Is the U.S. acting too Imperialistic?

[Ford Prefect]

Yep. Pull out now and Iraq will end up governed the way most Iraqis want it to be governed. What a tragedy that would be! For the U.S. that is.

That is an overstatement because I don't really think the majority of Iraqis want the civil war that is looming when the U.S. finally gets out. I do think that if the Iraqi people could chose a stable government tomorrow, the policies of that government would not suit the U.S. interests in the area at all and so the entire war would be a failure. Only if the U.S. can stay long enough to arm their puppet government to the point where it can enforce it's rule and it's policies will the war have been a success and is that really the way you expect the \"Leader Of The Free World\" to act?

And just because I feel like complaining about U.S. policies I have the following questions:
If Iraq wants to end it's poisoned relationship with Iran and begin a co-operative relationship with their neighbour why is the U.S. sticking it's nose in there and trying to force a continuance the old antagonistic relationship? Because it is best for Iraq or best for the U.S.?

Much too late now but why didn't the U.S. stick to fighting Al Qaida in Afghanistan? There they had support on the ground from a significant section of the population in the form of the Northern Alliance and actually had members of Al Qaida to fight against. A huge opportunity was lost and a tragic, probable debacle was created.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Yep. Pull out now and Iraq will end up governed the way most Iraqis want it to be governed.

That seems like a really naive statement to me. Let me fix it for you.

Yep. Pull out now and Iraq will end up governed the way the most powerful Iraqis want it to be governed.

It's the way things are. I don't know what world you're living in.

The only way a U.S. pull-out would leave them better off is if the good citizens in Iraq had enough guts to fight (and many may die) for their freedom. To fight so that another corrupt government doesn't form. And that's assuming they even have a clue as to what that freedom should be like.

The United States of America wasn't just a country waiting to happen (as an example of a very democratic country), it took a great deal of wisdom, vision, and sacrifice (greed is screwing it over, but that's another topic).

[CUDA]

Yep. Pull out now and Iraq will end up governed the way most Iraqis want it to be governed. What a tragedy that would be! For the U.S. that is.

That is an overstatement because I don't really think the majority of Iraqis want the civil war that is looming when the U.S. finally gets out. I do think that if the Iraqi people could chose a stable government tomorrow, the policies of that government would not suit the U.S. interests in the area at all and so the entire war would be a failure. Only if the U.S. can stay long enough to arm their puppet government to the point where it can enforce it's rule and it's policies will the war have been a success and is that really the way you expect the "Leader Of The Free World" to act?

And just because I feel like complaining about U.S. policies I have the following questions:
If Iraq wants to end it's poisoned relationship with Iran and begin a co-operative relationship with their neighbour why is the U.S. sticking it's nose in there and trying to force a continuance the old antagonistic relationship? Because it is best for Iraq or best for the U.S.?

Much too late now but why didn't the U.S. stick to fighting Al Qaida in Afghanistan? There they had support on the ground from a significant section of the population in the form of the Northern Alliance and actually had members of Al Qaida to fight against. A huge opportunity was lost and a tragic, probable debacle was created.

WOW there are SOOOOO many assumptions here I dont even know where to begin.

and to biggy back on Thorne about the fledgling democracies. it took this country almost 100 years before it became somewhat stable. during its first 50 years it almost collapsed several times

[TIGERassault]

I just don't understand some people here. If we don't change the face of the middle east, they will eventually kill us.

Why yes, I can really see a country killing all those western countries, despite be many-fold times bigger than them. Especially when you count in that most of the terrorists in the place are targeting their own country.

And what does it say about our media and the democrat party that he hasn't been asked that question!?!

It says to me that they don't think it's a valid question.
Of course, I'm sure it's because you know something that they don't, and you are totally right...

Funny, in a sick and sad way, the guy about to be elected president by leading the "Bush was stupid to go in there because of what it turned into!" mantra is going to be the guy who takes it from the brink of extremely hard fought success and dumps it into the very thing he campaigned against!!

Y'know, you're the first one I've heard to say that the war is on the brink of success in quite a while. Everyone else who did use to say that stopped when they realised that the war was going on a whole lot longer than they expected it to.

[CUDA]

I just don't understand some people here. If we don't change the face of the middle east, they will eventually kill us.
Why yes, I can really see a country killing all those western countries, despite be many-fold times bigger than them. Especially when you count in that most of the terrorists in the place are targeting their own country.

