our enemies use. Will we encourage the poor to become human bombs next? I'm sure we could float that one through this Congress as well.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
Mark Twain
GreatCarouser
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Semi-permanent Vacation CA

Postby Shapley » Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:10 am

Will we encourage the poor to become human bombs next? I'm sure we could float that one through this Congress as well.


As opposed to the anti-war crowd's urging them to be 'human shields'? How do you determine which causes are noble enough to die for and which aren't? How different are 'roadside bombs' from landmines? Yet we've used landmines and seamines since their inception, Democrat and Republican.

OT said he supported the war in Afhanistan as a means of getting 'revenge' on Osama bin Laden. Revenge, he said! As if that is a valid justification for war. That is to say that he supported matching 'atrocity for atrocity', punishing an entire nation for the actions of a small group. That is the nature of war, and that is why you don't go into it lightly. However, once you commit, you commit all the way.

That's become the problem with America today, we don't believe in commitment. We'll walk out of a war as fast as we walk out of a marriage. We've lost our willingness to remain together 'in good times and bad'. When the going gets tough, we get out of there, as long as we can blame someone else for our lack of resolve. The latest census data shows that married couples are the minority, small wonder. Some of you will ask "What has one to do with the other?", but it should be obvious. We've lost our national backbone. Whether it's marriage, war, or work, we're unwilling to commit our full energies to the task at hand. We're willing to do it only so long as we see immediate self-gratification. If we don't beat the terrorists in Iraq, we'll always have another chance to beat them somewhere else, and we'll blame it on President Bush.

OT's right about one thing - the America I grew up in is gone. I just don't agree with him about who took it.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby OperaTenor » Sun Oct 22, 2006 5:21 pm

Shap, show me where I said revenge was what it should be about.

Feel free to wiggle on your own stances all you want, but don't twist my words.

As for our use of land and sea mines, you may want to check your assertions.
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby OperaTenor » Sun Oct 22, 2006 5:30 pm

Shapley wrote: That is the nature of war, and that is why you don't go into it lightly. However, once you commit, you commit all the way. (bold mine)

That's become the problem with America today, we don't believe in commitment. We'll walk out of a war as fast as we walk out of a marriage. We've lost our willingness to remain together 'in good times and bad'. When the going gets tough, we get out of there, as long as we can blame someone else for our lack of resolve. The latest census data shows that married couples are the minority, small wonder. Some of you will ask "What has one to do with the other?", but it should be obvious. We've lost our national backbone. Whether it's marriage, war, or work, we're unwilling to commit our full energies to the task at hand. We're willing to do it only so long as we see immediate self-gratification. If we don't beat the terrorists in Iraq, we'll always have another chance to beat them somewhere else, and we'll blame it on President Bush.

V/R
Shapley


Really? If *full commitment* was such a big deal, then why did we go into Iraq half-assed, with no plan for what happened after we toppled their government?!

Let's talk about the Republicans' acknowledgement for their screw-ups. Oh yeah, they don't do that. At all.

You think the Republicans have got it locked up? Then why, after six years of being in control of all three branches of government, haven't we solved the problems? Because of obstructionist Democrats?! Please.
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby Shapley » Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:43 pm

Shap, show me where I said revenge was what it should be about.


OperaTenor wrote:
Originally posted by Shapley:
'Revenge' is a fool's mission, and one does not hazard to take an entire nation to war over so trivial a pursuit.
And yet another eye-opener.

That's exactly the pretense GWB gave for the whole kit and kaboodle, and the entire nation was behind him, and the entire free world supported it. It was ALL supposed to be about redressing the 9/11 attacks and dismantling AQ so nothing like that would ever happen again.

What about all the times GWB said "we will smoke those responsible out of their holes, wherever they are" with regards to those responsible for the 9/11 attacks?!! Is that not a revengeful statement? Or are you going to try to tell me he really didn't say that, or that was all to prepare for opening up a playing field to fight the terrorists away from the U.S.(which, BTW, I'm sure the ordinary Iraqis would really appreciate hearing that people here believe their country is being used as our battleground just for that purpose)?

Usama bin - who?!


Given that you said you initially supported our efforts in Afganistan I would say that you supported the 'war as revenge' concept.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby GreatCarouser » Sun Oct 22, 2006 8:08 pm

When we invaded Afghanistan (rightfully, since we had concrete evidence the Taliban were giving aid and succor to the planners of the 9/11 attacks) we removed the offending government and pursued our targets. We aided the new government and then, rather then destroy the stronghold at Tora Bora, we went after a crippled foe in Saddam Hussein. To do that we had to reduce the effectiveness of our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We had to split forces many of our best military minds claimed were already too meager to accomplish the rather protracted goals of the Bush plan.

