George Bush

Cyclo, I've often had my question marks about your posts, but for this one here, bravo and hear, hear.

Thank you Nimh.

Part of the reason I am posting here is to improve my rhetorical and argumentative skills, and I hope to be doing so every day. Having intelligent people pick my arguments apart really has helped me learn, and grow as a debater.

Cycloptichorn

If that were the case, we wouldn't have a Germany, France and 30 small countries. We would have craters of radioactive dust where those countries used to exist.

ohhh, I want you in power....

tomorrow belongs to me....... :sad:

Seriously. Any country would be a fool to actually declare war on the US. It's mass suicide.

seriously, that was a real neocon way to respond and really, really sad...... You fully exemplify all the nasty things that people use to describe neocons - now, tell us truly; you are Cheney, aren't you

Yes, the US has might.

Yeah, you didn't adress my point McG, at all.

We are not discussing the sucess of such a venture, but rather, what you would think of someone else employing the same rhetorical tactics that we use, against us.

I've often thought that a major problem with the neocon philosophy is an inablity to place yourself in your enemy's/adversary's/poor persons shoes, in order to understand his mentality.

Cycloptichorn

I answered your silly hypothetical. You want to turn the situation arounsd, but you can't. america isn't a third world nation ruled ruthlessly by a dictator. Now, If I were a citizen of a third world country and I was ruled by a ruthless dictator and a coalition came in and wanted to free me from the control of the administration that had kept me from freedom then I would welcome them. Wouldn't you? Or would you be one of those idiots who wants to go back under the rule of some sadistic dictator who cares only for himself and those loyal to him?

sigh.

Say it is a coalition of france, germany, and a bunch of small countries who wanted to attack some OTHER state. Quit getting your panties in a bunch because I used the US as an example.

Would you support the terms we were using if instead of America, other countries were in this fight against Iraq?

But, to address your example: you would feel the same way if your little sister's arm got shot off during the 'liberation?' How about if your wife and kids were killed, just for being in the wrong place in the wrong time? I want you to think about the way their bodies would look, all lined up in a row, and tell me you would just suck it up and salute the 'coalition of the willing' as they rolled tanks up your street, right? I'm not trying to use 'body tactics,' I'm asking how YOU personally would feel.

Because THAT is getting inside the minds of those who oppose us in Iraq now. Doesn't seem as noble, what we are doing, does it?

Cycloptichorn

I wouldn't strap myself in a bomb and kill my fellow citizens, that's for sure. Most likely I would grieve for them and blame everyone. Most likely though, I had already lost someone I knew or loved to the government that I was been liberated from.

As for France and Germany et. al. invading someplace, it would depend on where and why.

Say they all got together and invaded tSudan to end the civil war and set up a democracy, I would be behing taht 100%. But, if they invaded Israel to free the Palestinians, I would be against that action.

McG

Give Bush and the republicans the opportunity and we just may fit that description. Particularly the ruthless dictator part.

McG
How is this for a start?


World > Terrorism & Security
posted June 17, 2004, updated 11:00 a.m.

Pentagon seeks OK to spy on Americans

New bill would allow Pentagon to gather intelligence on US residents without their knowledge.

by Tom Regan | csmonitor.com


Newsweek reports that the US Department of Defense is looking for the right to gather information from, and about, Americans, without having to tell them that they are doing so. "Without a public hearing or debate," the news magazine reports, "Defense officials recently slipped a provision into a bill before Congress that could vastly expand the Pentagon's ability to gather intelligence inside the United States, including recruiting citizens as informants." Currently all military intelligence organizations must comply with the Privacy Act. The act is a Watergate-era law that requires that any government official who is seeking information from a resident of the US disclose who they are and why they are seeking the information. But Newsweek reports that last month the Senate Intelligence Committee, in closed session, added the provision that would exempt the Pentagon from this restriction. Among those pushing for the bill was "NORTHCOM," the new North American command set up by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in Colorado. NORTHCOM's mission is to over see "homeland defense."
A report by the Senate Intelligence Committee says the provision would allow military intel agents to "approach potential sources and collect personal information from them" without disclosing they work for the government. The justification: "Current counterterrorism operations," the report explains, which require "greater latitude ... both overseas and within the United States." ... Pentagon lawyers insist agents will still be legally barred from domestic "law enforcement." But watchdog groups see a potentially alarming "mission creep." "This... is giving them the authority to spy on Americans," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, a group frequently critical of the war on terror. "And it's all been done with no public discussion, in the dark of night."