Why yes, I can really see a country killing all those western countries, despite be many-fold times bigger than them. Especially when you count in that most of the terrorists in the place are targeting their own country.

no they just do it 3000 people at a time. and who exactly are they targeting in those countries. the western countries and their supporters. and do you think for one second that if the terrosists get hold of biological or nukes that they wont use them. because if you believe that your are completely naieve.

And what does it say about our media and the democrat party that he hasn't been asked that question!?!

It says to me that they don't think it's a valid question.
Of course, I'm sure it's because you know something that they don't, and you are totally right...

the question is valid it might not be to your liking but that doesn't delute that fact of its validity. what it says maybe it doesnt fit their agenda. that would be the Agenda of getting their person in power no matter what the cost. this is all about power dont deceive yourself in to thinking otherwise.

"The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves.
William Hazlitt (1778 - 1830)"

Funny, in a sick and sad way, the guy about to be elected president by leading the "Bush was stupid to go in there because of what it turned into!" mantra is going to be the guy who takes it from the brink of extremely hard fought success and dumps it into the very thing he campaigned against!!

Y'know, you're the first one I've heard to say that the war is on the brink of success in quite a while. Everyone else who did use to say that stopped when they realised that the war was going on a whole lot longer than they expected it to.

you really need to get out more then. either that or just pay more attention. they just a a big ta-do in congress a few months ago stating that very fact. or didnt Air America report that to you??

[Ferno]

Ferno, or anyone else who thinks we should pull out of Iraq right away, what entity do you think will end up running Iraq's government controlling her oil and taking the place of what was recently the biggest baddest military in the region?
I wonder if Obama has even been asked that question? And what does it say about our media and the democrat party that he hasn't been asked that question!?!

It doesn't matter what I think anymore, and it's rather futile if I do post anything of substance.

It's just gonna be the same dance again and again.

[Bet51987]

whining

awww, did I hit a nerve?

I'm always nervous but you didn't especially hit one that matters.

the funny thing is.. you'll believe anything, no matter how stupid.

Hmmm.. Reviewing your history on this DBB leads me to believe you have many names in your "stupid" book. I'm happy to be one.

I just don't understand some people here. If we don't change the face of the middle east, they will eventually kill us.

Why yes, I can really see a country killing all those western countries, despite be many-fold times bigger than them. Especially when you count in that most of the terrorists in the place are targeting their own country.

I understand what you mean Tiger but Cuda answered for me. It may take a lot of people to construct a bridge, subway, school, supermarket, etc, but only one or two to bring it all down, especially where lots of civilians and kids congregate and that's what frightens me. Terrorists train every single day and with ever scarier weapons.

...It doesn't matter what I think anymore, and it's rather futile if I do post anything of substance. It's just gonna be the same dance again and again.

Hehe... Maybe it's because you like playing this game rather than a more serious one. It's a lot safer that way.

Bee

[Cuda68]

I just don't understand some people here. If we don't change the face of the middle east, they will eventually kill us.

Why yes, I can really see a country killing all those western countries, despite be many-fold times bigger than them. Especially when you count in that most of the terrorists in the place are targeting their own country.

And what does it say about our media and the democrat party that he hasn't been asked that question!?!

It says to me that they don't think it's a valid question.
Of course, I'm sure it's because you know something that they don't, and you are totally right...

Funny, in a sick and sad way, the guy about to be elected president by leading the "Bush was stupid to go in there because of what it turned into!" mantra is going to be the guy who takes it from the brink of extremely hard fought success and dumps it into the very thing he campaigned against!!

Y'know, you're the first one I've heard to say that the war is on the brink of success in quite a while. Everyone else who did use to say that stopped when they realised that the war was going on a whole lot longer than they expected it to.

What a load of cr*p. Talk to the troops that come home and they will tell you how much better it is over there now. People are stepping up and turning the terrorist's and Al-Quida. Attacks have fallen from 12 to 15 a week to less than 3 in many areas. No wonder they call it the boob toob - stop watching the news (they lie) and listen to the returning troops.

[CUDA]

The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism.

dogmatic

adjective
1. characterized by assertion of unproved or unprovable principles

please take the time to learn the facts of a subject before you post. posting on emotion is a piss poor way to live your life. I understand you can be passionate about something. but at least have "some" knowledge about what you are being passionate about.

