"Two Republican no votes — and opposition from Senator John McCain of Arizona, the victim of torture in Vietnam who was not present for the vote — were more than offset by Democrats, most of whom represent states that Mr. Trump won in 2016," the NYT reports.
One of the most impressive female firsts in American history.
May 17, 2018
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
255 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 255 of 255Also, all of atrocities you have mentioned were occurring when there were nearly 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. Should Trump massively escalate the war there in order for US soldiers to provide security for women? If not, should we assume your "values actually have a very low price tag?"
Excuse me. I was already on board what we were doing there. See, I believe in the Rule of Law, Equal Rights for men and women, the State as Separate from Religion, that oppression is wrong. That rape rooms are wrong. And since we had a political need to be there anyway, that we should make a political space for these values. (You can't do good everywhere, but where you can, do good)
Who should have been on my side?
People for human rights.
People who value historical treasures no matter their culture.
People who are Feminists.
People who don't hate little girls.
People who are anti rape.
People who were anti dictators.
People who were pro democracy ('SHE WON THE POPULAR VOTE!' they whine)
So...how many of those values are you in support of? Or do you believe that since we are already there, those little Afghan girls can go hang? Are your values only for little American girls?
And your snotty comment avoids a truth: where Americans could reach, the Taliban could NOT impose their values. Certainly not as much if at all.
But people like you gave the Taliban hope. "Oh...the infidel has quitters on their side. Send them photos so they leave us alone so we can rape and acid burn these little girls some more."
And your side did. Yay you.
@FIDO:
Are your values only for little American girls?
To quote John Quincy Adams:"She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
@FIDO:
3,000,000 children under 5 starve to death every year. Millions of people live in human slavery. Millions of wives are the personal property and sexual slaves of their husbands. Never mind the 400,000 to 500,000 people who are victims of routine homicide each year.
In other words, there's a lot of awful shit in the world, and there are limits to American power.
Certainly even a country the size and population of North Korea could be an existential threat to not only South Korea, but also the United States.
How? Easy. Without ever being aggressive enough to prompt an overwhelming militarily-decisive response — simply build up year after year, more and more nuclear weapons together with their intercontinental delivery systems — until eventually, after a decade or two, the point is reached (as was achieved vis-à-vis the old Soviet Union) where tens of thousands of nuclear weapons are pointed at each other.
Then simply push the button. Voila! Existence of the United States of America erased from the planet.
@Michael McNeil:
Then simply push the button. Voila! Existence of the United States of America erased from the planet.
This is a rehash of the North-Korea-can't-be-deterred argument. I've yet to see any evidence for it. The primary reason the North Koreans want nuclear weapons is as insurance against invasion. It would make absolutely no sense for the North to launch weapons against the US when it would be completely destroyed in the counter attack. That's pretty much the opposite of what North Korea wants.
And if you are going to take the argument that North Korea would unilaterally launch an attack against the United States, then you have to ask why would the North not simply launch a conventional military assault. The most obvious explanation is that they are deterred from doing so because they would be destroyed.
So you basically have to argue that conventional military deterrence works but nuclear deterrence won't. I think that's a tough case to make.
In other words, there's a lot of awful shit in the world, and there are limits to American power.
Which is why I do not argue to reform China, nor go to Deepest Darkest Africa. I do not advocate 'fixing' Russia, nor messing with Yemen.
But occasionally circumstances dictate we go to a place and do something. And when we are there, I say we listen to Napier:
“Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."
But you leave your values here when you leave your nation. Nor do you seem to have any confidence in them that they might be attractive to anyone else.
No, you and Adams would seek to horde them like a miser.
And America then is a far different place than America now, but you find it convenient to pretend otherwise.
So you can assert these values, but be honest about them. "I find it politically advantageous to quote Adams about restraint in foreign policy, but don't want to hear a thing about white man's burden, patriarchy, our special exceptionalism, or limited government".
Essentially you treat the quotes like a buffet table and sad to say, but my plate is a lot more full of that 'wisdom' than yours is.