He either refused or was unable to enlist most of our allies who might have sent large amounts of troops to assist in this great struggle into his coalition. In spite of this Bush and company rejected a draft to replenish forces. He decided his could be the first wartime administration not to raise taxes. We would have our cake and eat it too. A quick cheap victory and a 'peaceful' transition to a democratic regime that would provide an island of sanity in the midst of Middle East madness. Lofty goals, admirable, unfortunately not available at the bargain rates the administration advertised.

Never mind that veterans' benefits were cut, there were problems with supplying frontline troops and those wacky Iraquis and their Al Qaida buddies weren't following the script. Something would have to give.

Mr. Bush has told us that if we retreat only the terrorists will benefit. He and his followers insist the only thing preventing our victory is the 'resolve of our people'. I guess that means if we leave it will be 'our fault'. It will be our fault we believed it more rational not to involve ourself in nation building when our other attempts in the region had already run up against formidable traditional barriers inherent to the region. It will be our fault if we believe the only way we achieve the kind of victory Mr. Bush has in mind will require far more bloodshed than Mr. Bush realizes because it is more rational to believe far too many of these people are willing to die rather than think like us and if they don't think like us we will never be safe from them. It will be our fault if we try to impress on Mr. Bush the dangers of thinking we are the new Roman Empire.

If I believed the victory Mr. Bush talks about were possible and it would end there I would say continue. It won't end there. We fight a shadow, not a nation. How big a shadow? None can say. So what are we maintaining or accomplishing in Iraq other than tying up resources and giving terrorists propaganda material as well as targets? If you read the Bush plan you realize the only 'end' of the War on Terror is when Democracy has been established throughout the region. A truly monumental undertaking.

Wouldn't it make more sense, strategically, to allow them a base so as to have a focal point for our attacks? Our greatest hope lies in the Muslim moderates and their thinking becoming more mainstream. I think when we take overt measures such as nationbuilding to do this we automatically poison the well. These people are so used to coups and despots they prefer them as long as they are their 'own' and not installed by foreign non-Muslims. As reprehensible as we may find some of their self-determined decisions they are 'their' decisions and our attempts to control them actively only make the US a scapegoat for the failures inherent in their system. These days it seems the attempt to maintain an unwanted armed force in a country is either impossible long-term or so expensive as to render the exercise futile.
Last edited by GreatCarouser on Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
Mark Twain
GreatCarouser
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Semi-permanent Vacation CA

Postby OperaTenor » Sun Oct 22, 2006 10:45 pm

Shapley wrote:
Shap, show me where I said revenge was what it should be about.


OperaTenor wrote:
Originally posted by Shapley:
'Revenge' is a fool's mission, and one does not hazard to take an entire nation to war over so trivial a pursuit.
And yet another eye-opener.

That's exactly the pretense GWB gave for the whole kit and kaboodle, and the entire nation was behind him, and the entire free world supported it. It was ALL supposed to be about redressing the 9/11 attacks and dismantling AQ so nothing like that would ever happen again.

What about all the times GWB said "we will smoke those responsible out of their holes, wherever they are" with regards to those responsible for the 9/11 attacks?!! Is that not a revengeful statement? Or are you going to try to tell me he really didn't say that, or that was all to prepare for opening up a playing field to fight the terrorists away from the U.S.(which, BTW, I'm sure the ordinary Iraqis would really appreciate hearing that people here believe their country is being used as our battleground just for that purpose)?

Usama bin - who?!


Given that you said you initially supported our efforts in Afganistan I would say that you supported the 'war as revenge' concept.


Read GC's first paragraph in response to this.

I guess you could call attacking the commannd and support structure of the enemy "revenge", if you want to play that game.

Just like you call invading Iraq part of the war on terror. Equally fallacious.
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby Shapley » Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:04 am

Go back and read the whole thread - it's in the unnecessary war topic. Ratsnake said we went into Afghanistan for revenge. I said we did not and should not, that 'revenge' is a fool's errand. You're post was a response to that - it clearly supports the concept of the invasion of Afghanistan as revenge.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby Shapley » Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:44 am

OT,

As for our use of land and sea mines, you may want to check your assertions.


Why? Do you have some indication that we don't use them? The practical sea mine was a U.S. Invention - David Bushnell invented them during the American Revolution. It is true that we are more often the victim of sea mines than the attacker, but they have been used in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, and World War II, that I know of as well as more recently in Nicaragua: Time Magazine Article "How To Block A Harbor"

Why Has Clinton Failed To Sign Land Mines Treaty?