The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.

[Jeff250]

Alright, enough with the quotes already. I'm sure you can make your argument without piecing it together from the words of famous dead people and of Sir William Osler.

[CUDA]

SPOIL SPORT

[Ford Prefect]

I don't think the U.S. 300 years ago is a very good comparison to a country which is in the process of having it's politics and policies shaped by the army of a nation that does not share it's religion, values or history. And don't start with England being the occupier, British values and religion were nearly identical by comparison to the U.S. and Iraq. The belief that the Iraqi people want the same government and have the same values as those in the Western world is naive and simplistic. I don't think the average Iraqi wants his government to be a friend of the U.S. Give them a few more years of occupation and that number will probably get worse.

[TechPro]

I don't think the U.S. 300 years ago is a very good comparison to a country which is in the process of having it's politics and policies shaped by the army of a nation that does not share it's religion, values or history. ...

Especially since there wasn't any U.S. some 300 years ago ...

[Ford Prefect]

It's tough being a Canadian around a bunch of U.S. history buffs.
OK. The U.S. 232 years ago.

[Tunnelcat]

You can't just declare stuff to be the way you want it and then expect us to take your argument seriously.

One example, calling the difference between uniformed soldiers and terrorists fighting in civilian dress hiding among civilians "Bush hair splitting". That is just ridiculous!
Just because it works against your allegations you declare it to be a fabrication of Bush's when in fact it is clearly specified in the rules of the Geneva Conventions! when they made up the rules back then they knew military forces would come up against these kind of people, they refer to them as "battlefield belligerents" and they were declared to be of the same status as spies by the rules you sight! They may be shot on sight or brought to a firing squad at the pleasure of the capturing commanders in the field. Just because you find it all scary and ***** doesn't mean you get to re-write reality to fit your personal feelings.

You just pointed out the Bush hairsplit. Spies and battlefield belligerents can be EXECUTED under the Geneva Convention, NOT tortured! I agree that guerrillas, terrorists, spies and battlefield belligerents are NOT combat personnel, and thus fall under a different category. So with that in mind, they can be EXECUTED under the rules, not tortured, which is technically a violation of the Geneva Convention. That the terrorists don't follow the Convention is not a reason for the U.S. to act the same way. Just because the other side cheats doesn't mean that we need sink to their low. We should be holding the moral high ground here and be getting world support.

My previous links reveal that the Bush plan all along was to nation build Iraq in the U.S. mold. It might be quieter over there right now, but how long do you think that will last if the surrounding Arab nations figure out what the U.S. is doing. What about Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and the Gulf States? Since ALL religions have their fundamentalist factions, even Christianity, all of these nations have Islamic Fundamentalists within their populations. Also, a lot of Indonesian nations are Muslim as well. Is the U.S. prepared to fight a global uprising of Islamic Fundamentalism? Sure, we can position ourselves to keep Iran in check, but is the U.S prepared to deal with Iraq's populace which is a mix of Sunni and Shia. I don't think that the Shia will tolerate a permanent U.S. presence, just as the Palestinians don't tolerate the Jews presence. We'll end up with perpetual terrorism like Israel deals with, maybe even on a worldwide scale. If that happens, we'll need more personnel to fill the military ranks, so a draft will probably get instituted in the future to fill that need. Are you prepared to send your children into a future of endless war?

Frankly, I'm done for now. You just can't convince the right-winger's of their President's folly, at least until it eventually catches up with them. And Will, you gave yourself away as a 'righty' when you used the derogative singular bastardization of the term for the Democratic Party (Democrat Party) that fat pig hypocrite Rush Limbaugh started using recently courtesy of Carl Rove, who started getting Bush to use it. Or maybe it was just a Bush malaprop originally. At least the Aussies had some sense. I noticed that they just pulled out their troops from the coalition.

[Spidey]

Tunnelcat…

I’d like to go on the record of being against the Iraq invasion, but I must also point out that I support the presidents right to make foreign policy.

I must also point out here what I consider a very dirty trick pulled by the Democrats in congress. That being setting the president up for failure by helping to vote him the authority to invade Iraq, all the time knowing it would turn into a quagmire, and then could be used for political gain, instead of supporting the president in a time of crisis.