But, I gotta tell ya, for the life of me I can't see how it's morally tenable to think that you can put a bullet through an unarmed, captive, man's head, but that you can't "torture, enhancedly interrogate" him, whatever. You water board a guy & he comes out on the other side drenched & terrified. You execute him, & it doesn't get any more final.
You can put a bullet through an unarmed man's head because he violated the laws of war. If the Geneva Conventions are to mean anything, their breach should be punished severely. That means execution of people who conduct military operations and then try to blend in with the civilian population. It also means attacks on governments who use chemical weapons even if it's not necessarily in our interests to do so.
Torture is forbidden in all cases by treaties to which the US is a signatory. I understand there's a "ticking time bomb" problem with a flat prohibition, but I'm not comfortable giving mid-level bureaucrats the wiggle room they need to apply it in other cases.
As to what exactly constitutes torture... if you're doing something to someone that has a chance of loosening him up enough to betray a heartfelt cause in an effort to get you to stop... that's probably torture. Certainly the line's a bit fuzzy in some cases, but waterboarding isn't in the fuzzy area, IMO.
If there were no US soldiers on the peninsula, North Korea would launch a military assault against the South? Why? South Korea has an expensive, technologically advanced military.
This is true. The South spends twenty times what the North spends on its military. The whole reason the Norks were willing to risk attack while they developed nuclear weapons is the realization they have no hope of prevailing in a conventional conflict.
With Seoul right over the border the loss of life in the South would be horrendous, but there's no way they lose the war.
Its the dame reason Pakistan developed their nuclear program
This is a rehash of the North-Korea-can't-be-deterred argument
No it isn't. Perhaps North Korea — perhaps Iran — perhaps Russia (etc., et al.) — can indeed be deterred: everywhere, everywhen. We have one example from history to guide us in this regard: Cold War I, where deterrence apparently did work in forestalling nuclear annihilation of major parts of the world.
Will such a balance of terror always work? Who knows — but the inherent perversity and chaos that one sees in the course of world history inspires doubt, in me anyhow.
In particular, the reigning ideologies operative in the nations poised on the brink of nuclear holocaust versus each other would appear to be highly relevant in the equation of what will actually happen in such a case of nuclear brinksmanship taken to the nth degree once again.
Iran, for instance, arguably is ruled by religious fanatics devoted to the idea of triggering the (Shia Islamic) eschatological “last days.” Regardless of whether that is true or not, if it were true, how and why could “deterrence” be expected to work in such an ideologically charged context of surpassing religious fervor?
Many atheists in America argue that American religious fundamentalists are similarly devoted to causing their sect's prophesied “end times.” Once again, whether that's true or not, if it were true, quite clearly “deterrence” would fail.
Thus, deterrence cannot absolutely be relied on.
Beyond that, whether or not deterrence can or will work in a given geopolitical/cultural context (which can never be absolutely relied on), the fundamental existential threat is there. North Korea (etc., et al.) could thus (given a many-years lasting nuclear buildup) be an existential threat to the U.S. — whether deterrence works or not. Just as Russia even now, right now, is an existential threat to America.
”You people and your fucking bullshit preening are ridiculous. You can do it because we bashed skulls. You can do it because we burned people alive. You do it because we shot people until they died.”
Which war (or wars) was that? When was all the mayhem performed that has ensured our freedom and safety?
”The common theme of US military activity since 1945 (arguably since 1941) was to preserve the world order, in the broadest sense, from the rise of an overwhelming enemy power, or simply to preserve the general peace. The last loser in any case of a neglect of this work would be the US. It was a very long-term, very broad view of national interests.
“Its a fascinating subject really, the Grand Strategy of the United States.”
All a lie to justify our long-range project to control the world and all its resources.
Let us give a cheer for Feminism: they have forever shattered the myth of females being incredibly moral and good people. Enlightened beings. Moral superiors.
