41
   

Snowdon is a dummy

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 02:14 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

You can go back to Ghenghis Khan if you want, but you can't give another example of a Liberal Democracy behaving like that in the 21st Century.

My country right or wrong is never a good maxim to apply.


That is why I never apply it...and MOST ASSUREDLY have not done so here.

Stay away from strawmen, Izzy...they will cause you to sneeze.


Quote:
The true hypocrite is one who claims to be one thing, but when push comes to shove behaves exactly the opposite.


Not sure what that is supposed to mean...but it sounds like most of your other nonsense.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 02:16 pm
@BillRM,
No, it's about knowing that it does kill innocent people.

What's the difference for those killed whether by drones or terrorists?
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 02:30 pm
@Frank Apisa,
What? You're reduced to posting pics already?

That was fast... You're getting soft, man. :-)
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 02:35 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

What? You're reduced to posting pics already?

That was fast... You're getting soft, man. :-)


Nah...haven't you ever heard the adage, "It takes a real man to post a pic?"

Anyway...I was just trying to help you...or egg you on to keep digging.


You figure out which it was.

http://www.utdallas.edu/~haim/restricted/teach/currentvis/Project-2/ProjWink/wink/wink-happy-16.jpg
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 02:37 pm
I agree with others here concerning this issue of Guantanamo, we are in the wrong. The only issue I disagree with is that Obama has been trying since 2009 to close it and has been hampered by congress on both sides of the parties.

Usually prisoners of war are not released until after the war is officially over. As of right now, isn't NATO involved in Afghanistan along with US? Once the war is officially over, NATO and the US pull out, at the point, presumably, the detainees will be released, even the ones deemed dangerous. Hopefully before Obama leaves office. In the meantime, congress and the president should put those who can be put on trial, on trial and sentenced or released accordingly.

However, we talking about a congress that does everything in its power to thwart the President in every conceivable way. I wish you all who so quick to judge would at least take that in consideration. But I do not hold my breath.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 02:39 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
If you think your hands were clean before WWII, Walter, you are dreaming. Some of the stuff you guys did in Africa...and during WWI is off the charts.
It all started when the Saxons and Angles (plus the Jutes) invaded England. Or do you want to further back?

But whatever: since Germans did awful things in history, I can't criticise that some other nations do it now.

I understand.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 02:47 pm
@revelette2,
I have personally defended Obama on many fronts. I just listened to a GOP congressman on tv who said that Obama has not been cooperative during the past six years; this guy is an idiot. McConnell said he's going to make Obama a one term president, and the GOP congress voted no on almost every legislation brought before it. He can't even see the fact that congress approval rating is at 13%. We have too many dummies in our government. And we the voters are responsible.

There's no way to 'win this war' on idiocy.

0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 02:49 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You wouldn’t know it if you’d talk only to Frank, but some Americans still have a moral sense, including some working at Gitmo itself:


Quote:
Nurses Urge Leniency Over Refusal to Force-Feed at Guantánamo Bay
By BENEDICT CAREY, NOV. 19, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/health/nurses-urge-leniency-over-refusal-to-force-feed-at-guantnamo-bay.html

The case of a Navy medical officer who refused to force-feed prisoners on a hunger strike at Guantánamo Bay prompted the country’s largest nursing organization on Wednesday to petition the Defense Department for leniency, citing professional ethical guidelines that support the officer’s decision.

The officer is a nurse and 18-year Navy veteran whose commander has called for an internal inquiry into the refusal, his lawyer said.

The case, which came to light in July when a hunger striker called the London-based legal defense group Reprieve, is the latest flash point in an increasingly heated debate over military medical professionals’ role in interrogation and torture. The World Medical Association has issued a statement condemning force-feeding, and in 2013 the American Medical Association called the practice a violation of “core ethical values of the medical profession,” saying that “every competent patient has the right to refuse medical intervention,” including life-sustaining measures.

In letters to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and the director of the Navy Nurse Corps, the American Nurses Association cited a slightly softer standard — “the ethical right of a professional nurse to make an independent judgment about whether he or she should participate in this or any other such activity,” the letter read — and urged the leaders to take no retaliatory action against the nurse. Force-feeding is done through a tube, and the nurse reportedly refused to manage the procedure.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 02:51 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
I'm just thinking: perhaps the Censorship Branch of the G-2 Division [no criticism of the Allies etc] should be re-installed? (Wouldn't work with me: I'm in the British Zone Very Happy )
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 02:56 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
If you think your hands were clean before WWII, Walter, you are dreaming. Some of the stuff you guys did in Africa...and during WWI is off the charts.
It all started when the Saxons and Angles (plus the Jutes) invaded England. Or do you want to further back?

But whatever: since Germans did awful things in history, I can't criticise that some other nations do it now.

I understand.


I never said you cannot criticize America or anyone else, Walter.

Where do you get this stuff from.

I am merely pointing out the HYPOCRISY in the INDIGNATION.

Or as the bumper sticker points out:


https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTzBnmm-QfAs_OFXxQPX9YMQjlaSv0_EXmJ60hWdU3dtVkho7B5
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 02:57 pm
@Olivier5,
I applaud the nurse's bravery and would wish they stop force feeding. It is not done on inhumane grounds but all the same, I think there is some medical concern it is harmful so they should stop it.

