OK, so he pays lip service to the notion that torture is bad.
Next question? Did he vote for GWB? Because a vote foor GWB, after everything we knew at the time of the election, is a vote that says "I am quite OK with the notion that the US is a country that has torture as official policy, just like I am quite OK with the notion that the US is a country that, as official policy, detains people as long as it likes without justification or appeal, is a country that hides prisoners from outside observers like the Red Cross, is a country that runs secret detention camps where god only knows what happens."
It's the answer to this second question that determines whether he's a decent human being or not. What would you think of someone who said "Well yes I admit I supported Hitler and the idea of the Final Solution but I personally never actually worked at a concentration camp and I despised those who did"?
While I'm leary of Hitler references, I'm roughly with Handley. If you voted for Bush, you and I either (a) have vastly different ideas about what is most important about the U.S., or (b) have vastly different methods of connecting cause and effect. If it's (a), there's little point in talking, because we want two very different countries. If it's (b), there's little point in talking, because we live in two very different universes. (Dystopian prediction: '04 will be recognized as the year that the War of Northern Aggression became the War of Southern Aggression).
So it's nice that a Bushbacker is against torture, but...who cares? They still chose to reward rather than punish Abu Ghraib, the Padilla assertion, the outsourcing of torture, etc.
There is some wiggle room. While we can assume that everyone in Germany knew what the Final Solution involved, Bush denies he condones torture. Bush voters may trust that Bush is against torture and will see that it is stopped.
I think that belief is stupid, but it does get Bush voters off the hook.
I love it how people go on the offensive and try to insult to get a reply. Grammar?, Spelling? Political affiliation? Give me a break. I am a soldier in the U.S. Armed Forces and I do not get paid to make political desicions. My political perspective has nothing to do with being a moral and/or ethical person. What type of insult do you have for a libertarian? Or... even worse, and anarchist? I've held to those beliefs in the past. Does that make me a "meanie". Shoot, I thought it was all about who you are, what you think, and how you conduct yourself.
Will insults detract us from the fact that my friends are being falsely accused by a derranged person? Will your offensive behaviour make this administration do what's right? Change comes from within the system, and honestly, it did for me.
While doing my job, I guess I was subversive. I mean, you people think that all U.S. Intelligence Personnel are a bunch of torturers, who support the CinC blindly. By doing the job right, I saved lives (on our side and theirs), I improved the standard of living and public relations in my area of operations, and I can go to sleep soundly every night, knowing that Iraqi children will grow up knowing that not all Americans are ignorant, loudmouths who destroy everything in their path.
Anyway, thanks OGGED for the chance to voice my opinion.
I think you may have misunderstood my response (because I didn't write it well). I wasn't really responding to you as regards your personal decency. I assume that most people in the military are probably pretty decent.
I was really responding to an implication I read into Ogged's post - that there are decent, thoughtful people on the other side. (And I made the assumption that you were a Bush supporter with no evidence either way), and therefore maybe we should worry less about the Bush victory. And I meant to say, "So what? I assume there are mostly decent people on the other side. It doesn't make their ordering of preferred outcomes (Bush victory and the ensuing pluses over what people reasonably assume are likely bad results of a Bush victory) right, or their ability to connect cause and effect (invade Iraq = less terrorism) right."
All of which is to say that I don't have a problem with the military; I have a problem with Bush supporters, and the fact that they want to do what is right, but blew the gimmee that was this election, comforts me not at all.
I remember election night. I shut down the TV, did not listen to the radio and did not log on my PC. I was terrified. Well, terrified is probably a strong word, but I was depressed. Totally depressed that our country has gone the way it is right now. I have gone to several anti-war, anti-bush demonstration (as an observer, supporting neither side) and it saddens me to see all the wrongly channeled anger and energy.
What this country needs is more grassroots involvement. Waving a Che Guevarra Flag does not make people politically informed. No blood for oil posters are fine and all, but the sad truth is that the US is a crack addict. Actually, a crack addict teenage bully, who goes around the playground, pushing their beliefs and policies down the throat of the rest of the world community.
But this is nothing new. In order to be rich people, there has to be a lot (and I mean a lot) of poor people. In order to be powerful, there has to be a lot of subjugated people. Chile, Guatemala, Afghanistan, Iran, and all the other places where we stuck our noses (to protect our strategic interests), well... I guess you see where I am going with this.
Oil is a strategic interest. And when you add the fact that a lot of Old-American-Money-Oil Producers benefit from our addiction to this power source, it does not take long to put middle class, less-educated boys and girls in non-armored vehicles.
"Honorableness?"
Surely you mean "honor."
:-)
Posted by Frank | Link to this comment | 12-18-04 2:58 PM
I'm pretty sure "honorableness" is different, and correct.
Honor. Honorableness.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-18-04 3:02 PM
OK, so he pays lip service to the notion that torture is bad.
Next question? Did he vote for GWB? Because a vote foor GWB, after everything we knew at the time of the election, is a vote that says "I am quite OK with the notion that the US is a country that has torture as official policy, just like I am quite OK with the notion that the US is a country that, as official policy, detains people as long as it likes without justification or appeal, is a country that hides prisoners from outside observers like the Red Cross, is a country that runs secret detention camps where god only knows what happens."