No, Feminism has revealed how awful, petty, destructive, back biting, and socially and culturally awful women are. Otherwise why so many Feminists? So with that new fact in mind, why NOT put a woman in charge of the CIA?
Heck, it seems Feminism and male torture go together like thumbs and thumbscrews. Might give them something to do besides indoctrinate our little girls to be perennially as depressed as Feminists
And of course, two men choosing to settle their differences through the sweet science is not the same thing as government agents kidnapping people around the world they think may have done something and torturing them for information.
So in other words, THIS is moral because *I* want it.
Do you realize what a silly bugger you are? Where do I begin? Put it this way, if personal differences justify physical coercion, then it would be OK to give Mariane Pearl the implements to use on KSM? The elimination of personal vengeance is nine points of the law.
The only argument against torture is that it dehumanizes the people who perform it. I wouldn't care to do that to our men on a regular basis.
"In other words, there's a lot of awful shit in the world, and there are limits to American power."
Not just to our power, but to our jurisdiction...which stops at our borders.
"The only argument against torture is that it dehumanizes the people who perform it. I wouldn't care to do that to our men on a regular basis."
That's an argument against, but not the only one.
Actually, any soldier ordered to perform torture is required to refuse it, as it would be an illegal order. Moreover, any decent human being would refuse to do it simply because it is repugnant. I question the humanity of any soldier willing to do it even a few times, or once.
Torture is forbidden in all cases by treaties to which the US is a signatory.
So you say. This sounds like a Lefty talking point, most of which are bullshit. Which treaties? And who are the co-signers? Citations, please.
Iran is a country that has no practical ability to project military force outside of its borders.
Tell that to Israel.
Imagine that the US withdrew its troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria tomorrow. Is it your contention that the fighters left behind in those countries would then try to find some way to travel to America and commit terrorist atrocities against us?
So people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria don't know how to buy airline tickets?
"'Iran is a country that has no practical ability to project military force outside of its borders.'
"Tell that to Israel."
Israel is far more militarily powerful than Iran. For one thing, they've got nukes!
"So people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria don't know how to buy airline tickets?"
Not a substantive answer. In short, you've got nothing.
@FIDO:
But you leave your values here when you leave your nation. Nor do you seem to have any confidence in them that they might be attractive to anyone else.
Yes, I do not have a great deal of confidence that western-style values will suddenly pop up in places where no such values have existed previously. And I am even less confident that those values can be transported to Afghanistan (a country of 35 million people) by 10,000 US soldiers.
From Pew:
In our survey, only 30% of Afghan Muslims (including 40% of women) said women should decide if they wear a veil, among the lowest levels of support for this in the countries surveyed. A similar share (30%) said sons and daughters should have equal inheritance rights, and nearly all Afghan Muslims (94%) said they completely or mostly agreed that a wife must always obey her husband.
@Bad Lieutenant:
Do you realize what a silly bugger you are? Where do I begin? Put it this way, if personal differences justify physical coercion, then it would be OK to give Mariane Pearl the implements to use on KSM? The elimination of personal vengeance is nine points of the law.
I'm not a blogger. And if you can't recognize the difference between two men choosing to fight each other and government agents kidnapping people and torturing them, then you don't recognize differences. Similarly, you and I choosing to have a fistfight with one another is not the same thing as me kidnapping you, restraining you stress positions, and sleep depriving you for months.
@Gahrie:
Tell that to Israel.
From Iran’s foreign policy weaknesses, and opportunities to exploit them:
In addition to a weak economy, Iran’s military power is also limited. The expeditionary skill of the IRGC coupled with Iran’s use of proxies in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen often create a sense that Iran is militarily active throughout the Muslim world. This is true, but it also highlights one of Iran’s biggest weaknesses—its lack of conventional military strength. Tehran lacks the ability to project significant amounts of conventional power beyond its borders. Iran’s regular ground and air forces are in shambles.
It was all child's play! No big deal!
Smug,
bugger =/= blogger
If only that were the extent of your self-satisfied mistakes.
