US Troops Are Winning in Iraq - When Will Dems Admit It?

[retiredman]

Been there and done that

Now if you would put your contry ahead of your politcal party you will cause many of us to have a heart attack due to shock to our systems


again....your stock evasive answer.

When asked to defend an assertion you made, you always claim that you have already done so. In this very thread, you have stated that upon our departure, AQ will "take over" Iraq... and later on stated that the US had so decimated and thinned their ranks that they were no longer a viable force in Iraq...IN THE SAME THREAD. ANd you have NEVER explained who these terrorists are that are being armed by Iran and what, if any, connection they have with AQ.

Come on ...it's Christmas... this would be a great day for you to start doing the right thing and debating like an adult human instead of like an adolescent spambot.

[red states rule]

again....your stock evasive answer.

When asked to defend an assertion you made, you always claim that you have already done so. In this very thread, you have stated that upon our departure, AQ will "take over" Iraq... and later on stated that the US had so decimated and thinned their ranks that they were no longer a viable force in Iraq...IN THE SAME THREAD. ANd you have NEVER explained who these terrorists are that are being armed by Iran and what, if any, connection they have with AQ.

Come on ...it's Christmas... this would be a great day for you to start doing the right thing and debating like an adult human instead of like an adolescent spambot.

Already done

A new year is coming but we stil have the same old MM. Party ahead of country - and still ignoring the facts that destroy his DNC approved talking points

[retiredman]

Already done

A new year is coming but we stil have the same old MM. Party ahead of country - and still ignoring the facts that destroy his DNC approved talking points


never done. why would you tell a lie like that on Christmas?

Please show me what post # in this thread you explained how AQ was going to take over Iraq on one hand, but was also so decimated by American military actions that it was no longer capable of winning in even ONE prpvince?

Please show me what post # explains your statements about Iran arming Iraqi terrorists and explains how shiite militias are categorized in your scenario.

[red states rule]

never done. why would you tell a lie like that on Christmas?

Please show me what post # in this thread you explained how AQ was going to take over Iraq on one hand, but was also so decimated by American military actions that it was no longer capable of winning in even ONE prpvince?

Please show me what post # explains your statements about Iran arming Iraqi terrorists and explains how shiite militias are categorized in your scenario.

have answered your lame questions. You accusing someone else of lying is like Bill Clinton accusing Obama of cheating on his wife

You lie everyday as your try to defend your party on their insults of the troops, and their constant attempts to surrender

Now that Iraq has turned around, they don't want to talk about it, and you try and deflect from the success our troops are having

It is a miserable Christmas for your party MM - no new troops deaths to celebrate and then scream for surrender

[retiredman]

have answered your lame questions. You accusing someone else of lying is like Bill Clinton accusing Obama of cheating on his wife

You lie everyday as your try to defend your party on their insults of the troops, and their constant attempts to surrender

Now that Iraq has turned around, they don't want to talk about it, and you try and deflect from the success our troops are having

It is a miserable Christmas for your party MM - no new troops deaths to celebrate and then scream for surrender

you have never answered my questions. because you cannot. you talk yourself into a corner and can never talk your way out... but that is almost like your calling card. It is what you do... and what you have done nonstop on board after board, month after month.

Again.... you will not find one word written by me that expresses anything other than joy at the success our military is having in Iraq.

So...is AQ gonna take over or not?

Is Sadr a terrorist?

WHO, exactly, is Iran helping in this conflict?

[red states rule]

you have never answered my questions. because you cannot. you talk yourself into a corner and can never talk your way out... but that is almost like your calling card. It is what you do... and what you have done nonstop on board after board, month after month.

Again.... you will not find one word written by me that expresses anything other than joy at the success our military is having in Iraq.

So...is AQ gonna take over or not?

Is Sadr a terrorist?

WHO, exactly, is Iran helping in this conflict?

With all the good news coming in, and ems failure to force a surrender - I understand why you don;t want to talk about MM

and why you insist going over things that have been discussed and questions that have been answered

That is about all you have left. Your candidates don't want to talk about Iraq. The liberal media no longer wants to report on Itaq

For libs, Iraq is no longer a fun story - not enough dead US troops for them to talk about

[retiredman]

With all the good news coming in, and ems failure to force a surrender - I understand why you don;t want to talk about MM

and why you insist going over things that have been discussed and questions that have been answered

That is about all you have left. Your candidates don't want to talk about Iraq. The liberal media no longer wants to report on Itaq

For libs, Iraq is no longer a fun story - not enough dead US troops for them to talk about

you can run, buy you cannot hide, and everyone knows you're trying...:laugh2:

[actsnoblemartin]

are we all going on a jog, i prefer :dance:

you can run, buy you cannot hide, and everyone knows you're trying...:laugh2:

[Kathianne]

Hey Maineman, you didn't seem to find this interesting, though I thought you would, http://debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=174867#post174867

How about this? http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/12/merry-christmas-2007.html


Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Merry Christmas -2007

Eyes are on Iraq this year and thankful that there is reconciliation and a peace movement on the streets today.

Shiite tribal leaders attended Christmas Mass in Iraq today.
2,000 people crowded the Mar Eliya Church in Baghdad today.

All of this brings to mind this old powerpoint:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/12/blackfive-tv--2.html

<object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iMBWpgMTJjs&rel=1&border=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iMBWpgMTJjs&rel=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object>

Shiite tribal leaders attend Christmas mass at an Assyrian orthodox church in Baghdad, Iraq, Tuesday, Dec. 25, 2007. The church, which is located next to a Shiite mosque, hosted their neighbors for Christmas mass as a gesture of friendship.
(AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed)

Breitbart reported:

Muslim clerics—both Sunni and Shiite—also attended the service in a sign of unity. "May Iraq be safe every year, and may our Christian brothers be safe every year," Shiite cleric Hadi al-Jazail told AP Television News outside the church. "We came to celebrate with them and to reassure them."

God is good... And, so are the American Soldiers and Marines who helped make this possible.

Iraqi Christians light prayer candles after Christmas mass in Baghdad, Iraq, Tuesday, Dec. 25, 2007.(AP Photo/ Khalid Mohammed)....

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/570/shiitetriballeadersuv9.jpg

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/8486/iraqchristiansrz2.jpg

[red states rule]

That should spoil any holiday cheer MM still had in his system :lol:

[actsnoblemartin]

oh thats was classic.


That should spoil any holiday cheer MM still had in his system :lol:

[red states rule]

oh thats was classic.

Or he will say they are fake pics put out by the Bush administration - or they really do not prove anything

MM will still call for surrender, and say Iraq is still a mess

The usual crap he sprews on a daily basis. Any good news for Iraq is bad news for MM and the Dems

[red states rule]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch..........


White House hopeful for Iraq progress
By Jon Ward
December 26, 2007

The Bush administration is optimistic the Iraqi government will take an important step toward political reconciliation by passing at least one major law before the next progress report in March from the top U.S. general and U.S. ambassador in Iraq.

"I think you'll see, particularly over the next 90 days, some of the laws at the national level begin to pass," said Brett McGurk, senior director for Iraq and Afghanistan at the White House.

Mr. McGurk said a law allowing former Ba'ath Party officials to return to government jobs will pass, and another law that would shift power away from the central government and toward provincial councils may as well.

"The de-Ba'athification reform law is moving its way through the parliamentary process, which is very complicated," he said. "It's had its second reading. It needs one more. I think we'll see that law pass."

for the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071226/NATION/18115639/1001

[red states rule]

you can run, buy you cannot hide, and everyone knows you're trying...:laugh2:

Seems you are the one who is running away.

Despite your Dems best attempt to undermine the troops, and never ending attemts to surrender - the US is winning in Iraq

Lets hope Iraq is the #1 issue in 08 as Dems said it would after the 06 election

[red states rule]

I am sure the people in Fallujah are happy you did not get your wish for surrender MM


What a Difference …
A year makes. A report from Fallujah, Iraq.


A year ago Shura Chamal-Eit (Elizabeth Street) in downtown Fallujah was a lethal place for American troops attempting to tame the city, a center of lawlessness and defiance by insurgents. Terrorists from Al Qaeda in Iraq and other groups attacked Coalition troops on the street and around the city, killing some and injuring many. But as U.S. Marines here pass yet another Christmas fighting a war few expected to last this long, Fallujah is on the verge of becoming a success story and symbol of a new, cooperative paradigm for winning Iraq.

Fed up with the wanton assassinations and summary executions by Al Qaeda in Iraq and alarmed that the group was strangling Fallujah's economy, city leaders and residents joined forces with the Marines to expel the group. Many Fallujah residents once offered help to insurgents or at best looked the other way when they fired rocket-propelled grenades, mortar and artillery at Marines and killed or maimed them with the dreaded improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that became commonplace. The same residents now identify insurgents to the Iraqi Army and Iraqi police force, who kill, capture or drive them from the city. Many of the terrorists have fled into the desert, often into Tharthar, an area also in Anbar province, north of Fallujah.

Marines who once passed their days trying to stay alive now work as virtual municipal employees, trying to restore and expand services like electricity, trash collection and water treatment. "I'm getting ready to go sit in on a political meeting at city hall," says Lt. Col. Christopher Dowling, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines Regiment.

for the complete article

http://www.newsweek.com/id/81993

[retiredman]

Seems you are the one who is running away.

Despite your Dems best attempt to undermine the troops, and never ending attemts to surrender - the US is winning in Iraq

Lets hope Iraq is the #1 issue in 08 as Dems said it would after the 06 election


I have never denied that the United States military is militarily defeating those who stand against it.

When will you quit running away from your own contradictory statements? When will you ever stand still and discuss the political failures in Iraq that have accompanied our military successes.

and... I note the article you cut and pasted stated:

"The same residents now identify insurgents to the Iraqi Army and Iraqi police force, who kill, capture or drive them from the city. Many of the terrorists have fled into the desert, often into Tharthar, an area also in Anbar province, north of Fallujah. "

and yet, I thought you said that when WE left, AQ was going to "take over". It looks like the sunnis in Fallujah seem to be taking care of them quite nicely without our help...

My concern remains the meager progress in achieving a political solution...which was the result that the surge was designed to achieve. When we are forced to downsize our troop strength in April, I see no reason why the difficulties that remain between sunnis and shiites will not find more violent expression.

[red states rule]

I have never denied that the United States military is militarily defeating those who stand against it.

When will you quit running away from your own contradictory statements? When will you ever stand still and discuss the political failures in Iraq that have accompanied our military successes.

and... I note the article you cut and pasted stated:

"The same residents now identify insurgents to the Iraqi Army and Iraqi police force, who kill, capture or drive them from the city. Many of the terrorists have fled into the desert, often into Tharthar, an area also in Anbar province, north of Fallujah. "

and yet, I thought you said that when WE left, AQ was going to "take over". It looks like the sunnis in Fallujah seem to be taking care of them quite nicely without our help...

My concern remains the meager progress in achieving a political solution...which was the result that the surge was designed to achieve. When we are forced to downsize our troop strength in April, I see no reason why the difficulties that remain between sunnis and shiites will not find more violent expression.

AQ and terrorists would take over if the US left before Iraq was ready to defend itself

It seems progress is being made in that area - much to the dismay of of Dems who are still pushing for surrender

You are still hoping for things to fall apart in Iraq - like most libs

[retiredman]

AQ and terrorists would take over if the US left before Iraq was ready to defend itself

It seems progress is being made in that area - much to the dismay of of Dems who are still pushing for surrender

You are still hoping for things to fall apart in Iraq - like most libs

AQ AND terrorists?
I thought AQ WERE terrorists. How can AQ take over against all of the entire country of Iraq - the majority of which are shiites - if they cannot even prevail against the sunnis in Anbar?

Who are these other "terrorists" and who are they in cahoots with?

[glockmail]

Who are these other "terrorists" and who are they in cahoots with?

AR you still on this? The terrorists are the ones blowing up innocents. They're the ones that the Democrats cheer for.

[red states rule]

AR you still on this? The terrorists are the ones blowing up innocents. They're the ones that the Democrats cheer for.

You do not expect MM and his type to cheer for America do you? They have called this "Bush's War" and they want defeat for Pres Bush and America

[red states rule]

What a bad year it has been for MM and his fellow defeatests. The good news just keep coming in - and Dems look more like the symbol of their party everyday

A jackass


Terror network all but dead, Iraq says
By Bradley Brooks
December 30, 2007

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq's Interior Ministry spokesman said yesterday that 75 percent of al Qaeda in Iraq's terrorist network were destroyed this year, but the top American commander in the country said the terror group remained his chief concern.

Maj. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf said the disruption of the terrorist network was a result of improvements in the Iraqi security forces, which he said had made strides in weeding out commanders and officers with ties to militias or who were involved in criminal activities.

He also credited the rise of anti-al Qaeda in Iraq groups, mostly made up of Sunni fighters the Shi'ite-dominated government has cautiously begun to embrace. Additionally, an increase in American troops since June has been credited with pushing many militants out of Baghdad.

Gen. Khalaf's assertion that three-fourths of al Qaeda in Iraq had been destroyed could not be independently verified, and he did not elaborate on how the percentage was determined.

But violence in Iraq has dropped significantly since June — the U.S. military says it is down 60 percent nationwide — demonstrating success in fighting the terrorist network.

Separately, Iraq's chief military spokesman Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi said yesterday that two senior insurgents linked to al Qaeda were arrested the day before near Baghdad.

Ahmed Turky Abbas, the "defense minister" of the Islamic State of Iraq — an al Qaeda front group — was arrested in a village near Mahmoudiya, about 20 miles south of Baghdad, Gen. al-Moussawi said. Not far from Mahmoudiya in Latifiyah, the Iraqi army also arrested Hussein Ali Turky, considered a local religious leader for al Qaeda in Iraq.

