Oh flock...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You seem to be assuming that nations are never in agreement. This is often not the case.

The "seem" is all yours. I never (except in this sentence) said anything close to "never."

You're mixing issues here. There is an argument to be made for the Bush policy toward treatment of unlawful combatants, but that doesn't supersede existing US law prohibiting torture.

Your speaking as if it is "wrote fact" that US law was broken. Isn't this being "investigated?" Has the guilty verdict already been rendered?

So there's no line in the sand? Perhaps we should have used donkeys to rape detainees because it would have been funny?

One of your typical non-sequitors.

If we are to have standards of behavior established as law, they can't have exceptions after the fact. Bush could have gone to Congress to ask for torture laws to be revised, but he did not.

So much for the importance of the "rule of law." If you don't want to break a law--change it.

This is the attitude Bin Laden is banking on.

Bin Laden banked on the attitude that we would be too soft to fight the war we did and nearly lost his life savings (maybe he did, we're still not 100% sure he is alive). And, if your right, he is banking that there will be enough people like you to turn against what we've done and turn tail in defeat. He may prove right on that.

Frankly I believe we shouldn't let a terrorist define what be believe to be our prime principals. I seem to remember a thread a few months ago where we were taught that Conservatives were different than Liberals in that their "principals" were unshakable.

Frankly, it is your fear and loathing of the prime principle (to exist) and its dominance over the niceties of your rule of law and high standards of ethics that he counts on. The terrorists have not defined the prime principle--it is self evident and even they can't escape it, though some seem to prefer the 70 virgins awaiting their martyrdom to the miserable life they have on this earth. And the thread you refer to did not speak of "unshakeable" principles, rather concrete foundations. Nor did I, in that thread say that the rule of law or high ethical standards were the highest principles. What was discussed at length was liberals lack of a concrete foundation and your slippery, shifty language which you display, IN ABUNDANCE, in this thread.

He's audience represents a large block of Americans, many of whom share his attitudes.

Neither he nor his large block of Americans are posting here. As I said, he has nothing to do with this discussion except to become a convenient, irrelevent, punching bag for you and, may I add, a distraction.

Tools, plenty of tools for legal interrogation which when performed by professionals is quite effective.

You haven't named any tools, just used more squishy, puffy language.

The Surge wouldn't have likely been successful had Sunni's not came to the realization that if they continued to fight US Troops that Shiites would gain complete control.

The Sunis could have realized that BEFORE the surge. If they recognized it AFTER the surge, the added POWER was effective, ergo the surge DID WORK. And it is your BIASED opinion that the so-called Suni realization was the ONLY reason it did. In your one-sided view there was no way that Iraqis, in general, were seeing, via our not cutting and running, dieing, and the surge strategy to embed with the people rather than separating from them, that WE supported their government and the insurgents DID NOT. And, of course, you totally disregard the Kurds.

While I'm sure there have been gains in Iraq due to the use of hard power and influence, a good much of it has either been short lived or counter productive.
I think your forgetting "populist" power.

A good much is still living and very productive. The overall economy is better now. Infrastructure is restored and IMPROVED. The stink and fear of Sadam is gone. The majority of people are tasting freedom they never knew before, and feeling a new found "populist power"--IN SPITE of your constantly negative and slippery language.

I'd also note that Iraq is nearly asking us to leave now.

Iraq has "nearly" (more of that pesky slippery verbiage) asked us to leave for a long time. It has always been assumed and promised that we would and that we would do so if they demanded it. THAT HAS NOT YET HAPPENED. And when it does--hooray!

Not idealistic at all, just pragmatic. I'm all for hard power to be applied when appropriate, but we can't loose sight of the long-term strategy.

I hope we stick it out and help Iraq maintain its democratic, pluralistic, secular, (to what extent those are possible) government.

I think some are personally upset that hubris has tarnished our image which hurts our long-term objectives. This sounds like a reasonable "agenda."

Sounds like more of your slippery, shifty, generalized, unspecific, unconcrete, indirect, gobbledygook.

The neocon "school" would argue that our existence is threatened if we are not the de facto leader of the world. -spence

Actually, as for WHATEVER the neocon "school", in your biased opinion "would argue" (as if you knew), I'll answer a la Spence--WHO CARES?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Actually, as for WHATEVER the neocon "school", in your biased opinion "would argue" (as if you knew), I'll answer a la Spence--WHO CARES?

You obviously, as you feel obligated to respond line for line.

I'd note your text has gone from green to red, further proof that non-violent techniques can be perfectly effective at breaking an adversary!

And you're perhaps spending more time attacking me and how I speak than you are the ideas I present. More fodder for my assertion that conservatives tend to be obsessed with personality rather than substance.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

And you're perhaps spending more time attacking me and how I speak than you are the ideas I present. More fodder for my assertion that conservatives tend to be obsessed with personality rather than substance.

-spence

Agreed.

[scottw]

oh... waaaaaa...Spence Alynski, the great condescender can dish it out but can't take it, he simply pointed out that your "ideas" are flawed and "presented" in a most slippery way...it's one thing to deal with substance but when you continually deal in false assertions and outright misstatements of fact it becomes a personality thing...the only way to respond to you is line by line as you create falsehoods and straw dogs in nearly every line...you should like the RED Spence...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

oh... waaaaaa...Spence Alynski, the great condescender can dish it out but can't take it, he simply pointed out that your "ideas" are flawed and "presented" in a most slippery way...it's one thing to deal with substance but when you continually deal in false assertions and outright misstatements of fact it becomes a personality thing...the only way to respond to you is line by line as you create falsehoods and straw dogs in nearly every line...you should like the RED Spence...

Agreed.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Agreed.

Disagree.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Disagree.

Butch, you have to keep in mind that Spence likes to play devil's advocate. And he'll usually come up with something that's worded in a way that makes it sound a little convincing, if not confusing enough to have some people believe him. He definitley knows the right language to spin things to sound good to people like JD who is like Marci to Spence's Peppermint Patty.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

He definitley knows the right language to spin things to sound good to people like JD who is like Marci to Spence's Peppermint Patty.

Haha... I just like fanning the pissing match fires. I've just been reading this thread for comedy's sake now. Nothing really going on in it any more.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Haha... I just like fanning the pissing match fires. I've just been reading this thread for comedy's sake now. Nothing really going on in it any more.

I actually forgot what this is about. And since I usually have nothing of substance to add to threads anyways, I resort to trying to get a rise out of you and Spince.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You obviously, as you feel obligated to respond line for line.


I don't feel any more "obligated" than you do. You post much more than I do. BTW, my "who cares?" response was, as I made clear, specifically to your opinion of the neocon "school", not to your whole thread. And it was an exact copy or your response to Fly Rod in his thread on John Edwards.

I'd note your text has gone from green to red, further proof that non-violent techniques can be perfectly effective at breaking an adversary!

There, I've gone from red to purple, so I guess I've started to recover from the thrashing of your non-violent techniques. Actually, the reason I've gone to color responses is purely technical. I don't know how or what buttons to push to block off the quotes to which I'm responding, so I tried the bold fonts, but that looked too "violent"/angry. Then I tried the color stuff, which is fun/playful. Now that I see that this will be interpreted as having some psychological meaning, I'm at a loss as what to do. Oh, well, I'll just go on having fun with the colors. I suppose, when I use green again, it'll mean that I have been convinced to support man-made global warming.

And you're perhaps spending more time attacking me and how I speak than you are the ideas I present. More fodder for my assertion that conservatives tend to be obsessed with personality rather than substance.-spence

I certainly don't mean to attack you, personally, Spence. From what I've seen in these threads, I'd say your a great guy. You're certainly fun to argue with. We could probably have some long, fruitless, entertaining debates over some brewski. I try, I think, to respond to your ideas. In rereading my post, it is clear to me that I directly responded, line by line, to a statement you made, and when I referred to you, it was the persona you presented with your words, not whoever YOU actually are. And, yes, your diction is, quite often, to me, not precise enough. It loses the impact it should have because it is too hedgy, as if avoiding being too direct. Maybe, rather than seeing my opinion as an attack, you might take it, or leave it, as a correction, such as those statements, to which you refer, that some perceive to be anti-american, but are actually meant to strengthen America. Of course, you are rather specific and direct when you attack (in your red, violent mode) others in these threads.