The expeditionary skill of the IRGC coupled with Iran’s use of proxies in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen often create a sense that Iran is militarily active throughout the Muslim world. This is true,...
LOL
Iran's use of military proxies in Iraq, Lebanaon, Syria and Yemen often create a sense that Iran is militarily active throughout the Muslim world.......
Comedy Gold
The prevalence of sunshine in deserts often create a sense that deserts are sunny and hot places....
The prevalence of violence amongst MS-13 members often gives a sense that members of MS-13 are violent....
@Birkel:
bugger =/= blogger
Haha. Yes, a good reminder I should wipe the sleep from my eyes before replying to comments.
@Drago:
Comedy Gold
Uhh...the very next sentence is, "This is true, however..." In other words, it's a qualified statements. Iran's reliance on proxies is not a sign of its conventional military strength but its weakness.
@Farmer, thank you for indirectly responding last night (comment #200 on this thread) to my question about how many Americans you are willing to sacrifice on the altar or your principles — a few mass killings of ordinary Americans are okay with you as long as we don’t torture anyone. A few dozen dead people here, a couple hundred there, negligible in a country of three hundred million. Tough luck on the dead Americans, but principles are principles, right?
You and I will not find common ground. And BTW, your attitude is how you got Trump so don’t whine about him.
As to your characterization of the Taliban, ISIS, and Al Qaeda, the best spin I can put on what you wrote is that you are cherry picking information from sources even more ignorant than you.
@Big Mike:
How does torturing someone in Thailand stop a couple in Orange County from going on a shooting rampage? If you want to commit mass killings and are willing to die for it, that's a very intractable problem for an open society to solve. My point was that we already experience several mass shootings a year (the vast majority of which are not jihadists), but that is not an argument for torturing American citizens or banning guns.
To make another analogy, we could probably help protect children from abuse if local law e enforcement put audio/video monitoring devices in everyone's home. Would you support that? I mean, tough luck on abused kids, but principles are principles, right?
You and I will not find common ground. And BTW, your attitude is how you got Trump so don’t whine about him.
I voted for Trump. That does not obligate me to defend everything he does. That's the job of spin doctors.
As to your characterization of the Taliban, ISIS, and Al Qaeda, the best spin I can put on what you wrote is that you are cherry picking information from sources even more ignorant than you.
Okay, fine. So explain to us how Al Qaeda is "highly organized," as you claimed.
@Farmer, thanks for asking about Al Qaeda.
You could go here. The mistake you and others make is that you assume a decentralized organization is therefore not organized. It's a common mistake for people brought up in the western tradition to conflate a high degree of organization with a strict hierarchical structure. Al Qaeda would be easy to defeat if they were not decentralized -- kill a few people at the top and watch as subordinate commanders attack each other in a scramble for power.
@Big Mike:
The report you linked to is over 14 years old. And even then it says this:
"Bin Ladin continues to inspire many of the operatives he trained and dispersed, as well as smaller Islamic extremist groups and individual fights who share his ideology. As a result, al Qaeda today is more a loose collection of regional networks with a greatly weakened central organization."
From Rahimullah Yusufzai, April 2016:
"Bin Laden was able to escape with the help of local Afghans, and came to Pakistan. When they attacked Tora Bora, the Americans were pushing Pakistan to block the border, to deploy a force. Pakistan actually co-operated, and for the first time deployed its troops on the borders.
"Then they launched bigger military action, because the militants were then everywhere. One of the biggest achievements is that the militants lost their strongholds. They were in control of many areas - Swat, Bajaur, Momon, South Waziristan, North Waziristan. They lost almost all these areas.
"But I think the death of Osama Bin Laden was the biggest setback, because he was the founder, the financier, the inspiration. It has never really recovered from that loss, because the new leader Dr Zawahiri is not as important, and does not have that status or authority which Bin Laden had."
@Farmer, check the bottom of the page. It’s dated 2018
Yep.