Gen. Khalaf, the Interior Ministry spokesman, said such pressure on extremists has helped contain their activities.


for the complete article
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071230/FOREIGN/861967122/1001

[red states rule]

I have never denied that the United States military is militarily defeating those who stand against it.

When will you quit running away from your own contradictory statements? When will you ever stand still and discuss the political failures in Iraq that have accompanied our military successes.

and... I note the article you cut and pasted stated:

"The same residents now identify insurgents to the Iraqi Army and Iraqi police force, who kill, capture or drive them from the city. Many of the terrorists have fled into the desert, often into Tharthar, an area also in Anbar province, north of Fallujah. "

and yet, I thought you said that when WE left, AQ was going to "take over". It looks like the sunnis in Fallujah seem to be taking care of them quite nicely without our help...

My concern remains the meager progress in achieving a political solution...which was the result that the surge was designed to achieve. When we are forced to downsize our troop strength in April, I see no reason why the difficulties that remain between sunnis and shiites will not find more violent expression.



and how do the troops on the front respond to the "support" Dems are giving them?

The troops know all to well how Dems view them and what they think of them



Hurting morale

Marine Corps Cpl. David Goldich, a University of Virginia graduate who spent two tours of duty in Iraq, says Democratic attacks on the war undermined troop morale.

Cpl. Goldich, who returned from Anbar province in November after about 300 combat patrols, stated in a candid account that negative comments by Democrats had "a dramatic effect on morale, especially on troops who are otherwise indifferent and disdainful of politics in general."

"I cannot tell you how many times I have overheard Marines and soldiers talking about various inconsiderate comments made from the likes of [Sen.] John Kerry [Massachusetts Democrat], [Rep. John P.] Murtha [Pennsylvania Democrat], [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid [Nevada Democrat], and [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi [California Democrat] about how we cannot win, how we should be brought home, etc.," he said.

"The Kerry comments really cemented his reputation with the troops and upset people more than anything else. It is unnerving to volunteer for service during wartime hoping to be deployed and having to listen to a politician explain how the troops need to come home, especially when we clearly have not finished what we started.

"There is a widespread perception amongst the Marines I know, even those uninterested in politics, that the Democratic Party does not want us to win in Iraq for whatever reason. This is true even amongst Democrats who still maintain the party viewpoint on almost every other issue but the war. Morale is always a tricky issue to deal with, and it is difficult to tell a Marine to buck up when he sees important people back home undercutting his primary reason for existing at the moment."

Mr. Kerry came under fire in November 2006 when he joked that soldiers in Iraq were "stuck" there because they did not study hard in school.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071228/NATION04/918099949&template=nextpage

[retiredman]

another day, another opportunity wasted by RSR to actually enter into the conversation with any thoughts of his own..... instead, yet another appearance of the spambot. sad, really.

Come ON, RSR...you can do it, can't you? Can't you go to my post #516 and address my points one by one with actual words that you string together all by yourself? Try. Please?

[red states rule]

another day, another opportunity wasted by RSR to actually enter into the conversation with any thoughts of his own..... instead, yet another appearance of the spambot. sad, really.

Come ON, RSR...you can do it, can't you? Can't you go to my post #516 and address my points one by one with actual words that you string together all by yourself? Try. Please?

and your tyopical reply when I post another examples of how the US military reacts tothe "support" your party shows them

Never letthe facts get in your way MM

[retiredman]

one ex-marine writes an OPINION piece in the Washington Times. Would YOU respond in any different fashion if I were to reply to YOUR questions by posting OPINION pieces from BuzzFlash?

I asked you some questions in an effort to actually try to have a dialog with you.....my ideas versus your ideas....your questions to me in your own words....my answers in my own words...my questions to you in my own words.... your answers to my questions in your own words. That is all I have ever tried to do with you and it is something that you absolutely run away from regardless of the forum. But I still keep hoping that you'll actually be able to have one of those dialogs some day.

[red states rule]

one ex-marine writes an OPINION piece in the Washington Times. Would YOU respond in any different fashion if I were to reply to YOUR questions by posting OPINION pieces from BuzzFlash?

I asked you some questions in an effort to actually try to have a dialog with you.....my ideas versus your ideas....your questions to me in your own words....my answers in my own words...my questions to you in my own words.... your answers to my questions in your own words. That is all I have ever tried to do with you and it is something that you absolutely run away from regardless of the forum. But I still keep hoping that you'll actually be able to have one of those dialogs some day.

There have been a lot of men and women speaking up - everytime you dismiss them out of hand. I guess to you, they are traitors as well since they disagree with you and your defeatest party

and you use the typical cut and paste talking point as well

[retiredman]

There have been a lot of men and women speaking up - everytime you dismiss them out of hand. I guess to you, they are traitors as well since they disagree with you and your defeatest party

and you use the typical cut and paste talking point as well


not at all. I never dismiss anyone's opinion out of hand. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Unlike you, however, I understand the difference between OPINION and FACT. And also unlike you, I do not think that anyone who served is necessarily a traitor.

And I have NEVER used anyone's talking points. I write all my own thoughts from scratch. You should try it sometime!

[red states rule]

not at all. I never dismiss anyone's opinion out of hand. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Unlike you, however, I understand the difference between OPINION and FACT. And also unlike you, I do not think that anyone who served is necessarily a traitor.

And I have NEVER used anyone's talking points. I write all my own thoughts from scratch. You should try it sometime!

Cpl. David Goldich did not write the article, Bill Gortz did.

You did dismiss it as you posted how one ex Mairnes wrote an op-ed.

He is typical of how the troops view the smears, insults, and attacks Dems have made against them. You of course, do not see them as smears, insults, and attacks - but rather they all were taken out of context, or a poor choice of words

[retiredman]

Cpl. David Goldich did not write the article, Bill Gortz did.

You did dismiss it as you posted how one ex Mairnes wrote an op-ed.

He is typical of how the troops view the smears, insults, and attacks Dems have made against them. You of course, do not see them as smears, insults, and attacks - but rather they all were taken out of context, or a poor choice of words

how would you know that he is typical? because the oped writer in the washington times says so? Again.... when you learn the difference between opinion and fact, it will be a day of great celebration!

[red states rule]

how would you know that he is typical? because the oped writer in the washington times says so? Again.... when you learn the difference between opinion and fact, it will be a day of great celebration!

Many articles have beem published with similiar reactions from the troops. Plus the military goes about 75% for Republicans

That may be the reason Dems smear them so much

[retiredman]

Many articles have beem published with similiar reactions from the troops. Plus the military goes about 75% for Republicans

That may be the reason Dems smear them so much

I know many military democrats...and I know many military republicans...and I respect them all.

When will you EVER just sit down and have a dialog with me where your ideas go up against mine....where your questions get my answers and my questions get your answers? will that ever happen?

[red states rule]

I know many military democrats...and I know many military republicans...and I respect them all.

When will you EVER just sit down and have a dialog with me where your ideas go up against mine....where your questions get my answers and my questions get your answers? will that ever happen?

I can see how your respect those who disagree with you - the insults and arrogance come out soon eneough

Your definition of debate is others are not allowed to post any facts that back up their posts - and you are allowed to ask loaded questions that change the subject

Good luck finding people to follow your rules

[retiredman]

oped pieces are not facts...they are just your lazy way of letting some oped writer do your debating for you.

why can't you ever write your own material? I ALWAYS do.

[red states rule]

oped pieces are not facts...they are just your lazy way of letting some oped writer do your debating for you.

why can't you ever write your own material? I ALWAYS do.

an op-ed based on facts

the smears and insults Dems leveled against the troops. The same smears and insults you defend

So much for you respecting the troops

[retiredman]

an op-ed based on facts

the smears and insults Dems leveled against the troops. The same smears and insults you defend

So much for you respecting the troops

it is someone else doing your writing and your thinking for you. why can't you write your own stuff?

If the oped is BASED on facts, why not quote the facts and write your own opinion?

[red states rule]

it is someone else doing your writing and your thinking for you. why can't you write your own stuff?

If the oped is BASED on facts, why not quote the facts and write your own opinion?

Still ducking the smears and insults I see

[retiredman]

Still ducking the smears and insults I see

I duck nothing. I have no intention or desire to defend every comment made by every democrat just like you, I am sure, have no desire to defend every comment made by every republican. I want to talk to YOU about YOUR thoughts about this war on terror.... I want to talk to YOU about YOUR thoughts about Iraq and your contradictory assertions about Al Qaeda.... I want to talk to you about Iraqi political progress....

lots of democrats have said stuff that I do not agree with.... Kerry... Murtha... Kennedy...Durbin... all of them said shit I wish they had not said... that being said, I am certainly not going to change my party affiliation because of that... that does not mean that I am going to become an ardent supporter of Bush and this war in Iraq because some elected democrats put their feet in their mouths.

[red states rule]

I duck nothing. I have no intention or desire to defend every comment made by every democrat just like you, I am sure, have no desire to defend every comment made by every republican. I want to talk to YOU about YOUR thoughts about this war on terror.... I want to talk to YOU about YOUR thoughts about Iraq and your contradictory assertions about Al Qaeda.... I want to talk to you about Iraqi political progress....

lots of democrats have said stuff that I do not agree with.... Kerry... Murtha... Kennedy...Durbin... all of them said shit I wish they had not said... that being said, I am certainly not going to change my party affiliation because of that... that does not mean that I am going to become an ardent supporter of Bush and this war in Iraq because some elected democrats put their feet in their mouths.

You will not even admit they are smears and insults. You even tried to defend the Moveon.org ad - saying it depended on the meaning of "betray"

[retiredman]

You will not even admit they are smears and insults. You even tried to defend the Moveon.org ad - saying it depended on the meaning of "betray"


who cares what I will admit or not admit? We have a difference of opinion about the intentions of those speakers. I have stated that I would have preferred that someone would have rewritten those statements to be less controversial. Let's move on.

Let's talk about Iraq and the war on terror...let's talk about who you think our enemies are and who you think is helping them. Let's have the discussion. Can you just agree to disagree about your belief as to the evil intent of the speakers in mind versus my belief that they poorly chose their words? Can't you and I move beyond Kerry and Bush and talk - you and I - about the ISSUES that confront us and leave the personalities of politicians behind?

[red states rule]

who cares what I will admit or not admit? We have a difference of opinion about the intentions of those speakers. I have stated that I would have preferred that someone would have rewritten those statements to be less controversial. Let's move on.

Let's talk about Iraq and the war on terror...let's talk about who you think our enemies are and who you think is helping them. Let's have the discussion. Can you just agree to disagree about your belief as to the evil intent of the speakers in mind versus my belief that they poorly chose their words? Can't you and I move beyond Kerry and Bush and talk - you and I - about the ISSUES that confront us and leave the personalities of politicians behind?

Of course you will not admit it - it would be admitting your party insulted and smeared the troops

As far as Iraq, the troops are doing well much to the dismay of your side

But the good news is getting out

http://www.newsweek.com/id/81993

[red states rule]

I will never understand why Dems continue to sprew their talking points of doom and gloom, and failure in Iraq in the face of so much success

Dems desire for failure in Iraq is clear for all to see

[retiredman]

As far as Iraq, the troops are doing well much to the dismay of your side

But the good news is getting out


To repeat for the hundredth time: I completely agree that our troops are doing a fabulous job in Iraq. They are achieving the military objectives of the surge by any and every measure. The surge was started for a reason, however: it was designed for the sole purpose of giving Iraqi politicians the breathing room they needed in order to accomplish the political compromises that would be necessary to forge a lasting peace between the warring factions in Iraq. The surge did its part. The Iraqi politicians have not done their part. The surge will have to end in April of 2008.... and our troop levels will be reduced whether we want to reduce them or not... the troop rotations will require it. What long term good will the surge have actually accomplished if the Iraqi politicians do not use this window of opportunity our increased troop levels have provided them? Can you discuss this issue with me?

[Dilloduck]

To repeat for the hundredth time: I completely agree that our troops are doing a fabulous job in Iraq. They are achieving the military objectives of the surge by any and every measure. The surge was started for a reason, however: it was designed for the sole purpose of giving Iraqi politicians the breathing room they needed in order to accomplish the political compromises that would be necessary to forge a lasting peace between the warring factions in Iraq. The surge did its part. The Iraqi politicians have not done their part. The surge will have to end in April of 2008.... and our troop levels will be reduced whether we want to reduce them or not... the troop rotations will require it. What long term good will the surge have actually accomplished if the Iraqi politicians do not use this window of opportunity our increased troop levels have provided them? Can you discuss this issue with me?

Why is it necessary for there to be a "long term good" to result from the surge and how would you know it if you saw it ?

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree with you, without cooperation from the three factions in iraq, anything and everything we do, is meaningless.


To repeat for the hundredth time: I completely agree that our troops are doing a fabulous job in Iraq. They are achieving the military objectives of the surge by any and every measure. The surge was started for a reason, however: it was designed for the sole purpose of giving Iraqi politicians the breathing room they needed in order to accomplish the political compromises that would be necessary to forge a lasting peace between the warring factions in Iraq. The surge did its part. The Iraqi politicians have not done their part. The surge will have to end in April of 2008.... and our troop levels will be reduced whether we want to reduce them or not... the troop rotations will require it. What long term good will the surge have actually accomplished if the Iraqi politicians do not use this window of opportunity our increased troop levels have provided them? Can you discuss this issue with me?