The Dems should have put their money where their mouth was, and voted against the war. (and Hilary running for president is hypocrisy at its worse) BTY when is the congress going to end the war? (that’s what they got voted in for)

P.S. I have seen this kind of thing in the past. Example…when they gave Reagon only 2 of his 3 part program, knowing all the well it would run up the deficit, and then could be exploited for political gain.

This kind of behaviour is far more despicable, than making bad foreign policy.

[CUDA]

You just pointed out the Bush hairsplit. Spies and battlefield belligerents can be EXECUTED under the Geneva Convention, NOT tortured! I agree that guerrillas, terrorists, spies and battlefield belligerents are NOT combat personnel, and thus fall under a different category. So with that in mind, they can be EXECUTED under the rules, not tortured, which is technically a violation of the Geneva Convention. That the terrorists don't follow the Convention is not a reason for the U.S. to act the same way. Just because the other side cheats doesn't mean that we need sink to their low. We should be holding the moral high ground here and be getting world support.

To start, first. I do not condone torture. BUT if you want to talk about hair splitting you are doing just the same thing. Many of your far left buddies declare execution as torture. so now I ask you Who's standard do we follow theirs or yours. if we execute the terrorists are we torturing them? if we water board are we torturing them? if we detain them are we torturing them. there is no standard definition of the word in the convention. many people, law makers and politicians included say waterboarding is NOT torture. so again I ask. by who's standard?

My previous links reveal that the Bush plan all along was to nation build Iraq in the U.S. mold. It might be quieter over there right now, but how long do you think that will last if the surrounding Arab nations figure out what the U.S. is doing.

Point 1, your \"link\" proves nothing and is a left wing propaganda website that has like you, proven nothing.
Point 2, are you really naive to think that any Arab country gives a rats as$ about why we are there??? we are the great Satan in their eye's we support Israel thats the ONLY reason they need to try to kill us. wake up and pull your head out of the sand
Point 3, I will concede that maybe it was Bush's plan to build a Government like the U.S's. So? is our form of Government that bad? it is a Government of the people, By the people, and For the people. now if they would have been US friendly, Who knows??? we could only hope.

Frankly, I'm done for now. You just can't convince the right-winger's of their President's folly, at least until it eventually catches up with them. And Will, you gave yourself away as a 'righty' when you used the derogative singular bastardization of the term for the Democratic Party (Democrat Party) that fat pig hypocrite Rush Limbaugh started using recently courtesy of Carl Rove, who started getting Bush to use it. Or maybe it was just a Bush malaprop originally. At least the Aussies had some sense. I noticed that they just pulled out their troops from the coalition.

Usually if you are trying to convince someone it takes evidence and facts to do so. saying that Mr so and so is a fat pig or Mr so and so is the anti-Christ doesn't cut it. hating someone just because your told to will get you no where in life. PROVE them wrong and you do more to change their minds than any hate and screaming that they are right-wing biased you can spew.
1. You have produced NO evidence period. left wing bush hater sites are not evidence that are Dogma.( see the dictionary definition I posted earlier)
2. the facts that you have presented have been proven that you misrepresented them or had a lack of knowledge about them. point in case the Geneva convention rules that you quoted.

so are you taking your ball and going home???

[Will Robinson]

...And Will, you gave yourself away as a 'righty' when you used the derogative singular bastardization of the term for the Democratic Party (Democrat Party) that fat pig hypocrite Rush Limbaugh started using recently courtesy of Carl Rove, who started getting Bush to use it....

'OMG !! He used the same word as Limbaugh the same way Limbaugh uses it he must be a scumbag too!!!'

Get over yourself dude!

My opinions and desires for policy change have been no secret and never have been constrained by any party! You are the one who gave away his identity with that last whine! You need any debate filtered through the party template! I disagree with your position so I must be one of them....

As I used to tell Rican when he was around here, You are a good little democrat because you see things as us or them, left or right, good team or bad team...
No wonder you can't take it, you haven't been told what to think about half the questions I've raised!

Squeeze this through your template -
I'm against capital punishment and for legalizing drug use but... I would give really harsh penalties for anyone selling drugs to minors.