Maybe with any luck at all, this case will cause such shame that finally, congress will vote to close it and the president can sign off on it.

At very least, stop the force feeding and let them die if they want to.

I have to admit, I am ashamed of this, deeply.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 03:01 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

You wouldn’t know it if you’d talk only to Frank, but some Americans still have a moral sense, including some working at Gitmo itself:


So...because I am sharing the thoughts I am sharing on this issue here...

...you are suggesting that I have no moral sense???

Wake up, Olivier...and keep digging. I'm getting a kick out of it.

http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/niX/ojb/niXojb7iB.gif
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 03:12 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
No, it's about knowing that it does kill innocent people.

What's the difference for those killed whether by drones or terrorists?


So no one could fight a war even in self defense as even with our current smart weapons you can not fight a war without killing some innocents in the war zone.

An it does indeed make a difference if someone take over four airliners full of innocent people and fly them into three buildings two out of the three buildings not being military targets killing four thousands or so and killing
some innocents while targeting the terrorists who are part of that organization as we had yet to develop perfect weapons.

Now if we had used carpet bombings or a MOAB or two to wiped out large areas where terrorists are hiding then there is reason to complain but not when we used very select weapons due to them not being perfect.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 03:26 pm
@Frank Apisa,
When you start railing against Guantanamo you can talk about strawmen. You claim to not have supported Bush, but when it comes to a particularly nasty bit of Bush's legacy you're all defensive and tu quoque.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 03:59 pm
@BillRM,
No. The reason why the US no longer uses atom bombs is the destruction it does to the infrastructure and the killing of thousands of innocent people.

By domestic and international law, it's illegal to kill any one innocent person. Why should it be legal to kill many innocent people including children by drones?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 04:08 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

When you start railing against Guantanamo you can talk about strawmen. You claim to not have supported Bush, but when it comes to a particularly nasty bit of Bush's legacy you're all defensive and tu quoque.



I am NOT going to "rail" against Guantanamo...and frankly, I don't see you people doing so either. It seems to me more likely that you are using it as an excuse to lambaste the United States as much as possible as often as possible.

I do not like what has happened there...but I can understand much of it. It is not anywhere near as black and white as you demand that I see it to be.

I HATE war...but I understand why, for instance, Great Britain begged us to come to war with them against Germany. I understand why Great Britain waged relentless war against Napoleon.

Just because I HATE war...does not mean I have to rail against Great Britain for engaging in war.

Ya get it???

You seem to think that everyone has to have the same perspective and calculus about the Guantanamo prison camp as you and those other America haters do...but the world is not just about you or them, Izzy.

It is possible to be a reasonable, moral individual and actually have a disagreement with you.

So...have you seen any good movies lately?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 04:24 pm
@revelette2,
There are two medical issues with the practice as implented in Gitmo. 1) it is inethical to force someone to be treated; 2) the technique used--intubation through the nose--is pretty atrocious compared to the much less painful method of intraveinous injection of glucose.

I had the nose intubation thing done on me once, it was awful. Gitmo inmates that are on hunger strike get that procedure done on them 3 times a day, by overworked nurses who do it the fast and rough way.

It's a form of torture done in retribution to the hunger strike. 'Oh you want to die of hunger? We will torture you with food.'

That nurse is a hero.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 04:28 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I just came into the conversation when you started making excuses about Guantanamo Bay.

And whether or not you're neither for nor against it, it remains, and will probably continue to remain, a very powerful recruiting sergeant for Islamic fundamentalists. And whenever a nasty dictator is chided for his human rights record he'll point to Guantanamo and say, "You can ******* talk."

"Where's America's moral authority that Clinton used to stop the slaughter in Kosovo?"

"That? It's fucked off to Guantanamo Bay, and doesn't look like it will be coming back for a long time."
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 04:35 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

I just came into the conversation when you started making excuses about Guantanamo Bay.


You did???

Well, that means you are not in the conversation, because I have never made excuses for or about Guantanamo Bay.


Quote:
And whether or not you're neither for nor against it, it remains, and will probably continue to remain, a very powerful recruiting sergeant for Islamic fundamentalists.


If you are saying it possibly is counterproductive...I agree. Fact is, killing terrorists is possibly counterproductive.

Why are you making it sound as though you are disagreeing with something I said?

Why do you continually construct strawmen...and then argue against them?



Quote:
And whenever a nasty dictator is chided for his human rights record he'll point to Guantanamo and say, "You can ******* talk."


Okay. So what does that have to do with anything that I have said?

Quote:
"Where's America's moral authority that Clinton used to stop the slaughter in Kosovo?"


If you are drinking, Izzy...we can suspend this until you get your bearings again.

Quote:
"That? It's fucked off to Guantanamo Bay, and doesn't look like it will be coming back for a long time."


Yeah, you must be drinking. I have no idea of where you are going...or why you are going there. If you get back to realistic, let me know.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 07:11 pm
@Olivier5,
I do not know if you noticed, but I agreed with you.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 592
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 09:08:55