[retiredman]

Why is it necessary for there to be a "long term good" to result from the surge and how would you know it if you saw it ?

the surge had a stated purpose. If the Iraqi politicians do not take advantage of the breathing room the surge has provided them, and Iraqis revert back to sectarian violence throughout the country when the surge troops come home, I would question the wisdom of putting any incremental number of Americans in harm's way, of spending one incremental dollar more of american taxpayer's dollars only to forestall the inevitable.

[retiredman]

I agree with you, without cooperation from the three factions in iraq, anything and everything we do, is meaningless.

just remember that there were those among us who predicted this long before there ever even WAS a surge.

just remember that an administration and a political party who does not "get it" as you have apparently finally done, does not deserve to hold onto the reins. They need to relinquish the development and execution of foreign policy to the loyal opposition.

But partisan hacks like your busom buddy RSR would never be able to admit such a level of failure... I doubt you could, for that matter.

[red states rule]

just remember that there were those among us who predicted this long before there ever even WAS a surge.

just remember that an administration and a political party who does not "get it" as you have apparently finally done, does not deserve to hold onto the reins. They need to relinquish the development and execution of foreign policy to the loyal opposition.

But partisan hacks like your busom buddy RSR would never be able to admit such a level of failure... I doubt you could, for that matter.

and I remember many Dems saying the surge wqas a waste of lives and money. Harry Reid said the war was lost BEFORE the surge was at full strength

Now, you are looking and searching for things to deflect from the success - even as the people of Iraq are stepping up and doing more to fight the terrorists and defend their country

[retiredman]

and I remember many Dems saying the surge wqas a waste of lives and money. Harry Reid said the war was lost BEFORE the surge was at full strength

Now, you are looking and searching for things to deflect from the success - even as the people of Iraq are stepping up and doing more to fight the terrorists and defend their country


the surge had an expressed purpose: to provide Iraqi politicians the breathing room to forge political compromise. America has done its part militarily. Iraqi politicians have not done theirs....which is all I have been saying.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

the surge had an expressed purpose: to provide Iraqi politicians the breathing room to forge political compromise. America has done its part militarily. Iraqi politicians have not done theirs....which is all I have been saying.:laugh2:

Glad to see you are happy at the shortcomings of the Iraq government. It confirms all along waht I have said - you hope for failure in Iraq, and you do not care how it happens

Party before country with you

[retiredman]

Glad to see you are happy at the shortcomings of the Iraq government. It confirms all along waht I have said - you hope for failure in Iraq, and you do not care how it happens

Party before country with you

I am far from happy with the shortcomings of the Iraqi government. I wish they would do what they need to do. I am stunned that you continue to make excuses for them.

[red states rule]

I am far from happy with the shortcomings of the Iraqi government. I wish they would do what they need to do. I am stunned that you continue to make excuses for them.

It took the US a long tiome to get its act together. How long did it take the US to write and ratify the Constitution?

It took Iraq less then a year

However, you have hoped for failure for so long, you will jump at anything to continue to push for surrender. The last thing you and your party wants is any success in Iraq

[retiredman]

It took the US a long tiome to get its act together. How long did it take the US to write and ratify the Constitution?

It took Iraq less then a year

However, you have hoped for failure for so long, you will jump at anything to continue to push for surrender. The last thing you and your party wants is any success in Iraq

bullshit, RSR...that standard line of yours is getting really old...really shopworn... America did not have a superpower occupying our territory and providing police protection for our early years and we should not be providing such for Iraq. Let them forge their OWN country.... our presence there is hindering that process.

[red states rule]

bullshit, RSR...that standard line of yours is getting really old...really shopworn... America did not have a superpower occupying our territory and providing police protection for our early years and we should not be providing such for Iraq. Let them forge their OWN country.... our presence there is hindering that process.

Yea facts do piss you off bigtime MM. They really get in the way of your liberal talking points

NOw if only you and your party would put such time limits on how long people can take advantage of your social programs you would at least be somewhat consistent

[retiredman]

Yea facts do piss you off bigtime MM. They really get in the way of your liberal talking points

NOw if only you and your party would put such time limits on how long people can take advantage of your social programs you would at least be somewhat consistent

why do you hide from the FACT that the Iraqi government has not done what IT was supposed to do during the period of relative calm that the surge provided?

[red states rule]

why do you hide from the FACT that the Iraqi government has not done what IT was supposed to do during the period of relative calm that the surge provided?

They are making progress - something you will never admit

Many areas of the country - including areas that were stongholds of AQ - are now run by the people of Iraq

Bummer for you, isn't it?

[retiredman]

They are making progress - something you will never admit

Many areas of the country - including areas that were stongholds of AQ - are now run by the people of Iraq

Bummer for you, isn't it?

The fact that sunni warlords are kicking AQ ass is NOT indicative of any success on the part of the Iraqi government to resolve the significant differences that keep it from functioning.

[red states rule]

The fact that sunni warlords are kicking AQ ass is NOT indicative of any success on the part of the Iraqi government to resolve the significant differences that keep it from functioning.

Different factions are working together - even attending Church services together and rebuilding cities together

Yea, no progress at all

[retiredman]

Different factions are working together - even attending Church services together and rebuilding cities together

Yea, no progress at all

the government of Iraq has not made progress. period. shit happening in neighborhoods is sweet, but it does not change the fact that there is a huge divide between the factions seeking power in Iraq and their government has not made progress in bridging it.

[retiredman]

CAMP LIBERTY, Iraq -- Senior military commanders here now portray the intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq, rather than al-Qaeda terrorists, Sunni insurgents or Iranian-backed militias.

In more than a dozen interviews, U.S. military officials expressed growing concern over the Iraqi government's failure to capitalize on sharp declines in attacks against U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians. A window of opportunity has opened for the government to reach out to its former foes, said Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of day-to-day U.S. military operations in Iraq, but "it's unclear how long that window is going to be open."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/14/AR2007111402524.html

We have done our job...Iraqi politicians have not.

[Dilloduck]

If the Iraqi politicians do not take advantage of the breathing room the surge has provided them----I would question the wisdom of --------------------------

You are and have been questioning the wisdom of this action prematurely. I see nothing positive coming from not merely questioning but condemning every action that this administration has taken for 7 years.
PARTY ON WAYNE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :dance:

[red states rule]

You are and have been questioning the wisdom of this action prematurely. I see nothing positive coming from not merely questioning but condemning every action that this administration has taken for 7 years.
PARTY ON WAYNE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :dance:

Since when has the left been positive on anything - except the pending doom of the world since Pres Bush was elected?

[retiredman]

RSR...

no comments on the quote by Odierno?

why am I not surprised? :lol:

[Dilloduck]

Since when has the left been positive on anything - except the pending doom of the world since Pres Bush was elected?

Ya ya--and the right has been leaning further and further the opposite direction to balance it out. Meanwhile, back at the ranch-----------politics as usual.

[red states rule]

Ya ya--and the right has been leaning further and further the opposite direction to balance it out. Meanwhile, back at the ranch-----------politics as usual.

One party wants to win this war, and the other is out to lose it

[retiredman]

rsr...????


RSR...

no comments on the quote by Odierno?

why am I not surprised? :lol:

[red states rule]

rsr...????

Again, you seem to be very happy with anything negative - please refresh our memories on how you hope we succeed in Iraq

[retiredman]

Again, you seem to be very happy with anything negative - please refresh our memories on how you hope we succeed in Iraq


I have always hoped that we succeed in Iraq. please quit avoiding the question. Is General Odierno a surrender monkey too?
:laugh2:

[red states rule]

I have always hoped that we succeed in Iraq. please quit avoiding the question. Is General Odierno a surrender monkey too?
:laugh2:

No but you are

Please try and somewhat hide your glee over anything negative in Iraq. You remind me so much of Motor Mouth Murtha who rushed to a press conference said US Marines killed in cold blood - he could not hide his glee either

[retiredman]

No but you are

Please try and somewhat hide your glee over anything negative in Iraq. You remind me so much of Motor Mouth Murtha who rushed to a press conference said US Marines killed in cold blood - he could not hide his glee either

quit changing the subject. comment on Odierno's remarks.

[red states rule]

quit changing the subject. comment on Odierno's remarks.

You live for bad news. When the troops were being killed you were very jappy and demanding we surrender and leave

Now that they are winning you still demand we leave

[retiredman]

You live for bad news. When the troops were being killed you were very jappy and demanding we surrender and leave

Now that they are winning you still demand we leave


liar.

I have NEVER been happy about our troop casualties.

either find a quote from me expressing happiness or retract that.

lying sack of shit.

[red states rule]

liar.

I have NEVER been happy about our troop casualties.

either find a quote from me expressing happiness or retract that.

lying sack of shit.

Like the liberal media and your elected Dems, who gleefully updated the body count daily - while demanding surrender

Now that we are winning you are looking for other reasons to surrender

Sorry if the facts bother you

[retiredman]

Like the liberal media and your elected Dems, who gleefully updated the body count daily - while demanding surrender

Now that we are winning you are looking for other reasons to surrender

Sorry if the facts bother you


I knew that you would never show the grace to retract a lie.

[red states rule]

I knew that you would never show the grace to retract a lie.

What lie? You have defended every smear from your party toward the troops, and have loved every bit of bad news from Iraq

[retiredman]

What lie? You have defended every smear from your party toward the troops, and have loved every bit of bad news from Iraq

show me one quote from me where I have been happy about troop casualties.

I am willing to send you a check for $1000 if you can show me such a quote.

I'll wait

[red states rule]

show me one quote from me where I have been happy about troop casualties.

I am willing to send you a check for $1000 if you can show me such a quote.

I'll wait

Take your pick on any thread here or on the other board where you gleefully posted the death counts and demanded surrender

Your checks are as worthless as your support for the troops MM

[retiredman]

Take your pick on any thread here or on the other board where you gleefully posted the death counts and demanded surrender

Your checks are as worthless as your support for the troops MM

why did I know you would tap dance away from that lie????:laugh2:

[red states rule]

why did I know you would tap dance away from that lie????:laugh2:

You love, adore, embrace, and welcome any bad news MM. It can be on Iraq, or on the economy. You then are very happy to run with that bad news

However with good news you have the oposite reaction. You will dismiss it, and do your best to downplay it

During the 04 election, your Dems ran to the nearest TV camera and were giddy over troop deaths and called for surrender and appeasement - just like you

[retiredman]

You love, adore, embrace, and welcome any bad news MM. It can be on Iraq, or on the economy. You then are very happy to run with that bad news

However with good news you have the oposite reaction. You will dismiss it, and do your best to downplay it

During the 04 election, your Dems ran to the nearest TV camera and were giddy over troop deaths and called for surrender and appeasement - just like you

you say those things about me all the time....smearing me....but you have yet to produce one post, one sentence where I ever embraced bad news for America. It's all part of RSR's big lie smear campaign....if you repeat the same lies over and over again, pretty soon, not only will the rest of your conservative "buddies" believe it, but you will too!

[red states rule]

you say those things about me all the time....smearing me....but you have yet to produce one post, one sentence where I ever embraced bad news for America. It's all part of RSR's big lie smear campaign....if you repeat the same lies over and over again, pretty soon, not only will the rest of your conservative "buddies" believe it, but you will too!

Still trying to defend your defeatest rants against America and the troops?

[retiredman]

Still trying to defend your defeatest rants against America and the troops?

I have never ranted against America or the troops. If I did, it would seem that you should be able to provide a link to a post where I ranted against either my country or my country's military and thus prove me wrong.

[red states rule]

I have never ranted against America or the troops. If I did, it would seem that you should be able to provide a link to a post where I ranted against either my country or my country's military and thus prove me wrong.

You never ranted against America and the troops????

Your posts are constantly bitching about what the government does to win this war, and you stand side by side with those in your party that have smeared the troops

You are a very piss poor liar

[retiredman]

You never ranted against America and the troops????

Your posts are constantly bitching about what the government does to win this war, and you stand side by side with those in your party that have smeared the troops

You are a very piss poor liar


I do not lie about anything. ever.

there is a difference between being upset at my country or my country's fighting men and women and being upset at the current civilian leadership in the executive department.

As pne of my favorite republicans once said:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt

[red states rule]

I do not lie about anything. ever.

there is a difference between being upset at my country or my country's fighting men and women and being upset at the current civilian leadership in the executive department.

As pne of my favorite republicans once said:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt

Chalk up another lie for our own Lyin King MM

[retiredman]

Chalk up another lie for our own Lyin King MM

There is no lie there from me....

it certainly seems clear to me that Teddy Roosevelt would have considered you to be not only unpatriotic and servile, but a traitor as well. I would definitely agree with him.

[red states rule]

There is no lie there from me....

it certainly seems clear to me that Teddy Roosevelt would have considered you to be not only unpatriotic and servile, but a traitor as well. I would definitely agree with him.

as with most libs, anyone who dares to disagree with them is branded a traitor.

so much for the myth of libs wanting an open discussion of the issues. The libs hate, rage, and arrogance alwasy take over the discussion

[retiredman]

as with most libs, anyone who dares to disagree with them is branded a traitor.

so much for the myth of libs wanting an open discussion of the issues. The libs hate, rage, and arrogance alwasy take over the discussion

no....I have disagreements with many people online. The only ones I ever accuse of treason are those that proclaim themselves to be domestic enemies of the constitution...like YOU.

[red states rule]

no....I have disagreements with many people online. The only ones I ever accuse of treason are those that proclaim themselves to be domestic enemies of the constitution...like YOU.

You would rather have dead people after a terror attack then breaking the terrorist and stopping attacks

As usal, terrorist rights is your #1 priority

[retiredman]

You would rather have dead people after a terror attack then breaking the terrorist and stopping attacks

As usal, terrorist rights is your #1 priority

that is absolutely incorrect. I would much rather stop terror attacks than have them succeed.