Another example of the rule of law as interpreted by the grand pubah

Rumsfeld Defends Secretly Holding Suspect By MATT KELLEY
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld defended his decision to hold a prisoner captured in Iraq without notifying international authorities, saying it was at the request of CIA Director George J. Tenet and the detainee was treated humanely.
"He wasn't lost in the system," Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon. "There is no question at all ... that he received humane treatment."
The terror suspect has been held since October without being given an identification number and without the International Committee of the Red Cross being notified, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said. Both conditions violate the Geneva Accords on treatment of prisoners of war.
Rumsfeld described him as an Iraqi who was a high-ranking member of Ansar al-Islam, a militant Islamic group believed to have orchestrated some of the bombings and guerrilla warfare in Iraq.
Rumsfeld ordered the Joint Chiefs of Staff to have the prisoner secretly detained on the day last year when Tenet made the request, Whitman said.
"The director of central intelligence requested he not be assigned an internment serial number while the CIA worked to determine his precise disposition," Whitman said.
Rumsfeld said Tenet had the authority to make the request. The defense secretary said such a call would be to prevent the prisoner's interrogation from being interrupted.
[] The Bush administration has argued that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to suspected terrorists who do not follow the conventions themselves. But Rumsfeld and other administration officials have said the Geneva Conventions applied to all U.S. military activities in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion.
The prisoner will be given a number and the Red Cross will be formally notified soon, Whitman said.
"The ICRC should have been notified about the detainee earlier," Whitman said. "We should have taken steps, and we have taken the necessary steps to rectify the situation."
The Pentagon's admission came a day before a human rights group released a report accusing the United States of keeping an unknown number of terrorist suspects in secret lockups around the world.
A report from New York-based Human Rights First said the Bush administration was violating U.S. and international law by refusing to notify all detainees' families or give names, numbers and locations of all terror war prisoners to the Red Cross.
None of that was done in the Iraqi detainee's case, Whitman said.
Keeping secret prisoners creates conditions for abuses such as the humiliations and beatings suffered by some Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the group argues.
"The official secrecy surrounding U.S. practices has made conditions ripe for illegality and abuse," said the report from Human Rights First, formerly called the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights.
The group said the United States should immediately allow Red Cross access to all terror war detainees, notify the prisoners' families and announce the number and location of such prisoners.
The Iraqi prisoner is so far the only individual Defense Department officials have acknowledged shielding from the Red Cross. Before Wednesday's admission, Pentagon spokesmen would not confirm or deny if anyone was being held in secret.
"We've not talked about the location of specific detainees other than Iraq, Afghanistan and Cuba simply because it gets into the classified realm," Air Force Maj. Michael Shavers said in an e-mail response to questions from The Associated Press on Wednesday, before the Iraq admission.
President Bush and members of his administration have said repeatedly that all detainees are treated humanely. Pentagon officials have argued that announcing the numbers or locations of all detainees would indicate the scope of U.S. anti-terrorism efforts to terrorist groups and give them ideas of sites to attack.
The secret prisoner in Iraq is believed to be a high-ranking member of Ansar al-Islam, a radical group which had been based in northern Iraq before the U.S. invasion last year. U.S. officials believe the man was involved in attacks on coalition troops, Whitman said.
Deborah Pearlstein, a co-author of the Human Rights First report, said the United States needs to stop keeping secret prisoners altogether.
"There's a lot of unnecessary mystery surrounding U.S. detention practices," Pearlstein said Wednesday, before the Pentagon's admission.

au, Can you believe these Bush supporters? What needs to happen before they turn on Bush - if ever? These neocons are scary bastards - all of them!

