The Republican Thread

[lostfan]

Meh. I really hate how the public reacts to intelligence issues. Things like this are in the same category of all that indignation against Missouri over the Ron Paul stickers (the fake paranoia was not EVEN what Missouri was trying to do) or the make-believe furor over the "dissing" of vets in that DHS report.

[Balta1701]

Meh. I really hate how the public reacts to intelligence issues. Things like this are in the same category of all that indignation against Missouri over the Ron Paul stickers (the fake paranoia was not EVEN what Missouri was trying to do) or the make-believe furor over the "dissing" of vets in that DHS report.

Waterboarding a man 183 times in a month is not an intelligence issue. Except maybe an issue of the intelligence of the people ordering it.

[lostfan]

Waterboarding a man 183 times in a month is not an intelligence issue. Except maybe an issue of the intelligence of the people ordering it.

That isn't so much what I'm talking about, either. That many times isn't done out of necessity, at that point you're just getting off on it. Not that I particularly give a s*** about KSM (if I ever saw him I'd probably slit his throat) but you just have to use common sense... who the hell thought that was a good idea?

[BigSqwert]

Finally a conservative with common sense.

 

Some excerpts:

 

"Simply embracing technology isn't going to fix our problem," she said. "Republicans using Twitter and Facebook isn't going to miraculously make people think we're cool again. Breaking free from obsolete positions and providing real solutions that don't divide our nation further will. That's why some in our party are scared. They sense the world around them is changing and they are unable to take the risk to jump free of what's keeping our party down."

 

"Let me blunt, you can't assume you're electing the right leaders to handle all the problems facing our nation when you make your choice based on one issue. More and more people are finally getting that."

Edited April 20, 2009 by BigSqwert

[lostfan]

I'd say she is right, but there is a difference between what she perceives as "old school" conservatism and actual "old-school" conservatism, like the kind that SS2K5 etc. preach. As far as what she's talking about, she's absolutely right. But conservatism itself hasn't fundamentally changed, just some of the people who call themselves conservatives.

[Rex Kickass]

Excellent use of campaign funds.

 

I used to do stuff like that a lot when I worked on campaigns.

 

Lawn signs were always the worst.

[Balta1701]

That isn't so much what I'm talking about, either. That many times isn't done out of necessity, at that point you're just getting off on it. Not that I particularly give a s*** about KSM (if I ever saw him I'd probably slit his throat) but you just have to use common sense... who the hell thought that was a good idea?

There's a key point you're missing here. It's well illustrated by this specific case. There is simply no difference at all between the first time you waterboard someone (or give them the "wall treatment, or stick them in a box with whatever their greatest fear is) and the 183rd time. Neither one of them is done out of necessity. In either case, the motivation is exactly the same as it has been throughout time whenever torture has been used. It does 1 of 2 things...either it is going to "extract" a "confession" to something you know with 100% certainty that a person did (in other words, they're going to confess to whatever the hell you want them to confess to), of its going to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a bigger man than the person you're torturing.

 

Even in the classic "Ticking time bomb" scenario that pro-torture people love to cite, repeated testimony by the people who do interrogations for a living says that torture isn't helpful. It extracts whatever confession you expect to extract. These cases in the GWOT are great proof of it. When we wanted information from Saddam, we didn't beat him, we talked to him and he told us virtually everything. When we wanted information from Zubaydah, and KSM, we talked to them. When we wanted to prove we were big men, or when we wanted to "extract" more "Information" out of them, we slammed their heads against walls and tried to drown them 183 times in a month. When we wanted to invade Iraq, we made sure the Egyptians got the answers from the guy they captured that we wanted to hear. When police in Illinois wanted to make sure a criminal wound up on death row, they shut the cameras off, and that happened often enough that even George Ryan didn't have the stomach to allow that state to keep its death penalty going.

 

I really don't care if those guys are put to death any more than you do. But I do care about the system. I can ask the same question you ask about the 183rd time about the first time, and I am equally correct in asking it.

[BigSqwert]

I used to do stuff like that a lot when I worked on campaigns.

 

Lawn signs were always the worst.

Tens of thousands of signs posted for a span of several miles? Did you check out the video?

[Balta1701]

Tens of thousands of signs posted for a span of several miles? Did you check out the video?

If it's on a well enough traveled street in a particularly key area, overwhelming numbers like that could actually be quite a bit more effective than spending the money on a couple of TV ads. I'm not sure the road in question seems to meet those standards though.

 

Probably paid some guys to put up x number of signs.