I took an oath to support and defend the constitution.... against people like you. THAT is my #1 priority: defending the constitution.

[red states rule]

that is absolutely incorrect. I would much rather stop terror attacks than have them succeed.

I took an oath to support and defend the constitution.... against people like you. THAT is my #1 priority: defending the constitution.

no, you want to coddle the terrorists and make sure their "rights" are protected - that is your #1 priority

[retiredman]

no, you want to coddle the terrorists and make sure their "rights" are protected - that is your #1 priority

Liar. I have NEVER suggested that we coddle terrorists or that their rights are protected. YOu just make shit up.

My #1` priority is supporting and defending the constitution. period.

[red states rule]

Liar. I have NEVER suggested that we coddle terrorists or that their rights are protected. YOu just make shit up.

My #1` priority is supporting and defending the constitution. period.

Then why do you oppose using all methods possible to stop attacks? Oh, we might violate the rights of the poor terrorists

[retiredman]

Then why do you oppose using all methods possible to stop attacks? Oh, we might violate the rights of the poor terrorists


I have never opposed all methods possible to stop attacks.

again...you just make shit up.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

I have never opposed all methods possible to stop attacks.

again...you just make shit up.:laugh2:

You just posted on another thread you opose waterboarding

Caught in another lie MM :laugh2:

[glockmail]

You just posted on another thread you opose waterboarding

Caught in another lie MM :laugh2: Another massive victory by RSR! :cheers2:

[red states rule]

Another massive victory by RSR! :cheers2:

That sir, is a common occurrence

Hope you had a wonderful holiday my friend

[retiredman]

You just posted on another thread you opose waterboarding

Caught in another lie MM :laugh2:

no. you need to understand the difference in meaning between the words "ALL" and "ANY".

read this slowly and carefully:

I have never opposed all methods possible to stop attacks.

that is not a lie...and any assertions by you and your yappy little dog pal to the contrary are just more examples of your pathetic level of intelligence.

[red states rule]

no. you need to understand the difference in meaning between the words "ALL" and "ANY".

read this slowly and carefully:

I have never opposed all methods possible to stop attacks.

that is not a lie...and any assertions by you and your yappy little dog pal to the contrary are just more examples of your pathetic level of intelligence.

You have been busted again -so back to the MM tap dance :laugh2:

[red states rule]

Here is the post MM made on another thread


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kathianne
I tried to answer you, since no one else did. What is your take? I think a case can be made that the UN Conventions, as signed off on by US Senate, do not forbid waterboarding.

YOur articles certainly made that case. I remain unconvinced.... I think that tilting someone backwards on a board, and pour water into their mouth and nose with no certainty from the prisoner's perspective, that the water will ever stop - no certainty that drowning is not imminent - is cruel inhumane and degrading.... in the broadest sense of the words.

[glockmail]

That sir, is a common occurrence

Hope you had a wonderful holiday my friend
Yes I've noticed that. I hope you had a great one as well.

[glockmail]

Here is the post MM made on another thread


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kathianne
I tried to answer you, since no one else did. What is your take? I think a case can be made that the UN Conventions, as signed off on by US Senate, do not forbid waterboarding.

YOur articles certainly made that case. I remain unconvinced.... I think that tilting someone backwards on a board, and pour water into their mouth and nose with no certainty from the prisoner's perspective, that the water will ever stop - no certainty that drowning is not imminent - is cruel inhumane and degrading.... in the broadest sense of the words.

HFM will now say that this is just his opinion or some other crap to justify his lie.

[red states rule]

Yes I've noticed that. I hope you had a great one as well.

It was, thanks

I posted his post from the other thread - he is getting his ass kicked on that one as well.

MM is still waving the white flag and defending the "rights" of terrorists over there as well

[retiredman]

You have been busted again -so back to the MM tap dance :laugh2:


no tap dance here, pal... just basic english language comprehension.

I have never opposed all methods of getting information about terrorists. period. I have opposed some of them. I oppose torture. I oppose warrantless wiretaps on domestic telephone lines when FISA clearly allows for 72 hours after the fact for warrant approval. I pretty much support all other methods.

[retiredman]

HFM will now say that this is just his opinion or some other crap to justify his lie.


you really want to make yourself look as illiterate as your busom buddy?:laugh2:

[glockmail]

you really want to make yourself look as illiterate as your busom buddy?:laugh2: I see things are as slow as usual in back woods frozen Maine. :pee:

[red states rule]

I see things are as slow as usual in back woods frozen Maine. :pee:

MM has been busted in another lie - and he is trying to lie his way out of it

No, nothing has changed. New year, but same BS from the lib from Maine

[glockmail]

MM has been busted in another lie - and he is trying to lie his way out of it

No, nothing has changed. New year, but same BS from the lib from Maine Its snowing here in the beautiful Yadkin Valley! :clap:

[retiredman]

Its snowing here in the beautiful Yadkin Valley! :clap:

you two are both illiterate morons. but keep stroking each other....lol

[red states rule]

you two are both illiterate morons. but keep stroking each other....lol

Ah, the Lyin King roars :lol:

[retiredman]

Ah, the Lyin King roars :lol:


I have not lied about this in any way. YOu need to go back to school and learn how to read.

[glockmail]

you two are both illiterate morons. but keep stroking each other....lol
I have more edumacation than you, so if I'm illiterate, than what does that make you? :laugh2:

[red states rule]

I have more edumacation than you, so if I'm illiterate, than what does that make you? :laugh2:

a liberal democrat - they do not get much dumber then that

[retiredman]

I have more edumacation than you, so if I'm illiterate, than what does that make you? :laugh2:

obviously, that makes me someone who retains learning better than you and your "buddy" RSR!

Seriously. Basic english comp. did you SLEEP through it? :laugh2:

[glockmail]

....

Seriously. Basic english comp. did you SLEEP through it? :laugh2: Not quite. Cum Laude, actually. :pee:

[retiredman]

Not quite. Cum Laude, actually. :pee:

whatever you say, Einstein. The fact of the matter is: if you WERE schooled in English Comp (and we don't get awarded the designation Cum Laude for individual English courses, idiot) then you clearly suffer from information retention difficulties. Otherwise, why would you claim that I was LYING when I disagreed with RSR's statement that I had opposed ALL methods of getting information from terrorists, when I had only opposed a couple of the many methods available and being used? Did you not read the conversation with any level of care? Or were you just eager - as you so ofter are - to jump in like a yappy little dog and help your "dear friend" RSR? Either way, it really is sort of a pathetic response for a supposedly well educated man.

[red states rule]

whatever you say, Einstein. The fact of the matter is: if you WERE schooled in English Comp (and we don't get awarded the designation Cum Laude for individual English courses, idiot) then you clearly suffer from information retention difficulties. Otherwise, why would you claim that I was LYING when I disagreed with RSR's statement that I had opposed ALL methods of getting information from terrorists, when I had only opposed a couple of the many methods available and being used? Did you not read the conversation with any level of care? Or were you just eager - as you so ofter are - to jump in like a yappy little dog and help your "dear friend" RSR? Either way, it really is sort of a pathetic response for a supposedly well educated man.

You are a serial liar. You get caught then then t=you try to weasel your way out of it

You learned well during the Clinton years - and you use the Clinton method of trying to explain the "meaning" of the words you used

Bottom line - you are a liar and a piss poor one at that

[truthmatters]

Its a funny little quirk they have here at this site of calling anything they dont like a lie. You can give them court documents and books written by Rebuplicans themselves and they will call it lies. I dont really know what they think they are gaining with such limmited debate tactics? Its as if they are really so shallow as to convience themselves that there own little world is real as long as they all agree to ignore the truth.

Sad , very sad.

[retiredman]

You are a serial liar. You get caught then then t=you try to weasel your way out of it

You learned well during the Clinton years - and you use the Clinton method of trying to explain the "meaning" of the words you used

Bottom line - you are a liar and a piss poor one at that


you can't find ONE lie I have ever told. I guarantee it.

but do keep trying!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

you can't find ONE lie I have ever told. I guarantee it.

but do keep trying!:laugh2:

Oh well, I guess you were for waterboarding before you were against it

[retiredman]

Oh well, I guess you were for waterboarding before you were against it


I have always been opposed to waterboarding and have never said anything other than that.

Like I said....I guarantee that you will not find ONE LIE that I have ever told on here...but you are welcome to try.

[red states rule]

I have always been opposed to waterboarding and have never said anything other than that.

Like I said....I guarantee that you will not find ONE LIE that I have ever told on here...but you are welcome to try.

You just posted one

Originally Posted by Kathianne
I tried to answer you, since no one else did. What is your take? I think a case can be made that the UN Conventions, as signed off on by US Senate, do not forbid waterboarding.

YOur articles certainly made that case. I remain unconvinced.... I think that tilting someone backwards on a board, and pour water into their mouth and nose with no certainty from the prisoner's perspective, that the water will ever stop - no certainty that drowning is not imminent - is cruel inhumane and degrading.... in the broadest sense of the words.


then you posted

have never opposed all methods possible to stop attacks.

again...you just make shit up.



Busted again

[retiredman]

You just posted one

Originally Posted by Kathianne
I tried to answer you, since no one else did. What is your take? I think a case can be made that the UN Conventions, as signed off on by US Senate, do not forbid waterboarding.

YOur articles certainly made that case. I remain unconvinced.... I think that tilting someone backwards on a board, and pour water into their mouth and nose with no certainty from the prisoner's perspective, that the water will ever stop - no certainty that drowning is not imminent - is cruel inhumane and degrading.... in the broadest sense of the words.


then you posted

have never opposed ALL methods possible to stop attacks.

again...you just make shit up.



Busted again


I have never opposed ALL methods possible to stop attacks.

Do you understand what the word ALL means????

I don't enjoy eating ALL types of seafood....but I like many of them.

I don't enjoy watching ALL forms of professional sports .... I can't stand to watch beach volleyball, for example.

I don't dislike ALL republicans....my kid brother is one and we are quite close.

Again...I have NEVER opposed ALL methods possible to stop attacks.

Like I said, moron.... I have not told ONE lie on here. But you clearly have told many! I swear sometimes you seem too stupid to get out of your own way!!!!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

Not man enough to admit you have been busted?

Why am I not surprised

[Kathianne]

You just posted one

Originally Posted by Kathianne
I tried to answer you, since no one else did. What is your take? I think a case can be made that the UN Conventions, as signed off on by US Senate, do not forbid waterboarding.

YOur articles certainly made that case. I remain unconvinced.... I think that tilting someone backwards on a board, and pour water into their mouth and nose with no certainty from the prisoner's perspective, that the water will ever stop - no certainty that drowning is not imminent - is cruel inhumane and degrading.... in the broadest sense of the words.


then you posted

have never opposed all methods possible to stop attacks.

again...you just make shit up.



Busted again

My head is going to explode, that's not what you want, is it?

He opposes waterboarding, he is saying there are other methods he doesn't have problems with. NOT ALL methods, specifically and not limited to waterboarding, he does.

Now MM, while you personally define waterboarding as torture, you agree do you not, that at least from what I posted several hours ago; the US can make a case, one you would disagree with, that waterboarding is legal and in keeping with UN Conventions? (GC were never in doubt, well except with Bully, years ago).

[retiredman]

while I do not agree with the argument made concerning waterboarding, I acknowledge that it was not without some merit.

and the GC was always in doubt with RSR...he thinks the UN wrote it.

[Kathianne]

while I do not agree with the argument made concerning waterboarding, I acknowledge that it was not without some merit.

and the GC was always in doubt with RSR...he thinks the UN wrote it.

Really, as what YOU posted at #30 (http://debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=10370&page=2) was much stronger than that, (bolded), and quoted way too many times, that seems a bit :lame2:. Of course if you can argue differently, I'm willing to reconsider.

[retiredman]

Really, as what YOU posted at #30 (http://debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=10370&page=2) was much stronger than that, (bolded), and quoted way too many times, that seems a bit :lame2:. Of course if you can argue differently, I'm willing to reconsider.


I am not sure I follow you. Perhaps we are not talking about the same post...#30 has no bolding from me, for example.

[Kathianne]

I am not sure I follow you. Perhaps we are not talking about the same post...#30 has no bolding from me, for example.

I was speaking of my post above this.
Originally Posted by manfrommaine
while I do not agree with the argument made concerning waterboarding, I acknowledge that it was not without some merit.

and the GC was always in doubt with RSR...he thinks the UN wrote it.
I was referring to this post #30:


YOur articles certainly made that case. I remain unconvinced.... I think that tilting someone backwards on a board, and pour water into their mouth and nose with no certainty from the prisoner's perspective, that the water will ever stop - no certainty that drowning is not imminent - is cruel inhumane and degrading.... in the broadest sense of the words.

[retiredman]

I was speaking of my post above this.
I was referring to this post #30:


I fail to see the contradiction. Saying something is NOT without merit is really just a less glowing way of saying that it IS WITH merit. n'est pas?

[Kathianne]

I fail to see the contradiction. Saying something is NOT without merit is really just a less glowing way of saying that it IS WITH merit. n'est pas?

Then you are unwilling. Impossible to make it clearer, unless Jim can give me neon.

[retiredman]

Then you are unwilling. Impossible to make it clearer, unless Jim can give me neon.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

"Your argument certainly made that case."

"your argument is certainly not without merit"

are not contradictory statements on my planet.... but maybe they are on yours.

[Kathianne]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

"Your argument certainly made that case."

"your argument is certainly not without merit"

are not contradictory statements on my planet.... but maybe they are on yours.

Message of the double negatives received. Thanks for that. Now, how is it 'without merit?'

[retiredman]

Message of the double negatives received. Thanks for that. Now, how is it 'without merit?'