I'm against quotas but.... all for affirmative action.
I'm for the border fence and tight security but.... totally in favor of letting the Mexicans cross like they always did except through the gate showing ID instead of crawling under the fence.
I'm for a government health care program but... only one that simply subsidizes peoples expenses but keeps the politicians out of the management of the doctors and hospitals. We can pay for it with a national lottery...ooohh lottery! That's gambling!
Can I possibly be a conservative if I'm in favor of gambling!?!
I'm in favor of states rights to allow gambling.

I'm against a state sponsored religion but think liberals have gone way overboard persecuting the Christians for their beliefs while bending over to appease Muslims.

PS: Rush is a loudmouth and sometimes too sophomoric for my taste but he is also witty and funny as well as right half the time, and the number one reason I'd vote for McCain, if I was going to, would be because Rush does a great McCain impersonation and he can't do Obama.
If I'm going to have to suffer through 4 or 8 years of one of them at least with McCain there will always be Limbaugh's shtick to help me laugh so I don't cry.

[Cuda68]

Hey now, McCain has age and experience on Obama. My kinda guy

[TechPro]

Wow ... it's Elmer Fudd!









Or is it John McCain?

[woodchip]

Or Ross Peroit

[Tunnelcat]

To start, first. I do not condone torture. BUT if you want to talk about hair splitting you are doing just the same thing. Many of your far left buddies declare execution as torture. so now I ask you Who's standard do we follow theirs or yours. if we execute the terrorists are we torturing them? if we water board are we torturing them? if we detain them are we torturing them. there is no standard definition of the word in the convention. many people, law makers and politicians included say waterboarding is NOT torture. so again I ask. by who's standard?

My definition of torture is when physical PAIN is inflicted upon the body for prolonged periods of time in an effort to break down the will of a person. Execution should always be quick and painless, but since that's not always possible, I don't agree with execution either. Terrorists should be given a proper and fair trial with the evidence presented to get a conviction and then incarcerated if found guilty. Punishment for your crimes is not torture. Our Attorney General REFUSED to answer the question put to him by lawmakers when asked if waterboarding was torture. He couldn't even answer NO. So what is it. Would you want it done to you?

Point 1, your "link" proves nothing and is a left wing propaganda website that has like you, proven nothing.

It proves that you are being close minded to what has been reported in several other different mainstream news agencies. Are they all 'liberal'?

Point 2, are you really naive to think that any Arab country gives a rats as$ about why we are there??? we are the great Satan in their eye's we support Israel thats the ONLY reason they need to try to kill us. wake up and pull your head out of the sand

Do you REALLY think that the Arab Nations don't resent our presence other than just our support for Israel? Come on, they've been colonized or under the influence of Western Civilization for decades, there must be a little resentment by now. I know that it would piss me off if the Arabs decided to invade and take over the U.S. for some resource. Maybe they have by proxy with the price of oil now. They also have the perception that the west is out on a Christian Crusade, which means that we may have the makings of a HOLY WAR.

Point 3, I will concede that maybe it was Bush's plan to build a Government like the U.S's. So? is our form of Government that bad? it is a Government of the people, By the people, and For the people. now if they would have been US friendly, Who knows??? we could only hope.

Our form of government is no longer a Democracy. Now it's 'Of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation'. BOTH of our parties are controlled by corporate lobbyists, the people have no say. It's capitalism unchecked, there is no 'free market' in my opinion. It always gets corrupted with GREED. Global corporations don't have a soul or national pride either, their God is profit. The Arabs also consider our government a Christian entity. Why would that be something that they or everyone wants?

Usually if you are trying to convince someone it takes evidence and facts to do so. saying that Mr so and so is a fat pig or Mr so and so is the anti-Christ doesn't cut it. hating someone just because your told to will get you no where in life. PROVE them wrong and you do more to change their minds than any hate and screaming that they are right-wing biased you can spew.
1. You have produced NO evidence period. left wing bush hater sites are not evidence that are Dogma.( see the dictionary definition I posted earlier)
2. the facts that you have presented have been proven that you misrepresented them or had a lack of knowledge about them. point in case the Geneva convention rules that you quoted.

so are you taking your ball and going home???

I'm not a Democrat or a Liberal. So why do Republicans always call someone "liberal" when they don't agree with them? Republicans always seem to have the attitude that if you don't agree with their policies or with the President, your a 'liberal wacko'. The Democrats are just a bunch of corrupt, spineless, power craving wimps as well when they don't even have the fortitude to stand up to the Republicans. Both of our party's are a disgrace to this nation with all this infighting. If you can't even CONSIDER some of the points (not always hard evidence, things can be murky when it comes to the dealings of our government) that are contrary to your opinions, your being myopic at best.