US Will Not Sign Landmine Treaty - from Defenselink

GAO Report On Use Of Land Mines In The Gulf War


GC,

I'm not ignoring you post. I had typed a lenghty comment on it and accidentally erased it when I took a phone call. I've since lost my train of thought so I haven't endeavored to start over. My apologies.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby Shapley » Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:45 pm

Okay, GC, I'll try this again.

Once the Taliban had been removed from power and a new administration installed in Afghanistan, the requirements changed. The Taliban fled to Pakistan. Contrary to you posts, we did no have 'operations in ... Pakistan'. Pakistan did not allow us to cross the border. We have been able to conduct limited operations there with Pakistani approval, but we can make no troop incursions across the border. Here the paralells to Vietnam are valid - the same situation arose in Cambodia. King Sihanouk would not allow us to cross the border, yet he feared the growing number of North Vietnamese taking refuge there. Hence, the 'secret bombings' were begun to drive them out of Cambodia - except that they drove them deeper into it. Pakistan has the same problem - they do not control the wilderness near the Afghanistan border - and the Taliban has built a strong foothold there. If the Pakistani government is seen as too friendly to the West, they risk losing that region completely. If they allow US troops to enter the region - they risk driving the Taliban into Islamabad.

I posted a link a while back that said that our troops in Afghanistan have little to do - the enemy is not in Afghanistan but rather in the forbidden lands across the border. They attack with impunity, becuase they are safe on 'base', and they are careful not to stray too far from the safety zone.

President Bush made a famous speech at the onset of the invasion - in which he warned that the war will be a protracted one - sometimes overt and sometimes covert. Sometimes our actions will be kept hidden, even when they are victorious. So many seem to have forgotten those words - we demand instant gratification and full access. In the era of microwave ovens and instant messaging our wars should be instantaneous and painless. We don't have the resolve for long wars.

I happen to agree with the President that democracy is the enemy of Islamofascism. Look at where it breeds - its grows where freedom is lacking. Perhaps the President's plan to establish Democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan was too bold - but I can tell you this. Perhaps President Bush is bold even to the point of arrogance. I will tell you this - great success is not achieved by timid men.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby OperaTenor » Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:14 am

Well, that whole *explanation* is a stunning case of illogic.

Let me see if I get this straight: The enemy crosses the foul line into Pakistan, the land of no interference, so we leave them alone and invade Iraq instead. We don't want to piss off Pakistan by conducting military ground operations within their borders - why? - so they will continue to allow us the use of their airspace to attack in Afghanistan........................but wait, the enemy's run off into Pakistan..................but we can't go after them there because we'll piss off the Pakistanis...........................

Stunning...
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby Shapley » Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:02 am

And your solution is what ... invade Pakistan? We continue ops in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but adding more troops will only increase the number of people with little to do.

You imply that the invasion of Iraq had some connection to the situation in Afghanistan/Pakistan in order to make your feeble case, I made no such implication - I was addressing GC's statement that we cut our force strength in Afghanistan too low in order to invade Iraq, and that is not correct.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby Shapley » Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:23 pm

Incidentally, while looking up references for President Clinton's failure to sign the Land Mine Ban Treaty, I noticed that we 'lost the moral high ground' by his failure to do so. Remembering that we had just 'lost the moral high ground' on the torture issue, I decided to do some internet searches. I wanted to know when we had gotten it back in order to lose it again. This is what I found:

We most recently 'lost the moral high ground' when we failed to prohibit torture.

We 'lost the moral high ground' when we went war in Iraq in 2003.

We 'lost the moral high ground' when we failed to sign the Land Mine Ban Treaty in 1997.

We 'lost the moral high ground' at least twice during the reign of Ronaldus Maximimus - both by proposing the "Star Wars" defense system and by expanding our military in peace time.

We 'lost the moral high ground' by failing to stop genocide in a number of places, most of them in Africa.

We 'lost the moral high ground' in Vietnam - apparently several times.

The Bay of Pigs 'cost us the moral high ground'. (I'm not sure how that compares to 'losing' it.)

We 'lost the moral high ground' when we bombed Hiroshima.

Of course, we're not alone. By my count Israel has 'lost the moral high ground' at least six times. Europe 'lost the moral high ground' a couple of times, while individual European nations 'lost the moral high ground' independently of the rest of the continent many times. Catholic Bishops, the Catholic Church, various protestant denominations, and governments of other nations have also 'lost the moral high ground' at various times in the past few decades.

This left me wondering: Where is this 'moral high ground' and how do we keep getting it back? I've never seen the news report that we've 'gained the moral high ground'. I searched for that as well. I received seven pages of matches, many of them redundant, which is far less than for 'lost the moral high ground'.