It's NOT! :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

It's NOT! :laugh2:

So, your point? What was worthy, what not?

[retiredman]

So, your point? What was worthy, what not?


The argument was worthy of merit. The argument made the case that waterboarding might not be torture. I do not completely buy that argument, but it has merit, i.e.. it is not without merit.

It is persuasive, but not persuasive enough for me. I do not think that failing to mention waterboarding specifically somehow means that the practice would not generally be thought to be cruel, inhumane and degrading by a reasonable person.

"The weather has turned blustery all of a sudden. I am lucky to not be without my umbrella!"

[Kathianne]

The argument was worthy of merit. The argument made the case that waterboarding might not be torture. I do not completely buy that argument, but it has merit, i.e.. it is not without merit.

It is persuasive, but not persuasive enough for me. I do not think that failing to mention waterboarding specifically somehow means that the practice would not generally be thought to be cruel, inhumane and degrading by a reasonable person.

"The weather has turned blustery all of a sudden. I am lucky to not be without my umbrella!"

What failed? That's what I'm looking for. I'll try to answer your concerns. What is your question?

[retiredman]

What failed? That's what I'm looking for. I'll try to answer your concerns. What is your question?


from your post:

"Furthermore, recognizing that our intelligence officers needed guidelines more precise than the vaporous injunction to avoid “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, Congress amended the War Crimes Act (Section 2441 of Title 18, U.S. Code) to specify which “grave breaches” of international law could give rise to criminal prosecution. The list is long but once again (and despite the specter of waterboarding that hung over the debate) Congress elected to include “torture” and “cruel or inhumane treatment,” but not simulated drowning — or, in fact, degrading treatment, even though it, of course, is illegal under the McCain amendment"

By FAILING to include "simulated drowning", by electing to NOT include "Simulated drowning" the case is made that it is therefore not a "grave breach". I happen to believe, as I said earlier (and often) that waterboarding is cruel and inhumane treatment. Do you honestly think that when they tilt a detainee on the board and start pouring water down his nose that they tell him, "don't worry.... this is really only a parlor trick...it might seem like we are drowning you, but we really won't be. We'll stop before your lungs fill up with water and you die...we promise." Of course they don't. To the detainee, he is being drowned and these American infidels will certainly do it.

And AGAIN, I have no great amount of sympathy for terrorists who have attacked us, but I do have a great deal of affection and loyalty to our constitution, and I believe, in my heart of hearts, that waterboarding is cruel and inhumane and therefore in violation of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment which is a treaty we signed and is, therefore, according to our constitution, THE LAW OF THE LAND.... IMHO.

[glockmail]

....
It is persuasive, but not persuasive enough for me. .... It would be persuasive enough for you if a Democrat was in office.
:lame2:

[retiredman]

It would be persuasive enough for you if a Democrat was in office.
:lame2:


that is a false statement.

[Kathianne]

from your post:

"Furthermore, recognizing that our intelligence officers needed guidelines more precise than the vaporous injunction to avoid “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, Congress amended the War Crimes Act (Section 2441 of Title 18, U.S. Code) to specify which “grave breaches” of international law could give rise to criminal prosecution. The list is long but once again (and despite the specter of waterboarding that hung over the debate) Congress elected to include “torture” and “cruel or inhumane treatment,” but not simulated drowning — or, in fact, degrading treatment, even though it, of course, is illegal under the McCain amendment"

By FAILING to include "simulated drowning", by electing to NOT include "Simulated drowning" the case is made that it is therefore not a "grave breach". I happen to believe, as I said earlier (and often) that waterboarding is cruel and inhumane treatment. Do you honestly think that when they tilt a detainee on the board and start pouring water down his nose that they tell him, "don't worry.... this is really only a parlor trick...it might seem like we are drowning you, but we really won't be. We'll stop before your lungs fill up with water and you die...we promise." Of course they don't. To the detainee, he is being drowned and these American infidels will certainly do it.

And AGAIN, I have no great amount of sympathy for terrorists who have attacked us, but I do have a great deal of affection and loyalty to our constitution, and I believe, in my heart of hearts, that waterboarding is cruel and inhumane and therefore in violation of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment which is a treaty we signed and is, therefore, according to our constitution, THE LAW OF THE LAND.... IMHO.

Exactly what is it your looking for from me or anyone on the board for that matter? From your post it seems that it was Congress that let YOU down, actually the Senate. Me? I'm fine with what they did.

[retiredman]

Exactly what is it your looking for from me or anyone on the board for that matter? From your post it seems that it was Congress that let YOU down, actually the Senate. Me? I'm fine with what they did.


I am not looking for anything. You posted some commentary that was in support of the assertion that waterboarding may not be torture. I said that I felt that the argument that was made in the commentary had merit, but, in the final analysis, I was unconvinced that the senate language tacitly or implicitly allowed waterboarding simply because it was not explicitly prohibited.

[glockmail]

that is a false statement.

Bullshit. Not to mention that whenever you get caught with your pants down, then suddenly its just your opinion.

[retiredman]

Bullshit. Not to mention that whenever you get caught with your pants down, then suddenly its just your opinion.

blah blah blah.... you make claims you cannot support. That's fact. :fu:

[glockmail]

blah blah blah.... you make claims you cannot support. That's fact. :fu: You know they are true, thus your finger. :laugh2:

[retiredman]

You know they are true, thus your finger. :laugh2:


no. I know that they are not. MY thoughts on waterboarding closely approximate those of Senator McCain. McCain and I share the same alma mater and the same career choice. We both received the same training about the Geneva Convention and about what to do - or at least try to do - if we were ever captured. I never was. He was. Because of that, I trust his opinion even moreso. He is a republican and stands firmly against a republican president on this matter. I would similarly stand that same way against a democratic president. that is a fact.

and I gave you the finger because I really find you incredibly distasteful and despicable and annoying and they don't have a smilie for taking a big shit on top of your head, so I went with nearly the next best thing.... the little monkey is probably the NEXT best thing, but you overuse it so much to the point of cliche, I couldn't bear to.

[Kathianne]

I am not looking for anything. You posted some commentary that was in support of the assertion that waterboarding may not be torture. I said that I felt that the argument that was made in the commentary had merit, but, in the final analysis, I was unconvinced that the senate language tacitly or implicitly allowed waterboarding simply because it was not explicitly prohibited.

You made it very clear that you disagreed with me, while I could take it as agreement. I got that. I've yet to be convinced by any argument put forward of why the US government has not given itself an out if it needs it. Not only for UN Conventions, but also the wording of the bill sponsored by "THE HERO!!!" John McCain.

[retiredman]

You made it very clear that you disagreed with me, while I could take it as agreement. I got that. I've yet to be convinced by any argument put forward of why the US government has not given itself an out if it needs it. Not only for UN Conventions, but also the wording of the bill sponsored by "THE HERO!!!" John McCain.


I say again: given the nature of waterboarding as - IMO - cruel and degrading.... I believe that simply refraining from explicitly mentioning simulated drowning does not change its nature...and cruel and degrading treatment IS mentioned in both pieces of legislation. And an argument can have merit, but not be as persuasive as other arguments in opposition. such is the case here, imho.

[glockmail]

no. I know that they are not. MY thoughts on waterboarding closely approximate those of Senator McCain. McCain and I share the same alma mater and the same career choice. We both received the same training about the Geneva Convention and about what to do - or at least try to do - if we were ever captured. I never was. He was. Because of that, I trust his opinion even moreso. He is a republican and stands firmly against a republican president on this matter. I would similarly stand that same way against a democratic president. that is a fact.

and I gave you the finger because I really find you incredibly distasteful and despicable and annoying and they don't have a smilie for taking a big shit on top of your head, so I went with nearly the next best thing.... the little monkey is probably the NEXT best thing, but you overuse it so much to the point of cliche, I couldn't bear to. More bullshit, as its always party over country for you. :laugh2:

[retiredman]

More bullshit, as its always party over country for you. :laugh2:

not always. about torture it would not be. you are wrong. I laid out my case and you do not have the grace to admit you fucked up. no big surprise there!

[glockmail]

not always. about torture it would not be. you are wrong. I laid out my case and you do not have the grace to admit you fucked up. no big surprise there! All you did was what you always do: brag about your miltary career and pump yourself up well beyond your level- in this case to an honorable soldier and US Senator. You couldn't hold a candle to the man's feet.

[Kathianne]

I say again: given the nature of waterboarding as - IMO - cruel and degrading.... I believe that simply refraining from explicitly mentioning simulated drowning does not change its nature...and cruel and degrading treatment IS mentioned in both pieces of legislation. And an argument can have merit, but not be as persuasive as other arguments in opposition. such is the case here, imho.

'Mentioned' by your definition or 'enforceable' by any other definition? Cannot the US make the case that waterboarding is NOT torture by UN Conventions and the McCain Amendment? I'm saying yes.

[retiredman]

'Mentioned' by your definition or 'enforceable' by any other definition? Cannot the US make the case that waterboarding is NOT torture by UN Conventions and the McCain Amendment? I'm saying yes.

I guess I remain confused. It seems, from the quote that I posted from YOUR previous argument, that the way that case is made is by showing that waterboarding is not listed as a specific method of torture. I think that its nature makes it inherently fall under the category of cruel and inhumane treatment..and cruel and inhumane IS specifically stated.

[glockmail]

I guess I remain confused. It seems, from the quote that I posted from YOUR previous argument, that the way that case is made is by showing that waterboarding is not listed as a specific method of torture. I think that its nature makes it inherently fall under the category of cruel and inhumane treatment..and cruel and inhumane IS specifically stated. Cruel and inhumane is defined by reasonable people to be something that causes permanent scaring or disfigurement, or is done simply to inflict pain as a punishment. In the case of waterboarding for the purpose of obtaining important, possibly critical information, this reasonable definition is not met.

Unless of course the President happens to be a Democrat.... :poke:

[Kathianne]

I guess I remain confused. It seems, from the quote that I posted from YOUR previous argument, that the way that case is made is by showing that waterboarding is not listed as a specific method of torture. I think that its nature makes it inherently fall under the category of cruel and inhumane treatment..and cruel and inhumane IS specifically stated.

Then so is my being incarcerated for any crime. I could not stand to be locked up. Who is to decide? Maineman, no thanks. By the obvious choice of the Senate in passing the McCain Amendment, when waterboarding was being demonstrated on TV, in pictures on the front page, to not mention it, they left it to the enforcement, i.e. executive to make the determination. Stays right in line from all accounts of how it's been handled even before passage.

No one moved on it, until going up, up, up the chain of command. RSR may be a bit weak in his details, but he was correct in how seldom it was used and how carefully it was used. He has some cred there.

[retiredman]

Then so is my being incarcerated for any crime. I could not stand to be locked up. Who is to decide? Maineman, no thanks. By the obvious choice of the Senate in passing the McCain Amendment, when waterboarding was being demonstrated on TV, in pictures on the front page, to not mention it, they left it to the enforcement, i.e. executive to make the determination. Stays right in line from all accounts of how it's been handled even before passage.

No one moved on it, until going up, up, up the chain of command. RSR may be a bit weak in his details, but he was correct in how seldom it was used and how carefully it was used. He has some cred there.

I have never denied the accuracy of RSR's statements about frequency of use. That was never the issue with me. If you believe, as I do, that waterboarding DOES violate the terms of the UN convention, then how many times it is used is not the issue...the fact that it is used at all is what is germane... if a serial killer murders ten people or a hundred, does that mean that the first three were not murdered or if he stopped at three, did that mean he wasn't a serial killer? If we violated the terms of the treaty, we violated the law of the land....whether we violated it three times or a million times. And I understand that there are differences of opinion as to whether we did or not....

but... if you want to suggest some level of parity between being placed in a cell behind bars, and being strapped to a board, and having your enemy pour water down your nose not knowing if he intends to drown you or not... well. we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Dilloduck]

I have never denied the accuracy of RSR's statements about frequency of use. That was never the issue with me. If you believe, as I do, that waterboarding DOES violate the terms of the UN convention, then how many times it is used is not the issue...the fact that it is used at all is what is germane... if a serial killer murders ten people or a hundred, does that mean that the first three were not murdered or if he stopped at three, did that mean he wasn't a serial killer? If we violated the terms of the treaty, we violated the law of the land....whether we violated it three times or a million times. And I understand that there are differences of opinion as to whether we did or not....

but... if you want to suggest some level of parity between being placed in a cell behind bars, and being strapped to a board, and having your enemy pour water down your nose not knowing if he intends to drown you or not... well. we will just have to agree to disagree.

If you were an American citizen living in Pakistan and you saw bin laden straddling the Afghan border, you would have to call a lawyer before you squeezed off a shot.

[Kathianne]

I have never denied the accuracy of RSR's statements about frequency of use. That was never the issue with me. If you believe, as I do, that waterboarding DOES violate the terms of the UN convention, then how many times it is used is not the issue...the fact that it is used at all is what is germane... if a serial killer murders ten people or a hundred, does that mean that the first three were not murdered or if he stopped at three, did that mean he wasn't a serial killer? If we violated the terms of the treaty, we violated the law of the land....whether we violated it three times or a million times. And I understand that there are differences of opinion as to whether we did or not....

but... if you want to suggest some level of parity between being placed in a cell behind bars, and being strapped to a board, and having your enemy pour water down your nose not knowing if he intends to drown you or not... well. we will just have to agree to disagree.
Problem is YOU think it's torture, though you have zilch to back you up. Not GC, not UN Conventions, not even McCain Amendment. Just you. At least til you bring more to the table or SCOTUS agrees with your 'gut' as cheesy would say.