The Geneva Convention does NOT condone torture, AT ALL, under ANY circumstances, period! End of discussion.

Oh and Spidey, I agree with your points as well. I'm not giving the Democrats a pass on this mess either. We don't have a lot of good choices for voting on in the Presidential election I'm afraid.

[Spidey]

Yea, I hear ya, the latest spin I am hearing on this election is…4 more years of Bush, or turning the clock back to the Carter administration. Yay…

I don’t particularly believe either, because I don’t trust any politicians. (or their cronies)

Sad huh…

[woodchip]

TC, you sound as though all one has to do to become rich is to form a corporation, be greedy and rake in gobs of profit. You ever try starting a business let alone make one profitable?

[CUDA]

To start, first. I do not condone torture. BUT if you want to talk about hair splitting you are doing just the same thing. Many of your far left buddies declare execution as torture. so now I ask you Who's standard do we follow theirs or yours. if we execute the terrorists are we torturing them? if we water board are we torturing them? if we detain them are we torturing them. there is no standard definition of the word in the convention. many people, law makers and politicians included say waterboarding is NOT torture. so again I ask. by who's standard?

My definition of torture is when physical PAIN is inflicted upon the body for prolonged periods of time in an effort to break down the will of a person. Execution should always be quick and painless, but since that's not always possible, I don't agree with execution either. Terrorists should be given a proper and fair trial with the evidence presented to get a conviction and then incarcerated if found guilty. Punishment for your crimes is not torture. Our Attorney General REFUSED to answer the question put to him by lawmakers when asked if waterboarding was torture. He couldn't even answer NO. So what is it. Would you want it done to you?

you still didnt answer my question. by who's standard do we define torture. I'm not disagreeing with you that it was torture. but as I stated not even our own lawmakers and politicans can agree on the standard. plus by your standards we cannot execute them. but the convention says that they fall into a category that allows execution. they can be shot on site. so if they fall into that Spy category and can be shot on site, why do they deserve a trial???

Point 1, your "link" proves nothing and is a left wing propaganda website that has like you, proven nothing.

It proves that you are being close minded to what has been reported in several other different mainstream news agencies. Are they all 'liberal'?

no it proves that I dont rely on the news to get my FACTS (funny how that word keeps poping up) I research subjects and dont rely on MSNBC or the Huffington post to get my information. because I cannot remember two news agencies reporting the same "FACTS" about the same stories. uless they get it from Al-Rueters and then its just a copy and paste.

Point 2, are you really naive to think that any Arab country gives a rats as$ about why we are there??? we are the great Satan in their eye's we support Israel thats the ONLY reason they need to try to kill us. wake up and pull your head out of the sand

Do you REALLY think that the Arab Nations don't resent our presence other than just our support for Israel? Come on, they've been colonized or under the influence of Western Civilization for decades, there must be a little resentment by now. I know that it would piss me off if the Arabs decided to invade and take over the U.S. for some resource. Maybe they have by proxy with the price of oil now. They also have the perception that the west is out on a Christian Crusade, which means that we may have the makings of a HOLY WAR.

of course they resent our presence there but do you really think for one second that they hate us anymore for it??

Point 3, I will concede that maybe it was Bush's plan to build a Government like the U.S's. So? is our form of Government that bad? it is a Government of the people, By the people, and For the people. now if they would have been US friendly, Who knows??? we could only hope.

Our form of government is no longer a Democracy. Now it's 'Of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation'. BOTH of our parties are controlled by corporate lobbyists, the people have no say. It's capitalism unchecked, there is no 'free market' in my opinion. It always gets corrupted with GREED. Global corporations don't have a soul or national pride either, their God is profit. The Arabs also consider our government a Christian entity. Why would that be something that they or everyone wants?

history lesson for you, this Government of ours has NEVER been a Democracy. it is a Republic. we elect people to represent us. in a True Democracy we would vote on EVERYTHING. as for our Government being controlled by lobbyists I wont disagree. never said it was a perfect Government, but you still have the power to vote someone out of office if you dont like him.