[BigSqwert]

Did he really think that somebody was going to think, "Say, I wasn't so sure if I should vote for Terry McAuliffe, but after 20 miles of continuous signage, I'm convinced!"

[Balta1701]

Did he really think that somebody was going to think, "Say, I wasn't so sure if I should vote for Terry McAuliffe, but after 20 miles of continuous signage, I'm convinced!"

I'm sure that they didn't specify the rules for where the signs were going to be put very well, for why that ended up happening. But frankly, in a race that is 3 ways, 20-15-15-50 with the 50% being undecided, pounding your name in to a voter's head like that is a totally valid technique. All it needs to do is make it so that a portion of that 50% undecided who doesn't even know there's a primary election happening suddenly knows the name of one of the candidates.

[BigSqwert]

I'm sure that they didn't specify the rules for where the signs were going to be put very well, for why that ended up happening. But frankly, in a race that is 3 ways, 20-15-15-50 with the 50% being undecided, pounding your name in to a voter's head like that is a totally valid technique. All it needs to do is make it so that a portion of that 50% undecided who doesn't even know there's a primary election happening suddenly knows the name of one of the candidates.

With his master mind in campaigning no wonder he helped sink the Hillary ship.

[lostfan]

There's a key point you're missing here. It's well illustrated by this specific case. There is simply no difference at all between the first time you waterboard someone (or give them the "wall treatment, or stick them in a box with whatever their greatest fear is) and the 183rd time. Neither one of them is done out of necessity. In either case, the motivation is exactly the same as it has been throughout time whenever torture has been used. It does 1 of 2 things...either it is going to "extract" a "confession" to something you know with 100% certainty that a person did (in other words, they're going to confess to whatever the hell you want them to confess to), of its going to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a bigger man than the person you're torturing.

 

Even in the classic "Ticking time bomb" scenario that pro-torture people love to cite, repeated testimony by the people who do interrogations for a living says that torture isn't helpful. It extracts whatever confession you expect to extract. These cases in the GWOT are great proof of it. When we wanted information from Saddam, we didn't beat him, we talked to him and he told us virtually everything. When we wanted information from Zubaydah, and KSM, we talked to them. When we wanted to prove we were big men, or when we wanted to "extract" more "Information" out of them, we slammed their heads against walls and tried to drown them 183 times in a month. When we wanted to invade Iraq, we made sure the Egyptians got the answers from the guy they captured that we wanted to hear. When police in Illinois wanted to make sure a criminal wound up on death row, they shut the cameras off, and that happened often enough that even George Ryan didn't have the stomach to allow that state to keep its death penalty going.

 

I really don't care if those guys are put to death any more than you do. But I do care about the system. I can ask the same question you ask about the 183rd time about the first time, and I am equally correct in asking it.

I'm not missing any point because I'm not advocating torture, even waterboarding. I'm expressing my disapproval of the administration seemingly politicizing things that aren't meant to be talked about in public (in this case that i bought up you mentioned they were sued to release it, but he's made it a pretty clear pattern).

 

You're talking to someone who has actually interrogated people btw.

[Balta1701]

I'm not missing any point because I'm not advocating torture, even waterboarding. I'm expressing my disapproval of the administration seemingly politicizing things that aren't meant to be talked about in public (in this case that i bought up you mentioned they were sued to release it, but he's made it a pretty clear pattern).

 

You're talking to someone who has actually interrogated people btw.

If you don't want this type of information receiving public focus, if you don't want it politicized, then there is a very simple solution; the CIA needs to follow the law. The Geneva conventions are the law in this country, and many others. They have existed in their current form for decades. If the CIA can not follow those laws, then either the prosecutions of the people who violate the law are going to be very large, political events, or the withdrawal of the United States from the Geneva Conventions is going to be a gigantic political event. And given that the Nuremberg defense didn't work at Nuremberg, even saying "I was ordered to do so by my superior" isn't good enough.

 

Make no mistake. This is a democracy. If branches of the Federal government are going around breaking the law, then regardless of their motivation, it is something the public needs to know about. And at least until the last door closes at the last newspaper in the world, we will find out about it.

[NorthSideSox72]

You're talking to someone who has actually interrogated people btw.

So have I, but waterboarding by police is generally frowned upon.

 

Obama's politicization is a direct follow-on to campaign talk of getting away from torture. I think there is a difficult line to draw though - as you say, the public really doesn't need to know specifics on a lot of intelligence gathering. But on the other hand, if we as a nation feel that torture is not acceptable, then maybe we need to establish what torture is.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Tens of thousands of signs posted for a span of several miles? Did you check out the video?