It appears that various groups and individuals have 'gained the moral high ground' at one time or another, but our nation seldom does, even though we always seem to have it to lose. We 'gained the moral high ground' under the direction of President Lincoln. Actually, only the North gained it, the South fell short. In fact, it seemed to me from browsing the article that the North may have taken it from the South, which would indicate that we already possessed it as a nation, and it was only transferred among the warring factions.

I also found a reference to us 'gaining the moral high ground in 2005, but scanning the lengthy article I couldn't find out how. The article was mostly denouncing Condoleeza Rice. Apparently we barely 'gained the moral high ground', and Ms. Rice was somehow an impediment to that.

Israel has 'gained the moral high ground' several times, according to my search, which is good for them, even though they've lost it pretty much every time they've gained it. It must be a slippery piece of ground, being so hard to hang on to.

I would have expected that we would have 'gained the moral high ground' after World War II, perhaps even after the Great War, although in both cases we would have had to share it with our allies. Alas, I find no reference that we did so. Perhaps the 'moral high ground' isn't in the European or Pacific Theatres.

Perhaps the 'moral high ground' is so easy to lose because one never knows when they're on it. It doesn't even have to be taken by force, one occupier of the 'moral high ground' simply walks away, leaving it open for the next. I assume that the 'moral high ground' really isn't that much higher than the surrounding landscape, otherwise it would be much easier to recognize. Someone, however, must know who's on it any given time, for they are very quick to report when it is lost.

I hope that the next time we 'gain the moral high ground' someone will be kind enough to let us know, so that we can mark it and make it easier to find. Perhaps we can even build a permanent settlement there.

V/R
Shapley
Last edited by Shapley on Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby Marye » Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:18 pm

Shapley wrote:And your solution is what ... invade Pakistan? We continue ops in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but adding more troops will only increase the number of people with little to do. V/R
Shapley


Canada increased its presence in Afghanistan and changed its role from helping to rebuild to keeping the Taliban from rebuilding thus our troops are fighting daily with the Taliban and dying. I guess we have something to do.
Marye
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1662
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Postby Shapley » Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:32 pm

That's true. The Taliban has been able to reinforce its' numbers and refine it's tactics in Pakistan - as was the case with the VietCong in Cambodia. Unfortunately we are bound by borders that the enemy does not recognize. Incursions across that border will be propogandized to turn the people against the Pakistani government for 'supporting the West'.

They now seek to prevent infrastructure repair and the establishment of democracy, and those who are there to rebuild are caught in the middle. Ultimately, it is up to the Afghani security forces to secure their country - as it will be Iraq's as their government stabilizes and becomes stronger. We need to equip, support, and assist the Afghani military until such time as they are prepared to take full control of the protection of their country, but they have to do it, not us.

This is the same thing that is being demanded of us in Iraq - let the government bear the responsibility it has undertaken. We are working towards that goal in both countries.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby OperaTenor » Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:12 pm

Stunning justification....
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby GreatCarouser » Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:22 pm

Nothing to do? Tora Bora....why is it still standing, entrenched or how ever you wish to refer to it?
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
Mark Twain
GreatCarouser
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Semi-permanent Vacation CA

Postby Shapley » Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:59 pm

Why is Tora Bora still standing? Perhaps because we're not in the habit of killing peacable citizens.

Tora Bora fell in December, 2001. That is when Osama bin Laden may have escaped, although Gen. Franks doesn't believe this to be the case.

You can Google 'Tora Bora' yourself, or look it up on Wikipedia. but here is an account of the most recent military activity that I could find on Tora Bora, from Defenselink.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby GreatCarouser » Tue Oct 24, 2006 11:32 pm

I did Google Tora Bora....here's the first article I found....a little dated but interesting:How bin Laden Got Away...
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
Mark Twain
GreatCarouser
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Semi-permanent Vacation CA

Postby Shapley » Wed Oct 25, 2006 6:44 am

I've read that, and alluded to it in my post. As I noted, Gen. Tommy Franks, who was in charge of operations, disputes the notion that we 'had Osama bin Laden and he got away', his believes that, based on intelligence available, bin Laden was in Pakistan at the time.

However, you're obviously trying to change the subject from the fact that Tora Bora, as a 'fortified. entrenched, or whatever', does not pose a threat. It's a geograpical region, not a fortress. Your question is like asking why Alscace-Lorraine or the Rhine Valley were still standing after World War II.

You did note, I suppose, that the CIA helped fortify Tora Bora in the 1980's, so we had a general idea of the lay of the land, although it had been changed significantly since then. I gathered from my research that the power supplies and other enhancements were of U.S. manufacture, although I did not find that stated directly.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15163
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

PreviousNext

Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron