NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, it looks like it's going to pass, and Bush is going to go along with it.

It gives me that warm, fuzzy feeling.

I'm wondering - if Iraq becomes a fairly stable country with a fairly elected government, and US forces draw down, and the US isn't torturing people anymore, what is everyone going to get worked up about?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/15/D8EGQMF00.html

By LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer
Dec 15 12:43 PM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON - After months of resistance, the White House has agreed to accept Sen. John McCain's call for a law specifically banning cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of foreign suspects in the war on terror, several congressional officials said Thursday. Under the emerging deal, the CIA and other civilian interrogators would be given the same legal rights as currently guaranteed members of the military who are accused of breaking interrogation guidelines, these officials added. Those rules say the accused can defend themselves by arguing it was reasonable for them to believe they were obeying a legal order.

The congressional officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they did not want to pre-empt an expected announcement later in the day at the White House, possibly by President Bush and McCain.

Softwood lumber maybe. Or maybe they'll just get worked up over how our culture is invading their nations and their kids actually prefer aspects of ours over theirs.

I still don't like it, but oh well.

The very fact that there were "months of resistance" in the first place, is not a favourable comment on American values, whatever the eventual outcome.

I'm wondering - if Iraq becomes a fairly stable country with a fairly elected government, and US forces draw down, and the US isn't torturing people anymore, what is everyone going to get worked up about?

If all that comes to pass, people will probably get worked up over the all the flying pigs we'll be seeing.

The very fact that there were "months of resistance" in the first place, is not a favourable comment on American values, whatever the eventual outcome.
So, no one ever resists an occupation if the invaders' values are good?

I guess that explains the 4 years of armed resistance by Germans against the Allied occupation - hundreds of Germans summarily executed by US, UK, French, and Soviet forces in the aftermath of WW II.

Well, it looks like it's going to pass, and Bush is going to go along with it.

It gives me that warm, fuzzy feeling.

I'm wondering - if Iraq becomes a fairly stable country with a fairly elected government, and US forces draw down, and the US isn't torturing people anymore, what is everyone going to get worked up about?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/15/D8EGQMF00.html

I think I remember hearing recently that it doesn't make a difference.

McCain didn't come up with new rules against torture, the military already had them. McCain's amendment was saying "you've got to follow your own fucking rules."

The "I think I remember," bit is that Rummy just changed the military code of conduct so that they can go on torturing without calling it torture. It would be like if there was a rule against pouring boiling water on people and then they redefined "boiling water" to mean "quadrapedal mammal with retractable claws," then began a policy of evacuating fluid-containing vessles heated to a teperature of 100 degrees celcius over detainees, but most definatly not pouring boiling water on them, because that action, by definition, would require a cat.

Perhaps I'm missing the point, but don't summary executions reflect pretty badly on whoever's doing them?

If all that comes to pass, people will probably get worked up over the all the flying pigs we'll be seeing.

Nah. They'll be upset about the sub-par reviews of Mother Theresa's ice dancing show in Hell.

So, no one ever resists an occupation if the invaders' values are good?

I guess that explains the 4 years of armed resistance by Germans against the Allied occupation - hundreds of Germans summarily executed by US, UK, French, and Soviet forces in the aftermath of WW II.

Well you have to define allied. Much of the German actions during that time was against the Russians.

I worked with a guy who was sent over there just before the war ended and was their during the occupation. He had many stories. He once talked about some drunk russians giving him crap on a train. Two german guys asked if they were bothering him and he said yea. The train went through a tunnel and the Russians disappeared.

As to the execuations? Hmmmm how many of those were involved with the Death camps are the slaughter of civilians?

The very fact that there were "months of resistance" in the first place, is not a favourable comment on American values, whatever the eventual outcome.

There is this old stigma about liberals... something about them judging something by the intentions rather then the results. Way to ride a stereotype mate. :rolleyes:

Perhaps I'm missing the point, but don't summary executions reflect pretty badly on whoever's doing them?
No one seems to be calling the US, UK, France, or the former Soviet Union on what they did post-WW II.