 

I did, we would regularly put up 250-500 signs in a single traffic circle. Every night - as stress relief. It wasn't that ridiculous, but it was a lawn sign every five to ten feet for about a quarter mile.

[BearSox]

Waterboarding a man 183 times in a month is not an intelligence issue. Except maybe an issue of the intelligence of the people ordering it.

I'm sure the guy being "tortured" at least got to keep his head.

[BearSox]

The name of the book Chavez gave to Obama?

 

"Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent," by Uruguayan journalist Eduardo Galeano, which blames foreign interests like the United States for exploiting Latin America for centuries.

I sincerely hope our president threw that book out the window. If not, I'm even more worried than before. And in fact, that book is probably right up Obama's alley. Obama has said many times it is America's fault for everything! He even said we should respect Chavez! LOL, respect a dictator??? I'm having a hard time respecting the president of the country I love right now.

 

Well, he won't lie to us. He says 90% of guns in mexico come from the USA. That must be right... Oops, I think his numbers are off by a few percentages. oooh, it's actually 15% percent of the guns come from the USA. You must have had a bad source there Mr. President!

 

Oh well, at least the banks are starting to pay back to loan money to the government... uh oh, hold up a second! The gov won't except the money!?!?! What's up with that??? In fact, Obama is trying to give the banks more money? Hmmm... sounds like Mr. President is trying to nationalize the banks to me.

 

But what do I know? I'm just some far right nutjob who should be put on several watch lists.

[lostfan]

Check out the history of South America and I'd say the only place that's been f***ed harder by sloppy colonialism is Africa.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Check out the history of South America and I'd say the only place that's been f***ed harder by sloppy colonialism is Africa.

 

Here's the problem with that road. What place hasnt been? The United States and Canada were once colonies. Southeast Asian countries were once colonies. India was, Australia was, many countries in Europe once belonged to other countries. It's always kind of been the world works (or at least used to). The problem with South America is that once they drove out the Spanish, they were faced with economic problems, no central government and lack of strong leaders. Leaders such as Bolivar emerged but after they were gone the governments just didnt seem to prosper. They have plenty of resources down there, but they just havent been able to stabilize the regions. I think part of it has to do with the fact that the countries were created somewhat arbitrarily and the region's terrain makes it difficult to have a sound infrastructure.

[lostfan]

Here's the problem with that road. What place hasnt been? The United States and Canada were once colonies. Southeast Asian countries were once colonies. India was, Australia was, many countries in Europe once belonged to other countries. It's always kind of been the world works (or at least used to). The problem with South America is that once they drove out the Spanish, they were faced with economic problems, no central government and lack of strong leaders. Leaders such as Bolivar emerged but after they were gone the governments just didnt seem to prosper. They have plenty of resources down there, but they just havent been able to stabilize the regions. I think part of it has to do with the fact that the countries were created somewhat arbitrarily and the region's terrain makes it difficult to have a sound infrastructure.

You're right, but the US, Canada, SE Asia, hell even India were not administered anywhere near as half-assed as South America was... and Africa, well that's another story entirely, Europeans basically irreversibly shafted that continent to hell. IMO the British were much better at colonialism because they tended to focus on building up the local economy and showing them to govern rather than just raw exploitation (with the exception of the Middle East, the British f***ed that one up). So when they ended British rule, they at least had a clue about government and how to function. Not so much the case with South America, as you've said.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

You're right, but the US, Canada, SE Asia, hell even India were not administered anywhere near as half-assed as South America was... and Africa, well that's another story entirely, Europeans basically irreversibly shafted that continent to hell. IMO the British were much better at colonialism because they tended to focus on building up the local economy and showing them to govern rather than just raw exploitation (with the exception of the Middle East, the British f***ed that one up). So when they ended British rule, they at least had a clue about government and how to function. Not so much the case with South America, as you've said.

 

You're right, but it's not even the Europeans here. It was pretty much just Spain and Portugal.

[lostfan]

You're right, but it's not even the Europeans here. It was pretty much just Spain and Portugal.

Yeah I was just kind of referring to "European colonists" generically.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yeah I was just kind of referring to "European colonists" generically.

All the European colonizing nations did some bad stuff during those periods. Some regions got it worse than others, and some nations were worse than others. In terms of the Americas, I think Spain takes the cake for the worst of it. Their treatment of the natives in the western hemisphere was particularly bad.

 

[Balta1701]

I got a kick out of this.