[quote=“Jaboney”]Fred, you can’t give him carte blanche to say what he likes.
But since you’ve already seen this and responded, I’ll stick to this response…
bob: :no-no:[/quote]
But Jaboney we “like” fighting with each other. We are what you could call, I suppose, good enemies in that we share practically no common ground and are willing to chip away at each other’s philosophies or rhetorical styles forever. It’s fun, educational, challenging, all those good things. You never learn as much as from a good enemy and while it would have to be admitted Fred benefits a great deal more than me in that respect I still value the relationship for the entertainment it provides.
Here what I am saying is that fred will participate in conversations in which certain points are quite clearly illustrated and then he will join in on another thread and talk as if those points were never made. It is spam, or propoganda, or a even, perhaps, flat out lies. Go and re-read the Abu Graib threads and see if you don’t see what I mean. What happened in Graib “maybe” didn’t satisfy the legal criteria of torture but it was still a bloody disgrace for reasons that are made perfectly clear.
And by the way “torture” and murder is precisely what happened in the American run prison in Afghanistan.
bob, if you two can fight well, if you can be effective adversaries, great. I’m always happy to do my part to encourage dialogue, discussion, and real debate. I always seek out contrary perspectives, as it keeps one honest.
I’d go all Jon Stewart on your Crossfire, here, but I’d never pull it off.
It comes down to what he said. Politics depends upon an exchange of ideas. Otherwise, it’s force; in this case, being only the internet, verbal violence. That’s bad. It’s bad for us. It’s bad for you. Please, stop it.
A real dialogue is dependent on certain goods: good will, good intentions, good wine, ect. Your ever friendly, courteous mods are charged with creating/ maintaining those conditions–to the limited extent that we can. (Which is, really, very limited. You guys set the tone, we just clean up the mess.) The basic outline of the necessary conditions are provided by The Rules; a still more basic outline is provided by the “Friendly Reminder.” With close friends, or the right kind of understanding, you can get away with slagging off one another as you rightfully deserve. wink wink
But this is internet, with a reasonably large, somewhat anonymous membership, so a higher (less familiar) standard of courtesy is required. Try to get around that and bad things start to happen. Sorry.
Be nice. Be sharp. Have at one another’s ideas. Just don’t get personal; keep it within the rules.
(Ya know, there’s a reason why I’ve had the cartoon currently appearing in my signature has been stuck to my monitor for the 5 or 6 years. PC bullshit gets in the way of dialogue. But then, so do other things, like extreme volume, shit and abuse. I’m not saying that you have to be nice, just asking that you do it nicely.)
But at a certain point being good adverseries isn’t just a question of arguing points of fact. It is also a question of pointing out patterns of behaviour. For example, if Fred misrepresents the tone or general conclusions reached in another discussions and I don’t point it out, I am not being a good adversary am I?
I really doubt that the sarcasm has much effect on Fred, but I see your point about this being a public forum so I’ll try and cool it.
Any proof on this? Still no? After three years nothing? Be sure and let us know when you have proof. Congress will want to see the same as well.[/quote]
Why is it that we have so many disaffected CIA agents writing memoirs but nothing in the official reports? Seems to me that Congress has already looked at this issue and while this person may have an opinion on the subject, his conclusions are not those of the Senate.
Also Bob, please show that the incidents that happened in Abu Ghraib were widespread, systematic, approved by higher authorities and that most of what happened was “torture” and not “abuse.” Also, any proof on those Afghan claims? Again, I am not saying that anyone in the US military is not committing acts that are not appropriate but those that have been identified have been prosecuted and punished just as anyone in the US is tried and punished whether police or whatever. Any proof that they are not being prosecuted and punished. And again, why the keen interest in the US? These types of “incidents” have been far more widespread and “systematic” in Germany and France and numerous other nations particularly with regard to anti-terrorism and immigration units dealing with “asylum” so why this battering ram against Bush?
Second, check out the asylum camps in France and the UK where prisoners are held without trial, etc for lengthy periods of time in harsh conditions. Why from an immigration point of view, many countries in Europe actually have several Guantanamos with far more numerous prisoners than we do in Cuba. Haha Why not take a glance at these?
Let’s face it. Right now, the lefties of the world like Bob are holding up the US to standards that while ideal are certainly going to be fraught with challenges just as they have always been including for numerous facilities in Australia, NZ, Europe, Canada, etc etc. Rather than constantly harp on these with such venom, shouldn’t we be examining whether these camps are in fact out of the norm and the level of treatment is in fact inhumane? Ask the immigration authorities about how immigrants have also learned to use the system to block efforts to deal with them effectively. The first step is to claim abuse or disrespect of one’s religious views in order to shut the system down.
At the time of the report’s release (July 9, 2004), Democratic members of the committee expressed the hope that “phase two” of the investigation, which was to include an assessment of how the Iraqi WMD intelligence was used by senior policymakers, would be completed quickly. Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) said of phase two, “It is a priority. I made my commitment and it will get done.”
On March 10, 2005, during a question-and-answer session after a speech he had given at the Woodrow Wilson Center, Senator Roberts said of the failure to complete phase two, “[T]hat is basically on the back burner.” Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-WV), vice chairman of the Committee, made a statement later that day in which he said, “The Chairman agreed to this investigation and I fully expect him to fulfill his commitment… While the completion of phase two is long overdue, the committee has continued this important work, and I expect that we will finish the review in the very near future.”
In a statement regarding the release of the report of the presidential WMD commission on March 31, 2005, Senator Roberts wrote, "I don
I see that all the quotes are from the usual cast of characters among the Democrats particularly the hard left wing ones. How strange then that this has not been completed. Anyway, the initial reports on this approved by the Senate have already discussed this issues in great detail. Ever heard of the Duelfer Report? Anyway, keep the fires going on this one all you like but when you have proof and not partisan efforts to embarrass the administration then let me know.
I am beginning to wonder if you even read my posts. First of all it’s bob. Little b, bob. Second I never said I was a “lefty” and I even said to you a couple of days ago that I wasn’t a lefty.
Anyway this is a thread about how the left finally showing some sense about the war in Iraq. (You started it, remember?) Naturally the conversation will revolve around US activities.
Spook will be back shortly to explain that this statement is nonsense becuse nobody employed by the administration in military or security postions could be characterized as “hard left”.
". . . the phase two investigation now going on in the Congress, which I think as long as the Republicans control the Congress will not be an investigation that reveals very much. But I think we really need to take a hard look at how not just the intelligence failures I’ve enumerated occurred, but how this particular one did. Because it could turn out to be one of the worst in our history. . . .
I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council. How do you think that makes me feel? Thirty-one years in the United States Army and I more or less end my career with that kind of a blot on my record? That’s not a very comforting thing."