Including reprisals - which at the time WERE against international law. The French were infamous for shelling villages as reprisal for insurgent attacks, and the Russians were infamous for rounding up people and shooting them as a reprisal. The US even did a few reprisal shellings after the French example.

Still no one bothered to do anything about it - or even say it was wrong.

The point here is that some people think that if there's any resistance, then the invaders' values must be wrong.

The resistance came BEFORE the reprisals and executions. The people fighting against the Allied forces after the end of the war were Nazis. SS men. Nice set of values there, eh? The German insurgents even hung their own people from trees and shot Germans as a matter of policy.

So I guess because the German insurgents did that for four years, after the war was over, the values of the Allies must have been much worse than the Nazis. Right?

So, no one ever resists an occupation if the invaders' values are good?

You're kidding right?

You read the first words of the article you quoted in your own post right? You saw the quotation marks in the statement you were replying to?

Are you perhaps just being intentionally obtuse?

You're kidding right?

You read the first words of the article you quoted in your own post right? You saw the quotation marks in the statement you were replying to?

Are you perhaps just being intentionally obtuse?
You're kidding, right?

Zarqawi (who is not an Iraqi) is resisting the US because the US's values are not good?

You're saying the Nazis resisted after the war was over because the Allies values were not good?

You're saying those who lost power when Saddam was overthrown are resisting because the US values are not good?

You're kidding, right?

Torture is one of those things which merits no debate. You just don't do it. Not today.

The fact that the lawmakers of a country which deliberately markets itself as the moral standard for the whole of humanity, wrung their hands over it for so long, further undermines the integrity of the whole enterprise. No civilised country would pause.

Well, it looks like it's going to pass, and Bush is going to go along with it.
He can't do much else. McCain's dog has higher approval ratings than Bush. And that is after taking a crap in the living room.

I'm wondering - if Iraq becomes a fairly stable country with a fairly elected government, and US forces draw down, and the US isn't torturing people anymore, what is everyone going to get worked up about?
Same thing they got worked up over yesterday Pinky, gay marriage and abortion.

So I guess because the German insurgents did that for four years, after the war was over, the values of the Allies must have been much worse than the Nazis. Right?
Wrong. The reason people aren't complaining right now about Truman et al. is that they are not the ones currently on trial. Bush et al. are.

Now, in a less current events-driven discussion, you might find less criticism of people who carelessly slaughtered Germans postwar simply because of the high degree of hatred for the National Socialists. The fact that German leaders were horrible people doing evil things, and that the German populace largely applauded or simply sat quietly, does not excuse abuses of power by occupiers. But it makes people who weren't victimized less likely to complain.

To quote someone who should have known better, "What do I care? They were all Nazis anyway."

That's human hypocrisy for you, and it has nothing to do with people's position in political compasses. If anything, I'd expect that more from authoritarian moralists than from liberals.

So, no one ever resists an occupation if the invaders' values are good?

I guess that explains the 4 years of armed resistance by Germans against the Allied occupation - hundreds of Germans summarily executed by US, UK, French, and Soviet forces in the aftermath of WW II.

I think what Tactical Grace was trying to say was that the "months of resistance' from the White House with respect to this torture bill do not makethe White House look good.

I think what Tactical Grace was trying to say was that the "months of resistance' from the White House with respect to this torture bill do not makethe White House look good.
Oh, I can buy that.

But given the short memory of the American public, I wonder if a lot of people are going to forget this issue in a few months, now that it's "resolved".

Softwood lumber maybe.

That's over now (for nearly a month, not that the canadians seem to have noticed). The commerce dept. nodified the tarrif structure, and the WTO gave the new rates their approval. Canada no longer has the right to impose punitive retalitatory tarrifs.

There is still the beef about getting the $5 billion back in lost revenue or something, but frankly that's not going to happen. Things just don't work that way. Time to move on.

You're kidding, right?

Zarqawi (who is not an Iraqi) is resisting the US because the US's values are not good?

For the love of...

Here, let me help you out with this.

After months of resistance, the White House has agreed to accept Sen. John McCain's call...

Now go back and try reading that first statement you were replying to and enclue yourself. You're the only one talking about the goddamn Iraqi resistance. It's your own quoted article in your own thread on the subject and you don't even know what the subject is.