Usually if you are trying to convince someone it takes evidence and facts to do so. saying that Mr so and so is a fat pig or Mr so and so is the anti-Christ doesn't cut it. hating someone just because your told to will get you no where in life. PROVE them wrong and you do more to change their minds than any hate and screaming that they are right-wing biased you can spew.
1. You have produced NO evidence period. left wing bush hater sites are not evidence that are Dogma.( see the dictionary definition I posted earlier)
2. the facts that you have presented have been proven that you misrepresented them or had a lack of knowledge about them. point in case the Geneva convention rules that you quoted.

so are you taking your ball and going home???

I'm not a Democrat or a Liberal. So why do Republicans always call someone "liberal" when they don't agree with them? Republicans always seem to have the attitude that if you don't agree with their policies or with the President, your a 'liberal wacko'. The Democrats are just a bunch of corrupt, spineless, power craving wimps as well when they don't even have the fortitude to stand up to the Republicans. Both of our party's are a disgrace to this nation with all this infighting. If you can't even CONSIDER some of the points (not always hard evidence, things can be murky when it comes to the dealings of our government) that are contrary to your opinions, your being myopic at best.

so pot meet MR kettle you just labeled me as a Republican. FYI I'm a registered independent. and I have no problem with you not agreing with our president. I just expect you to be informed of ALL the facts before you go off on your rants. 2nd FYI, I ALWAYS consider all the issues, then I look at the FACTS and make my best judgemnt guess from that, I learned a long time ago, "be quick to listen and slow to speak"

[Spidey]

\"be quick to listen and slow to speak\"

I like that...

[CUDA]

people that shoot first and ask questions later are foolish. they react before having all the facts and usually make poor decisions in doing so.

[TIGERassault]

they react before having all the facts and usually make poor decisions in doing so.

Those people must be personifications of this entire forum!

[Spidey]

BaDing…Right on cue…

[Cuda68]

they react before having all the facts and usually make poor decisions in doing so.

Those people must be personifications of this entire forum!

He's about to do his Howard Stern impression again isn't he?

[Tunnelcat]

Cuda, you're right in the fact that there is no CLEAR definition of torture, so I'll agree with you on that. We probably don't really know what type of interrogations have been performed on detainees, other than the waterboarding, that was performed in some of the foreign countries (such as Egypt) that Bush sent them to. Torture is one of those things that most civilized people would know it if they saw it. In my opinion, deliberately inflicting pain or mental abuse on another is torture and that includes waterboarding. I almost drowned as a child and I can tell you that it was a most unpleasant and painful experience.

The other thing that makes this whole Iraq affair dirty is the fact that Congress has NOT declared war on anyone and these terrorists are non-combatants with no national affiliation. That's where Bush is getting around the Convention, he's using a loophole.

However, the Supreme Court just upheld Habius Corpus for detainees today, 6/12/08, and two Republican appointed judges were among those that cast the supporting vote. Now if we give them fair trials in a court of law and find them guilty by the preponderance of the evidence, they can be punished or even executed for crimes against the U.S. We've already tortured, imprisoned and released people that were found to be innocent and had been trapped in Bush's detainee system for years and had done nothing against our country.

As for the links I provided, there was conformation from a Bush spokesman the other day about 58!!! airbases (the number went up) that he wants to establish on Iraqi soil. The administration is keeping this hot little topic close to the vest. You really have to take the little snippets of news that leak out anymore to form an opinion of what Bush is doing. You can't just blast off everything and give Bush a pass. Bush has classified more government documents than any other president in recent history. What's he hiding? You just can't get reliable information on what our government is doing.

As for Iraqis resenting our presence in their country, time will tell. I hope that I'm wrong here.

Technically aren't we a Democratic Republic? I don't have a Political Science Major. But since President Bush keeps calling the U.S. a Democracy, maybe he needs a history lesson. What scares me is that we may becoming an oppressive Christian Republic, but that's a topic for another thread.

I didn't label you a Republican Cuda, I was labeling Will Robinson one since he used the Republican derogative term for the Democratic Party in his post (Democrat Party) that was either started by Carl Rove or Bush and disseminated by Rush Limbaugh on the radio and FOX news. I'm also an independent, I don't like either party, but for some reason, the use of the singular term 'Democrat' in place of 'Democratic' just shows petty vitriol on the right wing's part and it's irritating and ungracious.