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

1. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

2. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest
national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

3. Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money
but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.

4. "Standing Tall for America'" means firing your workers and moving their
jobs to India.

5. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all humankind without regulation.

6. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

7. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

8. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.

9. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

10. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

11.. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

12. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

13. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

14. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's
daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad
guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

15. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

16. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

17. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George
Bush's driving record is none of our business.

18. You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft
can tell states what local voter initiatives they have a right to adopt.

19. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

20. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

By the way did you know that both Bush and Kerry are blood brothers
members of Skull and Bones.

>> Subject: FW: Resume
>>
>> This individual seeks an executive position. He will be available
>> next January, and is willing to relocate.

>> RESUME
>> GEORGE W. BUSH
>> 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
>> Washington, DC 20520
>>
>> EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:
>>
>> Law Enforcement:
>> I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under
>> the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my
>> driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has
>> been "lost" and is not available.
>>
>> Military:
>> I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to
>> take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By
>> joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat
>> duty in Vietnam.
>>
>> College:
>> I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a
>> cheerleader.

>> PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
>> I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in the oil
>> business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an oil company, but
>> couldn't find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly
>> after I sold all my stock. I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team
>> in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money. With the
>> help of my father and our friends in the oil industry (including
>> Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.
>>
>> ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:
>>
>> - I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies,
>> making Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During my tenure,
>> Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in
>> America.

>> - I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of
>> billions in borrowed money.

>> - I set the record for the most executions by any governor in
>> American history.
>>
>> - With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my
>> father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President
after
>> losing by over 500,000 votes.
>>
>> ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
>>
>> - I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a
>> criminal record.
>>
>> - I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over
>> one billion dollars per week.
>>
>> - I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S.
>> Treasury.
>>
>> - I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S.
>> history.
>>
>> - I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in
>> any 12-month period.
>>
>> - I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month
>> period.
>>
>> - I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of
>> the U.S. stock market. In my first year in office, over 2 million
>> Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.

>> - I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any
>> administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza
>> Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
>>
>> - I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S.
>> President.
>>
>> - I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the
>> most corporate campaign donations.

>> - My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best
>> friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy
>> fraud in U.S. History, Enron.
>>
>> - My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys
>> to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election
>> decision.

>> - I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against
>> investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent
>> investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent
>> investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history. I
>> presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused
>> to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was
>> revealed.
>>
>> - I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.

>> - I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be
>> awarded government contracts.
>>
>> - I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any
>> President in U.S. history.
>>
>> - I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest
>> bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.

>> - I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S.
>> history.
>>
>> - I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United
Nations
>> remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.
>>
>> - I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.
>>
>> - I refused to allow inspector's access to U.S. "prisoners of war"
>> detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva
>> Convention.
>>
>> - I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations
>> election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).
>>
>> - I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any
>> President since the advent of television.
>>
>> - I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any
one-year
>> period. After taking off the entire month of August, I presided
over
>> the worst security failure in U.S. history.
>>
>> - I garnered the most sympathy ever for the U.S. after the World
>> Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the
>> most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy
in
>> world history.
>>
>> - I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to
>> simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people),
>> shattering the record for protests against any person in the
history
>> of mankind.
>>
>> - I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked,
>> pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign
>> nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the
>> majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community.
>>
>> - I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a
cut
>> in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families in
>> wartime.
>>
>> - In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for
>> attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends.
>>
>> - I am the first President in history to have a majority of
>> Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world
>> peace and security.
>>
>> - I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker
Buster,"
>> a WMD.
>>
>> - I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin
Laden
>> to justice.
>>
>> RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
>>
>> -All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my
father's
>> library, sealed and unavailable for public view.
>>
>> - All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my
>> bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public
>> view.
>>
>> - All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my
Vice-President,
>> attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and
>> unavailable for public review.
>>
>> PLEASE CONSIDER ALL MY ABOVE EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004!
>>
>> PLEASE SEND THIS TO EVERY VOTER YOU KNOW!