[red states rule]

Cruel and inhumane is defined by reasonable people to be something that causes permanent scaring or disfigurement, or is done simply to inflict pain as a punishment. In the case of waterboarding for the purpose of obtaining important, possibly critical information, this reasonable definition is not met.

Unless of course the President happens to be a Democrat.... :poke:

If Bill was President, MM would be saying how the man is doing all he can to protect and defend the US - and the right wing attack machine is an enemy of the state and should be shut down

[JohnDoe]

Problem is YOU think it's torture, though you have zilch to back you up. Not GC, not UN Conventions, not even McCain Amendment. Just you. At least til you bring more to the table or SCOTUS agrees with your 'gut' as cheesy would say.


Kathianne,

Don't you think that the courts have ALREADY decided that waterboarding is torture? Why are the republicans that support waterboarding denying that waterboarding is torture when we have prosecuted of our own citizens and soldiers of the enemies for committing torture when waterboarding?

Doesn't precedence in the courts count?



Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime

By Evan Wallach
Sunday, November 4, 2007; B01



As a JAG in the Nevada National Guard, I used to lecture the soldiers of the 72nd Military Police Company every year about their legal obligations when they guarded prisoners. I'd always conclude by saying, "I know you won't remember everything I told you today, but just remember what your mom told you: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." That's a pretty good standard for life and for the law, and even though I left the unit in 1995, I like to think that some of my teaching had carried over when the 72nd refused to participate in misconduct at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

Sometimes, though, the questions we face about detainees and interrogation get more specific. One such set of questions relates to "waterboarding."

That term is used to describe several interrogation techniques. The victim may be immersed in water, have water forced into the nose and mouth, or have water poured onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed. The media usually characterize the practice as "simulated drowning." That's incorrect. To be effective, waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death. That is,

the victim experiences the sensations of drowning: struggle, panic, breath-holding, swallowing, vomiting, taking water into the lungs and, eventually, the same feeling of not being able to breathe that one experiences after being punched in the gut. The main difference is that the drowning process is halted. According to those who have studied waterboarding's effects, it can cause severe psychological trauma, such as panic attacks, for years.

The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

In this case from the tribunal's records, the victim was a prisoner in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies:

A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.

The United States (like Britain, Australia and other Allies) pursued lower-ranking Japanese war criminals in trials before their own tribunals. As a general rule, the testimony was similar to Nielsen's. Consider this account from a Filipino waterboarding victim:

Q: Was it painful?

A: Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious. Like drowning in the water.

Q: Like you were drowning?

A: Drowning -- you could hardly breathe.

Here's the testimony of two Americans imprisoned by the Japanese:

They would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness.

And from the second prisoner: They laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air. . . . They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water.

As a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were not the only defendants convicted in such cases. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.

More recently, waterboarding cases have appeared in U.S. district courts. One was a civil action brought by several Filipinos seeking damages against the estate of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. The plaintiffs claimed they had been subjected to torture, including water torture. The court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that "the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation."

In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."

The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

We know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture. That's a lesson worth learning. The study of law is, after all, largely the study of history. The law of war is no different. This history should be of value to those who seek to understand what the law is -- as well as what it ought to be.

Evan Wallach, a judge at the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, teaches the law

of war as an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School and New York Law School.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company

[red states rule]

Kathianne,

Don't you think that the courts have ALREADY decided that waterboarding is torture? Why are the republicans that support waterboarding denying that waterboarding is torture when we have prosecuted of our own citizens and soldiers of the enemies for committing torture when waterboarding?

Doesn't precedence in the courts count?

JD - Once again allow me to point out the facys about waterbording

1) It was used 3 times on known terrorists

2) Each time, the terrorists cracked in less then 1 minute - and gavre inofrmation that stopped pending atacks. Which was the reason it was used

3) It has not ben used in years

4) Years ago, when Dems saw the videos , they did not object

[retiredman]

JD - Once again allow me to point out the facys about waterbording

1) It was used 3 times on known terrorists

2) Each time, the terrorists cracked in less then 1 minute - and gavre inofrmation that stopped pending atacks. Which was the reason it was used

3) It has not ben used in years

4) Years ago, when Dems saw the videos , they did not object

the number of documented uses of waterboarding is irrelevant to the discussion of its legality.

[red states rule]

the number of documented uses of waterboarding is irrelevant to the discussion of its legality.

and to you, the results as well

[retiredman]

and to you, the results as well

irrelevant to the discussion of its legality? absolutely. There are all sorts of interrogation techniques that might be effective - that level of effectiveness does not change their status as legal or illegal.

The question before you is waterboarding LEGAL? Because of treaties signed by the United States, and because of article VI of the constitution, is waterboarding a violation of the law of the land? And if not, why not?

[red states rule]

irrelevant to the discussion of its legality? absolutely. There are all sorts of interrogation techniques that might be effective - that level of effectiveness does not change their status as legal or illegal.

The question before you is waterboarding LEGAL? Because of treaties signed by the United States, and because of article VI of the constitution, is waterboarding a violation of the law of the land? And if not, why not?

Libs are something else. You guys are making a big deal over something that has not been used in years - and when your party leaders saw the tapes, they did not object

Why now?

Could it be party before country?

[retiredman]

Libs are something else. You guys are making a big deal over something that has not been used in years - and when your party leaders saw the tapes, they did not object

Why now?

Could it be party before country?

you have a funny habit of avoiding answering questions and asking new ones of your own instead. This is no NEW cause for me. I have always been againt torture and cruel and inhumane treatment of our detainees out of concern for future american POW's in future wars. Now just answer the question:

Is waterboarding LEGAL? Because of treaties signed by the United States, and because of article VI of the constitution, is waterboarding a violation of the law of the land? And if not, why not?

[glockmail]

.....

Is waterboarding LEGAL? Because of treaties signed by the United States, and because of article VI of the constitution, is waterboarding a violation of the law of the land? And if not, why not?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=180564&postcount=653

[retiredman]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=180564&postcount=653

that is your opinion. thanks for sharing. Forgive me if I don't happen to agree with it.

Let's see what RSR can come up with.:laugh2:

[glockmail]

that is your opinion. thanks for sharing. Forgive me if I don't happen to agree with it.

Let's see what RSR can come up with.:laugh2:

Its not merely my opinion, but an interpretation that any reasonable person would make. By rejecting that interpretation you lie on the side of unreasonable. Methinks you'd be more reasonable if not so partisan. :laugh2:

[retiredman]

Its not merely my opinion, but an interpretation that any reasonable person would make. By rejecting that interpretation you lie on the side of unreasonable. Methinks you'd be more reasonable if not so partisan.

And you get to say that any reasonable person would make that interpretation...because.... why, exactly? Have you surveyed any and every reasonable person on this issue?

Or did I somehow MISS the announcement from Heaven where God named you the sole arbitrator of reasonableness? Methinks you would be more believable if you pulled your self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing, pompous head out of your well travelled ass. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

And you get to say that any reasonable person would make that interpretation...because.... why, exactly? Have you surveyed any and every reasonable person on this issue?

Or did I somehow MISS the announcement from Heaven where God named you the sole arbitrator of reasonableness? Methinks you would be more believable if you pulled your self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing, pompous head out of your well travelled ass. :laugh2: Perhaps you could point out specifically where my interpretation is not reasonable. Methinks that you can't, which is why you originally tried to ignore it and when pressed, resort to a personal attack. :laugh2:

[retiredman]

Perhaps you could point out specifically where my interpretation is not reasonable. Methinks that you can't, which is why you originally tried to ignore it and when pressed, resort to a personal attack. :laugh2:


your interpretation is simply your interpretation and is, therefore, no more or less reasonable than mine is.

Perhaps YOU could point out specifically where MY interpretation is not reasonable - and NOT use your opinion doing so! LOL

And I resort to personal attacks right out in public...you slink around and do so with cowardly neg reps!

little pussy.

[Dilloduck]

your interpretation is simply your interpretation and is, therefore, no more or less reasonable than mine is.

Perhaps YOU could point out specifically where MY interpretation is not reasonable - and NOT use your opinion doing so! LOL

And I resort to personal attacks right out in public...you slink around and do so with cowardly neg reps!

little pussy.

:laugh2:---says the man(little pussy) who gave me a neg rep----

[glockmail]

your interpretation is simply your interpretation and is, therefore, no more or less reasonable than mine is.

Perhaps YOU could point out specifically where MY interpretation is not reasonable - and NOT use your opinion doing so! LOL

And I resort to personal attacks right out in public...you slink around and do so with cowardly neg reps!

little pussy.

Nice that you admit that you resort to personal attacks when you lose an argument. How refreshing.

I asked you first. Point out where my simple argument is unreasonable. "Reasonable" is a well known legal concept. Use your "opinion" if you like, and then we'll let reasonable people make their own conclusions. :coffee:

[retiredman]

Nice that you admit that you resort to personal attacks when you lose an argument. How refreshing.

I asked you first. Point out where my simple argument is unreasonable. "Reasonable" is a well known legal concept. Use your "opinion" if you like, and then we'll let reasonable people make their own conclusions. :coffee:

I've stated my opinion. I think it is reasonable. YOu've stated yours and think likewise. Those opinions are both out there....people can judge if they want.


:laugh2:---says the man(little pussy) who gave me a neg rep----

the difference of course, is that glock neg reps in lieu of public attacks. I neg rep in response to them:laugh2:

[glockmail]

I've stated my opinion. I think it is reasonable. YOu've stated yours and think likewise. Those opinions are both out there....people can judge if they want.



I put forth a reasonable argument that you can't defend against. If you did, then it would be obvious that your opinion is unreasonable. Proof of this is you resorting to personal attacks.

My reps to posts are in response to my opinions. Each neg gets a stated reason. Stop whining about it.

[retiredman]

I put forth a reasonable argument that you can't defend against. If you did, then it would be obvious that your opinion is unreasonable. Proof of this is you resorting to personal attacks.

My reps to posts are in response to my opinions. Each neg gets a stated reason. Stop whining about it.

Your "argument" is nothing more than your opinion that all reasonable people would think the way you do. I disagree.

And I am not whining at all. You are the little bitch who loves to play the "melodramatic queen" role and I find your opinions and the self righteous attitude that goes along with them to be tedious. grow up and get over yourself.

[glockmail]

Your "argument" is nothing more than your opinion that all reasonable people would think the way you do. I disagree.

And I am not whining at all. You are the little bitch who loves to play the "melodramatic queen" role and I find your opinions and the self righteous attitude that goes along with them to be tedious. grow up and get over yourself.

Reasonable people think reasonably. You don't. Your continued refusal to debate the simple argument in front of you is evidence of that. Your continued insults provides evidence of your defeat.

[retiredman]

Reasonable people think reasonably. You don't. Your continued refusal to debate the simple argument in front of you is evidence of that. Your continued insults provides evidence of your defeat.

debate what? your opinion that all responsible people think waterboarding is OK? What have you laid out, other than that opinion, for me to debate??? :laugh2:

Everybody's got opinions. You have put forth NOTHING that would make yours any more accurate than anyone else's, and certainly nothing there to debate, only agree or disagree with. I chose the latter.

[glockmail]

debate what? .....

Cruel and inhumane is defined by reasonable people to be something that causes permanent scaring or disfigurement, or is done simply to inflict pain as a punishment. In the case of waterboarding for the purpose of obtaining important, possibly critical information, this reasonable definition is not met.

[retiredman]

Cruel and inhumane is defined by reasonable people to be something that causes permanent scaring or disfigurement, or is done simply to inflict pain as a punishment. In the case of waterboarding for the purpose of obtaining important, possibly critical information, this reasonable definition is not met.


Please provide a link to www.reasonablepeoplepolling.com that documents your assertion about what "reasonable" people believe or how they define cruel and inhumane, and that also documents your assertion that waterboarding does not meet that definition.

Again. You trot out your "opinion" about what "reasonable people" believe and try to pawn your opinion off as "fact". It's the same tired self absorbed argument you always pan out. Glock is somehow the arbiter of reasonableness for the world and his opinions automatically take on the imprimatur of fact. bah.

I would alternatively suggest that in the case of waterboarding, reasonable people would believe that if THEY THEMSELVES were strapped on a board by an enemy who had captured them on the battlefield, and that enemy had then poured water down their noses, and THEY THEMSELVES had not known, during the process, whether the enemy's intent was to murder them by drowning or not, such treatment OF THEM would qualify as cruel and inhumane.

And, unlike you, I realize that that is only my opinion and not some universal truth.:laugh2:

[glockmail]

Please provide a link to www.reasonablepeoplepolling.com that documents your assertion about what "reasonable" people believe or how they define cruel and inhumane, and that also documents your assertion that waterboarding does not meet that definition. .....

tor·ture
Function: noun
the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

www.m-w.com

[retiredman]

tor·ture
Function: noun
the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

www.m-w.com

that definition does not preclude waterboarding. you are not suggesting, are you, that burning, crushing or wounding are the ONLY means of torturing anyone?

are you suggesting that extreme sleep deprivation, which does not cause any intense pain, is NOT torture? How about extreme hypothermia? not torture?

and the UN convention is against torture AND cruel and inhumane and degrading treatment.

[glockmail]

that definition does not preclude waterboarding. you are not suggesting, are you, that burning, crushing or wounding are the ONLY means of torturing anyone?

are you suggesting that extreme sleep deprivation, which does not cause any intense pain, is NOT torture? How about extreme hypothermia? not torture?

and the UN convention is against torture AND cruel and inhumane and degrading treatment.

None of those is in the dictionary definition of torture. Merriam Webster is generally thought of as reasonable. At least by reasonable people.

[retiredman]

None of those is in the dictionary definition of torture. Merriam Webster is generally thought of as reasonable. At least by reasonable people.

so you ARE saying that burning, crushing and wounding are the ONLY forms of torture?

or maybe the words "as from" didn't get explained to you when you got your summa cum laude in basic english composition?????