Side note: Zarqawi fights against the US because US values, in his view, are corrupt. Most of us would disagree somewhat, but everyone's entitled to his own opinion.

"Bush Accepts McCain "No Torture" Amendment"

GOOD! 'Nuff said.

Torture is one of those things which merits no debate. You just don't do it. Not today.

The fact that the lawmakers of a country which deliberately markets itself as the moral standard for the whole of humanity, wrung their hands over it for so long, further undermines the integrity of the whole enterprise. No civilised country would pause.
Thank you.

So many Bush apologists seem so anxious to polish him back up to a nice bright shine that they'll grasp at anything. Finally caving in to McCain after months of claiming the right to be immune from prosecution for torture (while in the same breath claiming that they never torture) does NOT speak well for the character or integrity of the leaders of the current administration. Likewise, finally admitting that they used false intelligence to drag us into a war of choice does NOT absolve them of responsibility for the results of their actions, especially as there were plenty of accredited experts telling them the intelligence was false from day one. To anyone familiar with American politics it is obvious that these piecemeal concessions are nothing but a sign of how politically weak the Bush admin and, hopefully, the neocons are right now. They were pressured into every one of them by a party that is thinking about its own, post-Bush future.

So, no one ever resists an occupation if the invaders' values are good?

I guess that explains the 4 years of armed resistance by Germans against the Allied occupation - hundreds of Germans summarily executed by US, UK, French, and Soviet forces in the aftermath of WW II.
Um, the "months of resistance" reference was about the White House's resistance to signing on with McCain's torture ban. It was not a reference to what the insurgents or the terrorists are doing.

Oh, I can buy that.

But given the short memory of the American public, I wonder if a lot of people are going to forget this issue in a few months, now that it's "resolved".
That's exactly what the White House is hoping for.

That's exactly what the White House is hoping for.
You don't have to hope.

It's a fairly constant phenomenon. You'll notice that already, the poll numbers are slowly reversing. While Republicans are unlikely to stop voting Republican, and die-hard Democrats unlikely to stop voting Democrat, there are enough independents to keep things swinging back and forth.

The very fact that there were "months of resistance" in the first place, is not a favourable comment on American values, whatever the eventual outcome.

Now now ... to be fair, the American people (via Congress) overwhelmingly supported the bill. It was the President - who represents the moral values of about 6 people, mostly his daddy's friends - who put up the resistance.

:headbang: 4 rats have died in Luton, i say run for you lives but the poilce disagree they seem to think that it is a temapry thing, dont believe them.:eek: :mp5: :sniper:

You don't have to hope.

It's a fairly constant phenomenon. You'll notice that already, the poll numbers are slowly reversing. While Republicans are unlikely to stop voting Republican, and die-hard Democrats unlikely to stop voting Democrat, there are enough independents to keep things swinging back and forth.
True, but at the rate the Bush admin spits out new scandals, failures and embarrassments (daily, at least), the public doesn't have to remember any given one. I don't ask for reform of the system. I only ask that these current jerks be kept busy enough covering their own asses that they will be effectively paralyzed until 2008.

You don't have to hope.

It's a fairly constant phenomenon. You'll notice that already, the poll numbers are slowly reversing. While Republicans are unlikely to stop voting Republican, and die-hard Democrats unlikely to stop voting Democrat, there are enough independents to keep things swinging back and forth.
True, but at the rate the Bush admin spits out new scandals, failures and embarrassments (daily, at least), the public doesn't have to remember any given one. I don't ask for reform of the system. I only ask that these current jerks be kept busy enough covering their own asses that they will be effectively paralyzed until 2008.

I'm wondering - if Iraq becomes a fairly stable country with a fairly elected government, and US forces draw down, and the US isn't torturing people anymore, what is everyone going to get worked up about?

Perhaps the lack of accountability in the current administration? And perhaps the possibility that the president misled the american people when making the case for war, or if that wasn't the case maybe they will get worked up over the fact that the country went to war on the basis of so much flawed (and wrong) intelligence?

Trust me, there are a lot of things one could get worked up about. There is always something...