It's the answer to this second question that determines whether he's a decent human being or not. What would you think of someone who said "Well yes I admit I supported Hitler and the idea of the Final Solution but I personally never actually worked at a concentration camp and I despised those who did"?
Posted by Maynard Handley | Link to this comment | 12-18-04 4:27 PM
While I'm leary of Hitler references, I'm roughly with Handley. If you voted for Bush, you and I either (a) have vastly different ideas about what is most important about the U.S., or (b) have vastly different methods of connecting cause and effect. If it's (a), there's little point in talking, because we want two very different countries. If it's (b), there's little point in talking, because we live in two very different universes. (Dystopian prediction: '04 will be recognized as the year that the War of Northern Aggression became the War of Southern Aggression).
So it's nice that a Bushbacker is against torture, but...who cares? They still chose to reward rather than punish Abu Ghraib, the Padilla assertion, the outsourcing of torture, etc.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12-18-04 11:33 PM
Handley and Tim,
There is some wiggle room. While we can assume that everyone in Germany knew what the Final Solution involved, Bush denies he condones torture. Bush voters may trust that Bush is against torture and will see that it is stopped.
I think that belief is stupid, but it does get Bush voters off the hook.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 12-20-04 10:04 AM
I love it how people go on the offensive and try to insult to get a reply. Grammar?, Spelling? Political affiliation? Give me a break. I am a soldier in the U.S. Armed Forces and I do not get paid to make political desicions. My political perspective has nothing to do with being a moral and/or ethical person. What type of insult do you have for a libertarian? Or... even worse, and anarchist? I've held to those beliefs in the past. Does that make me a "meanie". Shoot, I thought it was all about who you are, what you think, and how you conduct yourself.
Will insults detract us from the fact that my friends are being falsely accused by a derranged person? Will your offensive behaviour make this administration do what's right? Change comes from within the system, and honestly, it did for me.
While doing my job, I guess I was subversive. I mean, you people think that all U.S. Intelligence Personnel are a bunch of torturers, who support the CinC blindly. By doing the job right, I saved lives (on our side and theirs), I improved the standard of living and public relations in my area of operations, and I can go to sleep soundly every night, knowing that Iraqi children will grow up knowing that not all Americans are ignorant, loudmouths who destroy everything in their path.
Anyway, thanks OGGED for the chance to voice my opinion.
Take care,
John
Posted by John | Link to this comment | 12-20-04 11:12 AM
Hey OGGED, here is a link to an LA Times article.
it was written on 5 Jun 2004. I think that the LA Times is a more reputable activity than myself. The article actually quotes CPT Artiga and LTC Ryan.
Thanks,
John
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-me-tempest5jun05,1,1094982.story
Posted by John | Link to this comment | 12-21-04 9:49 AM
Ha! Thanks, John. The guy does sound like a nut:
at various times had introduced himself as a medical doctor, a former Navy SEAL and a nobleman with a family castle in Europe.
Have you heard anything about the Executive Order on interrogation methods?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-21-04 9:54 AM
a nobleman with a family castle in Europe.
"Ford also produced a paper declaring him to be an honorary member of the MacRae Clan. 'They have a castle in Scotland,' he said."
Heh heh.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-21-04 10:06 AM
John:
I think you may have misunderstood my response (because I didn't write it well). I wasn't really responding to you as regards your personal decency. I assume that most people in the military are probably pretty decent.
I was really responding to an implication I read into Ogged's post - that there are decent, thoughtful people on the other side. (And I made the assumption that you were a Bush supporter with no evidence either way), and therefore maybe we should worry less about the Bush victory. And I meant to say, "So what? I assume there are mostly decent people on the other side. It doesn't make their ordering of preferred outcomes (Bush victory and the ensuing pluses over what people reasonably assume are likely bad results of a Bush victory) right, or their ability to connect cause and effect (invade Iraq = less terrorism) right."
All of which is to say that I don't have a problem with the military; I have a problem with Bush supporters, and the fact that they want to do what is right, but blew the gimmee that was this election, comforts me not at all.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12-21-04 10:36 AM
Thanks Tim,
I remember election night. I shut down the TV, did not listen to the radio and did not log on my PC. I was terrified. Well, terrified is probably a strong word, but I was depressed. Totally depressed that our country has gone the way it is right now. I have gone to several anti-war, anti-bush demonstration (as an observer, supporting neither side) and it saddens me to see all the wrongly channeled anger and energy.
What this country needs is more grassroots involvement. Waving a Che Guevarra Flag does not make people politically informed. No blood for oil posters are fine and all, but the sad truth is that the US is a crack addict. Actually, a crack addict teenage bully, who goes around the playground, pushing their beliefs and policies down the throat of the rest of the world community.
But this is nothing new. In order to be rich people, there has to be a lot (and I mean a lot) of poor people. In order to be powerful, there has to be a lot of subjugated people. Chile, Guatemala, Afghanistan, Iran, and all the other places where we stuck our noses (to protect our strategic interests), well... I guess you see where I am going with this.
Oil is a strategic interest. And when you add the fact that a lot of Old-American-Money-Oil Producers benefit from our addiction to this power source, it does not take long to put middle class, less-educated boys and girls in non-armored vehicles.
Phew. I am going on a tangent.
Thanks for listening,
John
Posted by John | Link to this comment | 12-21-04 11:36 AM