I think we're done here! :laugh2:

[glockmail]

so you ARE saying that burning, crushing and wounding are the ONLY forms of torture?

or maybe the words "as from" didn't get explained to you when you got your summa cum laude in basic english composition?????

I think we're done here! :laugh2:

Please point out where I have said that these are the only forms of torture. The definition, as is customary, cites examples. Any reasonable reading of those examples would not equate waterboarding for the purpose of interrogation or training.

I think that you've been done for a while. How refreshing that you can admit that.

[retiredman]

Please point out where I have said that these are the only forms of torture. The definition, as is customary, cites examples. Any reasonable reading of those examples would not equate waterboarding for the purpose of interrogation or training.

I think that you've been done for a while. How refreshing that you can admit that.

you dismissed two forms of torture I mentioned by simply pointing out: "None of those is in the dictionary definition of torture". the dictionary definition you provide has only those three.

And again, you do not get to be the final arbiter of reasonableness. I am sorry.

Thanks for playing along.

next.

[glockmail]

you dismissed two forms of torture I mentioned by simply pointing out: "None of those is in the dictionary definition of torture". the dictionary definition you provide has only those three.

And again, you do not get to be the final arbiter of reasonableness. I am sorry.

Thanks for playing along.

next.


Yes, the dictionary has three examples. That is where we are limiting this discussion.

I realize that you think prosecuting American soldiers under an arbitrary definition of torture is a game, but I assure you I do not.

[retiredman]

Yes, the dictionary has three examples. That is where we are limiting this discussion.

I realize that you think prosecuting American soldiers under an arbitrary definition of torture is a game, but I assure you I do not.

and you are saying that the dictionary's three examples are the only types of torture... and I think to arbitrarily limit the definition of torture to the three definitions in Miriam Webster is absolutely laughable.

And rather than resort to a second rate dictionary, why not go to the treaty we have signed - and that is, therefore the LAW OF THE LAND - that deals specifically with the subject? You know, the

United Nations CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment?

"For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity"

I ask you again, are you really suggesting that, by that definition, your gaggle of reasonable people would say that extreme sleep deprivation is NOT torture? Are you really suggesting that reasonable people would not say that sticking prisoners in freezers for extended periods of time is NOT torture? Are you really suggesting that reasonable people would NOT say that strapping a prisoner to a board and pouring water down their noses to a point where, if you continued, the prisoner would certainly drown is NOT torture? And if so, do you have a link to that www.reasonablepeoplepollingsite.com website that would provide any factual support to your "opinion"? As I said earlier, you really are in no position to claim to be the final arbiter of reasonableness or the spokesman for all reasonable people.:laugh2:

and finally, I would love it if you would dig up even one quote from me where I EVER advocated prosecuting an American soldier for torture.

[red states rule]

Yes, the dictionary has three examples. That is where we are limiting this discussion.

I realize that you think prosecuting American soldiers under an arbitrary definition of torture is a game, but I assure you I do not.

Perhaps that is why libs want the troops brought home - so they can be put on trial for war crimes

[retiredman]

Perhaps that is why libs want the troops brought home - so they can be put on trial for war crimes


can you read????

[red states rule]

can you read????

Sure I can, I have read where the left continues to smear and insult the troops - just as they have done for years

[actsnoblemartin]

harry reid, john murtha.

who else?

I lost count


Sure I can, I have read where the left continues to smear and insult the troops - just as they have done for years

[red states rule]

harry reid, john murtha.

who else?

I lost count

Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin, and the Gen Betray US ad from Moveon.org

[retiredman]

Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin, and the Gen Betray US ad from Moveon.org

yesterday's news... shall I bring up watergate? :lol:

the point is: saying that democrats want to bring the troops home so that they can charge them as war criminals shows no real attempt to debate issues. you and your little friend martin just want to throw flames and laugh at one another's "brilliant" senses of humor.. you two should just get a room.

[red states rule]

yesterday's news... shall I bring up watergate? :lol:

the point is: saying that democrats want to bring the troops home so that they can charge them as war criminals shows no real attempt to debate issues. you and your little friend martin just want to throw flames and laugh at one another's "brilliant" senses of humor.. you two should just get a room.

Why not? The last thing you want is to have the comments made by your party about the troops discussed

Given all the "crimes" your side has accused the troops of committing - why would the left not want them to be put on trial?

[actsnoblemartin]

attacking me for agreeing with rsr. Wow didnt know that was a crime

I never said anything about bringing them home so we can charge them, and i prefer a room by myself thank you

and thanks for noticing my brilliant sense of humor

:laugh2: its a gift


yesterday's news... shall I bring up watergate? :lol:

the point is: saying that democrats want to bring the troops home so that they can charge them as war criminals shows no real attempt to debate issues. you and your little friend martin just want to throw flames and laugh at one another's "brilliant" senses of humor.. you two should just get a room.

[actsnoblemartin]

the left has, search pendleton 8 into google


Why not? The last thing you want is to have the comments made by your party about the troops discussed

Given all the "crimes" your side has accused the troops of committing - why would the left not want them to be put on trial?

[retiredman]

you know what I would really like, RSR? Is that we not talk about my party's comments or your party's comments...but YOUR ideas up against MY ideas. I would love to talk about YOUR ideas about article VI of the constitution and how that plays with treaties we have signed....I would love to hear YOUR take on issues surrounding the sectarian violence in Iraq and the inability of the Iraqi government to solve the fundamental differences that perpetuate that violence. how about it?

[glockmail]

and you are saying that the dictionary's three examples are the only types of torture... and I think to arbitrarily limit the definition of torture to the three definitions in Miriam Webster is absolutely laughable.

And rather than resort to a second rate dictionary, why not go to the treaty we have signed - and that is, therefore the LAW OF THE LAND - that deals specifically with the subject? You know, the

United Nations CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment?

"For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity"

I ask you again, are you really suggesting that, by that definition, your gaggle of reasonable people would say that extreme sleep deprivation is NOT torture? Are you really suggesting that reasonable people would not say that sticking prisoners in freezers for extended periods of time is NOT torture? Are you really suggesting that reasonable people would NOT say that strapping a prisoner to a board and pouring water down their noses to a point where, if you continued, the prisoner would certainly drown is NOT torture? And if so, do you have a link to that www.reasonablepeoplepollingsite.com website that would provide any factual support to your "opinion"? As I said earlier, you really are in no position to claim to be the final arbiter of reasonableness or the spokesman for all reasonable people.:laugh2:

and finally, I would love it if you would dig up even one quote from me where I EVER advocated prosecuting an American soldier for torture.

Again, this discussion is limited to waterboarding, which according to M-W and your post above is not "severe pain or suffering".

[retiredman]

Again, this discussion is limited to waterboarding, which according to M-W and your post above is not "severe pain or suffering".

again....,relying on a second rate dictionary's partial list is pretty much waving the white flag. and your opinion about what is severe is just that....your opinion. Pardon me if I laugh at it.

loser.:lol:

[red states rule]

again....,relying on a second rate dictionary's partial list is pretty much waving the white flag. and your opinion about what is severe is just that....your opinion. Pardon me if I laugh at it.

loser.:lol:

This from the guy who dances around on the meaning of "terrorize" when defending the insults of our troops from his party

[red states rule]

According to the liberal media, is the fault of bloggers who are to blame for the Iraq war in the fisrt place

More from the unbiased MSM


Helen Thomas: Bad Journalism and Iraq War Traced Back to Bloggers
By Jeff Poor | January 6, 2008 - 20:09 ET

The so-called "dean of the White House press corps" is at it again - not abusing her front row position at White House press briefings and criticizing the Bush administration, but this time by taking shots at the new media.

Helen Thomas, columnist for Hearst newspapers and long-time White House Press Corp member, blamed bloggers for contributing to the "deterioration" of journalism that led to the Iraq war.

"What I really worry about is that I think the bloggers and everyone, everyone with a laptop thinks they're journalists," Thomas said. "And, they certainly don't have our standards. They don't have our ethics, and so forth. There's a deterioration," she continued. "Reporters laid down on the job in the run up to this [the Iraq] war."
Thomas made those remarks at a January 4 round-table discussion that followed the premiere of a documentary about the National Press Club 100th anniversary, "The National Press Club at 100: A Century of Headlines." The documentary chronicled how the National Press Club has changed over the years as forms of media have changed - from newspapers to radio, TV, magazines and now bloggers.

"I think they did a lousy job and we're making for it now because the questions that should have been asked were not asked and because of 9/11 and the fear of being called unpatriotic, un-American and so forth. We let the country down," Thomas added.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2008/01/06/helen-thomas-bad-journalism-iraq-war-traced-back-bloggers

[retiredman]

This from the guy who dances around on the meaning of "terrorize" when defending the insults of our troops from his party


I don't dance around the meaning of that word...YOU do.

The New York Giant's defense terrorized the Jaguar's offensive line. Does that mean that the Giants are members of Al Qaeda? :lol:

[red states rule]

I don't dance around the meaning of that word...YOU do.

The New York Giant's defense terrorized the Jaguar's offensive line. Does that mean that the Giants are members of Al Qaeda? :lol:

Still defending the slimes and insults Kerry made about the troopps I see

[retiredman]

Still defending the slimes and insults Kerry made about the troopps I see

I am still using the english language with precision. something you are obviously incapable of doing.

[red states rule]

I am still using the english language with precision. something you are obviously incapable of doing.

No, you are trying to Clintonize Kerry's smear

[retiredman]

No, you are trying to Clintonize Kerry's smear

no. words have meanings.... you attack Kerry for homophones claiming they are synonyms..

hey...there was a pit bull terrier that got loose and was terrorizing other dogs and children in my neighborhood. Do you think that Osama trained that dog?

[actsnoblemartin]

you gonna answer your pm, im trying to talk to you like a man, and by the way unless its not clear, I could care less if my friends make jokes about me, im sorry youre offended, but did you ever consider maybe, just maybe your a bit over sensitive too


no. words have meanings.... you attack Kerry for homophones claiming they are synonyms..

hey...there was a pit bull terrier that got loose and was terrorizing other dogs and children in my neighborhood. Do you think that Osama trained that dog?

did kerry make a homophobic slur?

[red states rule]

no. words have meanings.... you attack Kerry for homophones claiming they are synonyms..

hey...there was a pit bull terrier that got loose and was terrorizing other dogs and children in my neighborhood. Do you think that Osama trained that dog?

to most libs like Kerry the troops are terrorists (and war criminals)

[actsnoblemartin]

Im not happy with the lefts support of the trops, calling them nazis and charging them with shooting to many bullets is gay.


to most libs like Kerry the troops are terrorists (and war criminals)

[retiredman]

to most libs like Kerry the troops are terrorists (and war criminals)

no. not me...and not Kerry. To both Kerry and me, it is completely understandable why women and children would be scared shitless if a band of armed men speaking a foreign language broke into their homes in the dead of night. But you somehow think that they would have no reason to be frightened. that is just silly.

[actsnoblemartin]

i sent you a pm, as a man, one mono to enother, and im getting tired of you ignoring me.

Either youre gonna be a man and talk to me about this, or i will stop considering you a friend.

And dont give me any crap about blindly supporting rsr, ask him yourself he is not above criticism and neither are you


no. not me...and not Kerry. To both Kerry and me, it is completely understandable why women and children would be scared shitless if a band of armed men speaking a foreign language broke into their homes in the dead of night. But you somehow think that they would have no reason to be frightened. that is just silly.

[red states rule]

i sent you a pm, as a man, one mono to enother, and im getting tired of you ignoring me.

Either youre gonna be a man and talk to me about this, or i will stop considering you a friend.

And dont give me any crap about blindly supporting rsr, ask him yourself he is not above criticism and neither are you

Have a headache yet?

[actsnoblemartin]

I need sleep lol

[red states rule]

I need sleep lol

Reading MM's posts will induce sleep - after the usual outburst of laughter

[red states rule]

Perhaps Dems ahve surrendered ot Pres Bush on their desire to surrender in Iraq



Congressional Democrats have finally tired of fighting for surrender and will pressure Nancy Pelosi to end the battles over Iraq war funding. The Politico reports that Pelosi and Harry Reid haven't gotten the message yet, even with the fatigue clearly showing in their latest efforts to block war funding without strings attached:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, despite their pledges to continue pushing to end the war in Iraq, face growing pressure from their rank-and-file Democrats to focus more attention on domestic, “pocketbook” issues in the upcoming election year.
Junior Democrats describe an “Iraq fatigue” setting in among some members after dozens of successful withdrawal votes failed to drive a wedge between Republicans and President Bush on the war strategy.

The restless Democrats acknowledge the war issue remains critically important for the country, but they would like to see their leaders tone down the rhetoric and avoid showdowns with Bush over the war, wherever possible. ...

"My hope would be we start looking at real solutions instead of the dichotomy of cut funding versus stay forever," said Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), who had a change of heart this fall after visiting Iraq and realizing the military surge was working.

"The entire policy has been dictated by the 'Out of Iraq Caucus' ... What are we going to do, have another 40 withdrawal votes?"


Harry Reid promised instead to have another string of continuous votes on the issue, promising to put the "pedal to the metal". He may want to check the gas tank first. The last Senate vote on this subject came this week, and only half of his caucus opposed the new Iraq war funding. In the House, 78 Democrats supported the funding measure.

Reid and Pelosi need the anti-war activists to stay engaged for the 2008 elections, but rank-and-file Democrats have tired of this strategy. Bush beat their leadership all year long, when they felt they had the winning hand. The White House outmaneuvered them in the spring when public support for an immediate withdrawal reached its zenith. Now that the President's new strategy has shown widely-recognized success, most of the Democrats understand that they lost -- and they want to move on to other issues.