TC, you sound as though all one has to do to become rich is to form a corporation, be greedy and rake in gobs of profit. You ever try starting a business let alone make one profitable?

WoodChip, what are you saying? Your point here? All I was talking about was that Global Corporations have so much lobbying power in our government that we, the common people, can't even vote out the guys we don't like. They're ALL bought off. Even Obama.

[Spidey]

…“the use of the singular term 'Democrat' in place of 'Democratic' just shows petty vitriol on the right wing's part and it's irritating and ungracious.”

Yea, sort of like “Neo Con”

[Dakatsu]

…“the use of the singular term 'Democrat' in place of 'Democratic' just shows petty vitriol on the right wing's part and it's irritating and ungracious.”

Yea, sort of like “Neo Con”

*COUGH*

[Spidey]

I know you have a point about abbreviations in there some where…Right?

[Will Robinson]

I didn't label you a Republican Cuda, I was labeling Will Robinson one since he used the Republican derogative term for the Democratic Party in his post......the use of the singular term 'Democrat' in place of 'Democratic' just shows petty vitriol on the right wing's part and it's irritating and ungracious......

What a lame assumption on your part! I learned what republican and democrat meant from my parents when I was just a youngster. Back in the early 70's if you were a republican you usually voted for the republican party and if you were a democrat you usually voted for the democrat party...simple.

You think someone using "democrat party" to describe the party made up of democrats is somehow vitriolic!?! Funny I thought it was just logical!

Anyway, somewhere along the line the democrats (or should I now call them the democratics?!?) decided to call themselves the democratic party to imply they are the party that supports democracy and in your self righteous mind you probably never once thought of the other side of the coin...which is they are also implying the republican party doesn't support democracy! Are you so naive you didn't see that motive behind the democrats whining?!?
I've been calling them the democrat party since I was a kid because when I was a kid that's what they called themselves and I recognized their stupid word game when they first started playing it but you go on and play it like a good little democrat...democratic...whatever!

[Ferno]

Cuda, you're right in the fact that there is no CLEAR definition of torture

Merriam-Webster defines torture as:

the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

Seems pretty clear to me.

[CUDA]

Cuda, you're right in the fact that there is no CLEAR definition of torture

Merriam-Webster defines torture as:

the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

Seems pretty clear to me.

Thanks for clarifying my point for me Ferno. Water boarding doesn't fall under that definition.
it doesn't cause intense pain, or Burn, crush, or wound. it doesn't meet any of your definition of the word. it is used for coercion, But giving a kid a candy bar to get them to do something is coercion. Water boarding is not done in the manner you put forth. it creates panic and a sense of drowning. so again is water boarding torture since it doesn't meet Websters definition??


FYI:

"KSM lasted the longest under waterboarding, about a minute and a half, but once he broke, it never had to be used again," said a former CIA official familiar with KSM's case.

KSM = Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

[woodchip]

TC, you sound as though all one has to do to become rich is to form a corporation, be greedy and rake in gobs of profit. You ever try starting a business let alone make one profitable?

WoodChip, what are you saying? Your point here? All I was talking about was that Global Corporations have so much lobbying power in our government that we, the common people, can't even vote out the guys we don't like. They're ALL bought off. Even Obama.

Then I suppose you never heard of the lobbying power of such non-profit organizations like AARP, NEA or the NRA?

[Tunnelcat]

Will, I apologize for my incorrect assumption. You're right about the change, but it just seems that recently, Bush, Cheney, the Republicans and many right-wing media personalities began to use the term 'Democrat Party' deliberately and derisively and it just irked me whenever I heard it used that way. Just a stupid little pet peeve on my part.

Wood Chip, you're right. There are large lobbying groups that are separate from the major corporations and do represent many common groups and interests of people. However, I still think that large corporations have influence over these groups as well. AARP is a good example of corporate influenced decision making. When they lobbied for prescription drug coverage on behalf of seniors, AARP backed the government drug plan that gave NO negotiating power to lower drug prices that the big pharmaceutical companies charge. Seniors began crying foul that the AARP wasn't representing them when they found out what the prescription drug plan was really going to cost them in the long run.

Gun makers influence the NRA as well. Whether that's good or bad for gun members is debatable. You can't convince me that Global Corporations, with almost bottomless lobbying cash, don't influence groups that supposedly represent common people, for their own interests. Money talks, especially if you have more of it.