In that resume, I couldn't help but notice it doesn't say that he is one of only a few that has been POTUS.

All that you are in this forum is what you write. You state positions and make arguments. Those positions and arguments are you, and, in a forum of debate, subject to challenge.

Rather than allowing these challenges to upset or anger you, I would suggest that you pursue your stated intent for entering this forum and learn from them. Work towards constructing an argument that is much less vulnerable to attack then the ones you have thus far put forth.

We are all faceless individuals in this forum, and the vast majority of us are participating under assumed names. It's pretty tough to be less personalized.

This is a forum in which vigorous debate is appreciated and sought after. It can be used to record personal musings, but such musings are subject to challenges. You can ignore these attacks if you please or you can toughen your skin a bit and mix it up. There are certain rules we all agree to in using this forum. There are times when the boundaries established by these rules are approached and when they are crossed. The moderators do a good job in keeping things civil, while allowing it to be lively. It is not a Victorian Tea Room, however.




OK, so now we know you have other reasons for opposing it. Will you elaborate?



Now who's getting personal? In any case, this is an interesting answer. Presumably the other reasons for your opposition are not so foundational that they cannot be influenced by the judgment of the UN.



I'm not appealing to extremes, I am using extremes to try and put a fence around what you believe so that I can better understand your argument.



You dodged the question a bit here, but then I didn't word it precisely right either. Replace "cannot" with "should not." The second paragraph of your response suggests that you are arguing that we should not take action in the world without the approval of the UN, but then I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth.



I'm not appealing to extremes at all as I specifically considered the fact that they UN can't be correct in all of its decisions,and you did, in fact, answer the question. You do believe that the UN, which we all acknowledge is fallible, should be making decisions of war (at least) rather than individual countries.

As for your question, how the UN acts when one nation makes a decision is something different from preferring the UN to make the decisions. I believe your argument here is that "we," the US, would not want France to decide upon its own to attack another country, but would prefer that France be governed by the decision of the UN as to whether or not it goes to war.

First of all I think it would depend upon whether or not we thought France was justified in going to war. If we did not, it would be politically convenient to have the UN lead the effort to dissuade it, but in the event the UN failed, I feel certain we would make it clear to the French that we did not want them to start this particular war, and that there would be consequences of one sort or another if they did. (A more likely example would be China threatening to go to war with Taiwan). If, on the other hand, we felt France was justified in going to war, I don't believe we would pressure them to concede to the wishes of the UN.

The UN has shown no real capacity for getting things right. It is a political tool used by lesser nations to exercise greater power than they individually hold (perfect example - France) and by the true power nations The US, China, and formerly the Soviet Union for political cover.

That the UN is somehow the voice of the peoples of the planet is a myth.
Whether or not it can ever be something truly like a governing body for the world is highly questionable and, in any case, a long long way off.



Again with the hurt feelings.

You have argued that the Coalition of The Willing is not a valid multinational effort because it only contains two major powers among many lesser nations, and yet you seem to believe, idealistically, in the concept of the UN as a world governing body.

I still don't understand if this is because you believe the UN is the closest thing to a representative body for all the nations of the world or simply most of the major powers.

It would appear that you have formulated the position that the Coalition is not multinational, contrary to all logic, because otherwise you might have to concede a point to the Bush adminstration. That smacks of following a partisan lead. If I am wrong, and it is your independent and considered opinion that the Coalition is not a multinational effort, than I would think you would be able to mount a logically consistent defense of that position.

If you have separate and strong reasons for opposing the war in Iraq, what difference does it make how many nations in the world support it? If you were of the equally strong belief that the war was justified, would it really matter how many nations opposed it?

The Coalition exists. This is indisputable. There is all sorts of speculation as to what might have been promised or threatened in its formation, but at the end of the day, it remains speculation. The argument that the war in Iraq was a unilateral effort, irrespective of whether or not it is true, is a red herring, unless one believes that the United States must be multilateral in all of its decisions.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj04-1/hendrickson.html