Not even Pelosi's lieutenants followed her; Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel, and James Clyburn all voted in support of the funding. The two leaders are growing out of touch with their caucuses as they try to keep pandering to the activist base. If they turn 2008 into a rerun of 2007, the Democrats may look for a fresh strategy, and smarter leadership to run it. They cannot afford to have another year of looking like the gang who gets outsmarted by George W. Bush.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016392.php

[actsnoblemartin]

do i normally laugh at every insult you post towards mm, or do i mostly encourage you not to do it.

Im reallly annoyed that mm thinks, i just look for ways to personally insult him and agree with everything you say.

I personally considered supporting immediate withdrawal of our troops, but i just dont think its the right thing to do, however, if after say 5 years, they dont reconcile, spilit um into three, or just leave and say fuck um


Reading MM's posts will induce sleep - after the usual outburst of laughter

[red states rule]

do i normally laugh at every insult you post towards mm, or do i mostly encourage you not to do it.

Im reallly annoyed that mm thinks, i just look for ways to personally insult him and agree with everything you say.

I personally considered supporting immediate withdrawal of our troops, but i just dont think its the right thing to do, however, if after say 5 years, they dont reconcile, spilit um into three, or just leave and say fuck um

Progress is being made in Iraq - that is why libs are not talking about Iraq anymore

After all, the party of defeat and surrender has egg all over their faces right now

[actsnoblemartin]

that is a very excellent point

we saw what happened the last time we left a power vacuum in a majority muslim country.


Progress is being made in Iraq - that is why libs are not talking about Iraq anymore

After all, the party of defeat and surrender has egg all over their faces right now

[red states rule]

that is a very excellent point

we saw what happened the last time we left a power vacuum in a majority muslim country.

Excellent posts are usually based on facts Martin

just listen to how often libs are talking about how rotten things are in Iraq

[actsnoblemartin]

It was noble to over throw a man who raped, starved, and didnt give a dam about his people

Our effort is noble.


Excellent posts are usually based on facts Martin

just listen to how often libs are talking about how rotten things are in Iraq

[red states rule]

It was noble to over throw a man who raped, starved, and didnt give a dam about his people

Our effort is noble.

but libs like MM would rather have Saddam in power today

So a Dem President can take him out, and take the credit

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont believe dems would over throw him


but libs like MM would rather have Saddam in power today

So a Dem President can take him out, and take the credit

[red states rule]

I dont believe dems would over throw him

It it helped their poll numbers they would

Libs live and breath polls Martin

[retiredman]

It was noble to over throw a man who raped, starved, and didnt give a dam about his people

Our effort is noble.


do you think that the United States should do things that are noble, or, instead, should we do things that are in our enlightened self interest?

[actsnoblemartin]

I would love for the u.s. to be act to act noble all the time, but we live in a world, where i dont believe that is possible

If we dont survive, if we crumble as a country, will any of our nobility matter

a more important question, atleast in my mind is, can we balance the need for survival with the need to be a noble nation?

can they co exist?

and if so how


do you think that the United States should do things that are noble, or, instead, should we do things that are in our enlightened self interest?

[retiredman]

I would love for the u.s. to be act to act noble all the time, but we live in a world, where i dont believe that is possible

If we dont survive, if we crumble as a country, will any of our nobility matter

a more important question, atleast in my mind is, can we balance the need for survival with the need to be a noble nation?

can they co exist?

and if so how


getting rid of saddam was, no doubt, very noble. was it really in our enlightened self interest?

[actsnoblemartin]

It may have been part self interest and part noble.

He was starving many of his people and not providing them any medical care at all.

Did we look at the fact it has lots of oil sure.

Its really hard to say, its wrong to fight a war over resouces.

without em we die, although i wouldnt want to kill innocence just to get them




getting rid of saddam was, no doubt, very noble. was it really in our enlightened self interest?

[retiredman]

It may have been part self interest and part noble.

He was starving many of his people and not providing them any medical care at all.

Did we look at the fact it has lots of oil sure.

Its really hard to say, its wrong to fight a war over resouces.

without em we die, although i wouldnt want to kill innocence just to get them


so you are saying that the best way for us to stabilize our oil supply was to invade Iraq? and you are saying that that was the real reason why we invaded? so the noble part was just a secondary benefit?

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont know what george bush's motivations were for war, but it is very possible they didnt give a dam about the iraqis and just went in for oil.

Was it purely noble to go into iraq, lets not kid ourselves, but sometimes we can do the right thing for the wrong reason.

Oh and finally the best way we can stabilize our oil reserves is build more refineries to produce the oil, and do what a certain south american country did, become energy independant


so you are saying that the best way for us to stabilize our oil supply was to invade Iraq? and you are saying that that was the real reason why we invaded? so the noble part was just a secondary benefit?

[retiredman]

I dont know what george bush's motivations were for war, but it is very possible they didnt give a dam about the iraqis and just went in for oil.

Was it purely noble to go into iraq, lets not kid ourselves, but sometimes we can do the right thing for the wrong reason.

Oh and finally the best way we can stabilize our oil reserves is build more refineries to produce the oil, and do what a certain south american country did, become energy independant


so.... doing something that was NOT the best way to stabilize our oil reserves, doing something that has stirred up terrible sectarian violence that has killed thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, doing something that has increased Iran's power in the region, doing something that has NOT effectively pursued our real enemies, doing something that has cost us a trillion dollars.... you think doing that was a GOOD idea?

[Dilloduck]

so.... doing something that was NOT the best way to stabilize our oil reserves, doing something that has stirred up terrible sectarian violence that has killed thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, doing something that has increased Iran's power in the region, doing something that has NOT effectively pursued our real enemies, doing something that has cost us a trillion dollars.... you think doing that was a GOOD idea?

It's tough to tell since we don't know would would have happened had we NOT invaded. Please don't try to tell me that you KNOW what the present would be like had we done something different in the past.

[retiredman]

It's tough to tell since we don't know would would have happened had we NOT invaded. Please don't try to tell me that you KNOW what the present would be like had we done something different in the past.

Of course not. But I can surmise, and have an opinion and I can argue that opinion.

Similarly, it's tough to tell what would have happened had Lee Harvey Oswald NOT shot JFK, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to say that the event was terrible and we would most likely have been better off if he had not been assassinated, eh?

[Dilloduck]

Of course not. But I can surmise, and have an opinion and I can argue that opinion.

Similarly, it's tough to tell what would have happened had Lee Harvey Oswald NOT shot JFK, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to say that the event was terrible and we would most likely have been better off if he had not been assassinated, eh?

Guess away but it might be more interesting if you include all the possibilities. Not just the one that includes; Republicans ===BAD Democrats=====GOOD

[retiredman]

Guess away but it might be more interesting if you include all the possibilities. Not just the one that includes; Republicans ===BAD Democrats=====GOOD

I would be against the Iraq war if any democrat had started it. NOTHING about my opposition to the war in Iraq has diddly to do with my party.

[glockmail]

again....,relying on a second rate dictionary's partial list is pretty much waving the white flag. and your opinion about what is severe is just that....your opinion. Pardon me if I laugh at it.

loser.:lol:
Webster is a second rate dictionary? Wow you have stooped low.

Don't you realize that the Webster definition closely correlates that GC definition that you cited?

You are the one who is being laughed at.

[retiredman]

Don't you realize that the Webster definition closely correlates that GC definition that you cited?



I did not cite a Geneva Convention definition for torture.

the definition I DID cite, was from the United Nations CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
I guess you didn't know that the Geneva Conventions predate the United Nations. Not surprising.

That cite, again, said:

"For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity"


The Miriam Webster definition states:
"the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure"

you can call that a close correlation if you chose, but I do not share that opinion.

and again...it seems to me that your argument consists of saying that since waterboarding is neither burning nor crushing nor wounding, it is not, therefore torture... and that argument is just plain silly.

[glockmail]

I did not cite a Geneva Convention definition for torture.

the definition I DID cite, was from the United Nations CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
I guess you didn't know that the Geneva Conventions predate the United Nations. Not surprising.

That cite, again, said:

"For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity"


The Miriam Webster definition states:
"the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure"

you can call that a close correlation if you chose, but I do not share that opinion.

and again...it seems to me that your argument consists of saying that since waterboarding is neither burning nor crushing nor wounding, it is not, therefore torture... and that argument is just plain silly. Pretty much the same thing to most reasonable people.

[retiredman]

Pretty much the same thing to most reasonable people.

yeah...."ANY ACT Physical OR mental" in pretty much the same as "burning crushing or wounding"... you got your ass handed to you here, pal.... you just don't have the grace to admit it.

Geneva Convention! HA!

Magna Cum Laude in Basic English Comp! HA!

you are nothing but a flatulent self aggrandizng drama queen.

loser.

[actsnoblemartin]

you are being fucking mean dude, whats your problem


yeah...."ANY ACT Physical OR mental" in pretty much the same as "burning crushing or wounding"... you got your ass handed to you here, pal.... you just don't have the grace to admit it.

Geneva Convention! HA!

Magna Cum Laude in Basic English Comp! HA!

you are nothing but a flatulent self aggrandizng drama queen.

loser.

[actsnoblemartin]

this board should be called the insult people message board


Webster is a second rate dictionary? Wow you have stooped low.

Don't you realize that the Webster definition closely correlates that GC definition that you cited?

You are the one who is being laughed at.

[red states rule]

yeah...."ANY ACT Physical OR mental" in pretty much the same as "burning crushing or wounding"... you got your ass handed to you here, pal.... you just don't have the grace to admit it.

Geneva Convention! HA!

Magna Cum Laude in Basic English Comp! HA!

you are nothing but a flatulent self aggrandizng drama queen.

loser.

Seems MM is getting his head handed to him again - situation normal

[glockmail]

yeah...."ANY ACT Physical OR mental" in pretty much the same as "burning crushing or wounding"... you got your ass handed to you here, pal.... you just don't have the grace to admit it.

Geneva Convention! HA!

Magna Cum Laude in Basic English Comp! HA!

you are nothing but a flatulent self aggrandizing [sic] drama queen.

loser [sic].


From your link: "torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him ... information or a confession, punishing him..., or intimidating or coercing him..."

From M-W: "anguish of body or mind ...the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce..."

Reads similar to this reasonable person (who never claimed a MCL, nor any degree, in English).

Doesn't look like waterboarding meets that definition, either.

[red states rule]

Bottom line is waterboarding is not torture. It is not used as a routine procedure on the terrorists, it was used years ago to stop terrorist attacks

Again, the US is winning this war yet Dems look for things to whine about instead of admitting they were wrong when they said the US was losing

[retiredman]

Bottom line is waterboarding is not torture. It is not used as a routine procedure on the terrorists, it was used years ago to stop terrorist attacks

Again, the US is winning this war yet Dems look for things to whine about instead of admitting they were wrong when they said the US was losing

that is your opinion and I am sure that Rush has told you that you are entitled to keep trumpeting it, but that does not make your opinion fact. Many people would consider the waterboarding technique one that delivers severe pain, mentally, if not physically.

And, once again for the broken record who seems to only be able to transmit and not receive: I have NEVER suggested that America could not militarily prevail in Iraq. The sad thing is that our military victories in Iraq are not being matched by political victories on the part of the Iraqi government.

And your ill-conceived idiotic notion that our departure will mean that Al Qaeda will suddenly prevail in Iraq and join hands with Iran to rule Iraqis against their will, use Iraq as a giant AQ training base, and pay for it all from the oil revenues that they will control is STUPID! But, you continue to stand by it!

[red states rule]

that is your opinion and I am sure that Rush has told you that you are entitled to keep trumpeting it, but that does not make your opinion fact. Many people would consider the waterboarding technique one that delivers severe pain, mentally, if not physically.

And, once again for the broken record who seems to only be able to transmit and not receive: I have NEVER suggested that America could not militarily prevail in Iraq. The sad thing is that our military victories in Iraq are not being matched by political victories on the part of the Iraqi government.

And your ill-conceived idiotic notion that our departure will mean that Al Qaeda will suddenly prevail in Iraq and join hands with Iran to rule Iraqis against their will, use Iraq as a giant AQ training base, and pay for it all from the oil revenues that they will control is STUPID! But, you continue to stand by it!

Only people who want to coddle terrorists would consider waterboarding torture. Again, why are libs still whining about this? It has not been used in years, and used only 3 times

It gets back to what the real reason is - libs can't admit we are winning in Iraq and have to try and change the subject

[glockmail]

....Many people would consider the waterboarding technique one that delivers severe pain, mentally, if not physically.... "Many people would consider" having to listen to Hillary speak as severe mental pain. That doesn't make it torture.

[red states rule]

"Many people would consider" having to listen to Hillary speak as severe mental pain. That doesn't make it torture.

I knw it hurts like hell listening to her - as well as reading MM's posts

But that is not torture either

[retiredman]

Only people who want to coddle terrorists would consider waterboarding torture. Again, why are libs still whining about this? It has not been used in years, and used only 3 times

It gets back to what the real reason is - libs can't admit we are winning in Iraq and have to try and change the subject

are you suggesting that breaking the law only a few times and not in years makes someone innocent of breaking the law? Is there a statute of limitations on torture?

[red states rule]

are you suggesting that breaking the law only a few times and not in years makes someone innocent of breaking the law? Is there a statute of limitations on torture?

Point one, it is not torture

Point 2 - keep defending the terrorists and their "rights" MM. it si all you have left when it comes to iraq

You can't talk about the progress being made - after 4 years of your party telling us we are losing