Adams left the foreign policy work for Jefferson. You can blame Jefferson for the fact we have a navy.
@Big Mike:
@Farmer, check the bottom of the page. It’s dated 2018
Here is the first sentence at the link: "This chart is derived from STAFF STATEMENT NO. 15: Overview of the Enemy by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States."
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States is the formal name of the 9/11 commission, whose report was published in July 2004.
@Rusty:
Yep.
Adams left the foreign policy work for Jefferson. You can blame Jefferson for the fact we have a navy.
John Quincy Adams was president 16 years after Jefferson. You're thinking of his father.
Lets imagine what the United States would look like without any treaty or agreements with other countries. What would the world look like without the presents of the United States.
John Adams 1797 1801 Thom. Jefferson 1801 - 1809
@Rusty:
John Adams 1797 1801 Thom. Jefferson 1801 - 1809
John Adams was the second president. His son, John Quincy Adams, who I quoted, was the sixth president of the United States. Jefferson was the third. Ergo, John Quincy Adams was president after Thomas Jefferson.
Smug. Internet tough guy. Willing to get anybody despite rules against the practice.
What's not to dislike?
Bet, not get.
This is true, but it also highlights one of Iran’s biggest weaknesses—its lack of conventional military strength. Tehran lacks the ability to project significant amounts of conventional power beyond its borders. Iran’s regular ground and air forces are in shambles.
If true, wouldn't this be even more incentive for Iran to deploy a nuclear weapon?
@Gahrie:
If true, wouldn't this be even more incentive for Iran to deploy a nuclear weapon?
No, because of the fundamental difference between conventional forces and nuclear weapons. Never mind that Iran has made no attempt to develop a nuclear weapon beyond the early planning stages that were ended in 2003. Second, if Iran did pursue a nuclear weapon, it would likely be for every other reason countries pursue them: to defend themselves against invasions.
This is why we go to war...it's not to protect our country or to save other countries from bad guys.
“Derived from,” asshole.
My mistake.
Still. By the time of JQ it was too late. We already internened in our own interests under Jefferson.
Centrafuges aren't "the planning stage" J. . When you have centrafuges you're 'planning' on refining uranium.
The point ia actually moot now because a new more beneficial agreement can be made. One not made in secrecy which allows for Iranian criminal activity.
My mistake.
Still. By the time of JQ it was too late. We already internened in our own interests under Jefferson.
Centrafuges aren't "the planning stage" J. . When you have centrafuges you're 'planning' on refining uranium.
The point ia actually moot now because a new more beneficial agreement can be made. One not made in secrecy which allows for Iranian criminal activity.
My mistake.
Still. By the time of JQ it was too late. We already internened in our own interests under Jefferson.
Centrafuges aren't "the planning stage" J. . When you have centrafuges you're 'planning' on refining uranium.
The point ia actually moot now because a new more beneficial agreement can be made. One not made in secrecy which allows for Iranian criminal activity.
@Rusty:
Still. By the time of JQ it was too late. We already internened in our own interests under Jefferson.
If you are referring to Jefferson's actions against the Barbary pirates, the US obviously under the doctrine of self-defense had the right to use force to stop its ships and passengers from being taken captives. Jefferson did not send a navy to free people of the Barbary coast or to destroy tyranny.
Centrafuges aren't "the planning stage" J. . When you have centrafuges you're 'planning' on refining uranium.
There is a difference between the a nuclear program and a nuclear weapons program. Go back and watch Netanyahu's much ballyhooed speech: he himself admitted that the program was abandoned in 2003. Further, this issue was addressed by the IAEA during the JCPOA negotiations, and they said:
"The Agency’s overall assessment is that a range of activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device were conducted in Iran prior to the end of 2003 as a coordinated effort, and some activities took place after 2003. The Agency also assesses that these activities did not advance beyond feasibility and scientific studies, and the acquisition of certain relevant technical competences and capabilities. The Agency has no credible indications of activities in Iran relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device after 2009."
Post a Comment