My fellow Earthlings: The jig is up Watch

This discussion is closed.
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#281
Report 13 years ago
#281
(Original post by Douglas)
Yes, and everyone know that Pol Pot would never do anything like that.
Extreme temperatures are quoted somewhere as being about 37°c. Now thats hot, but not so hot it stops thousands of Britains jumping on planes to go and bask in it each year, or indeed prevent the same detainees from fighting US troops in the Afghan desert where temperatures push on above 40°C+.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#282
Report 13 years ago
#282
(Original post by Douglas)
"But so far, at least, mainstream reporters have steadfastly ignored Cheney's remarks - perhaps because they know that the VP's reaction ratchets the story up to Defcon 3 level, and covering it would make it impossible for Democrats to continue their silence. "...and silent they have been.
"At a Senate hearing on Iraq, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton called on military leaders to "immediately repudiate" what she called "an insulting comment."

No, not Durbin's insulting comment, but Karl Rove's suggestion that liberals wanted to fight terrorists with therapy and lawsuits. Durbin insults the US military and the Dems say nothing. Karl Rove suggests that the Dems werent as eager to take military action and they flip out. Do they stand for anything other than opposing Bush? They were against military action, but find comments to that effect an insult. They insult the US Army and then call on military leaders to condemn the words of a man who tells it like it is.
0
Douglas
Badges: 0
#283
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#283
(Original post by Vienna)
"At a Senate hearing on Iraq, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton called on military leaders to "immediately repudiate" what she called "an insulting comment."

No, not Durbin's insulting comment, but Karl Rove's suggestion that liberals wanted to fight terrorists with therapy and lawsuits. Durbin insults the US military and the Dems say nothing. Karl Rove suggests that the Dems werent as eager to take military action and they flip out. Do they stand for anything other than opposing Bush? They were against military action, but find comments to that effect an insult. They insult the US Army and then call on military leaders to condemn the words of a man who tells it like it is.
Yeah Vienna, it's amazing. This stuff goes on all the time. Look at the remarks Howard Dean is making, he gets away with murder.

By the way, I came across this poll today

In general, do you approve or disapprove of the way the U.S. is treating the prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba?

Strongly approve
33%

Somewhat approve
19%

Somewhat disapprove
14%

Strongly disapprove
23%

No opinion
11%



Source: Gallup / CNN / USA Today
Methodology: Telephone interviews to 1,006 American adults, conducted from Jun. 16 to Jun. 19, 2005. Margin of error is 3 per cent.
Note that it's a CNN/USA today poll.....perhaps meaning they polled 1000 people in San Francisco

Anyway, only 23% strongly disapprove, which is about 6% higher than I thought. I figured that only 17% of the population were ultra left wing bleeding heart pinko whacko's.
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#284
Report 13 years ago
#284
(Original post by Vienna)
"At a Senate hearing on Iraq, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton called on military leaders to "immediately repudiate" what she called "an insulting comment."

No, not Durbin's insulting comment, but Karl Rove's suggestion that liberals wanted to fight terrorists with therapy and lawsuits. Durbin insults the US military and the Dems say nothing. Karl Rove suggests that the Dems werent as eager to take military action and they flip out. Do they stand for anything other than opposing Bush? They were against military action, but find comments to that effect an insult. They insult the US Army and then call on military leaders to condemn the words of a man who tells it like it is.
Um...the Democratic party did not oppose military action against Iraq. About 3/4 of the Democratic Senators voted for the war.
0
Douglas
Badges: 0
#285
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#285
(Original post by Bismarck)
Um...the Democratic party did not oppose military action against Iraq. About 3/4 of the Democratic Senators voted for the war.
I think Vienna is saying that 3/4 of the above 3/4 either wish they hadn't voted for the war, or are now opposed to the war.....kind've like they voted for it before they voted against it.
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#286
Report 13 years ago
#286
(Original post by Douglas)
I think Vienna is saying that 3/4 of the above 3/4 either wish they hadn't voted for the war, or are now opposed to the war.....kind've like they voted for it before they voted against it.
Most of them claim they don't agree with the way the war is being handled, not that they oppose the war. The same can be said for most Republicans, though they don't admit to it in public.
0
Alexdel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#287
Report 13 years ago
#287
I didnt know people become terrorists because the military decides so...last time I checked to ensure someone was guilty a trial was held...I must have missed something in one of my school lessons regarding the so called 'democracy'
0
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#288
Report 13 years ago
#288
(Original post by Alexdel)
I didnt know people become terrorists because the military decides so...last time I checked to ensure someone was guilty a trial was held...I must have missed something in one of my school lessons regarding the so called 'democracy'
The military is under no obligation to grant trials to hostile forces in times of war.
0
Douglas
Badges: 0
#289
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#289
(Original post by Bismarck)
Most of them claim they don't agree with the way the war is being handled, not that they oppose the war.
Rumsfeld was grilled today by Kennedy and others wanting to set a deadline, or asking for a deadline to be out of Iraq.
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#290
Report 13 years ago
#290
(Original post by Douglas)
Rumsfeld was grilled today by Kennedy and others wanting to set a deadline, or asking for a deadline to be out of Iraq.
Does one have to oppose the war to ask for a deadline for withdrawal?
0
Douglas
Badges: 0
#291
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#291
(Original post by Bismarck)
Does one have to oppose the war to ask for a deadline for withdrawal?
Anyone can ask anything, but it's the way a question is framed that gives the clue.
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#292
Report 13 years ago
#292
(Original post by Bismarck)
Most of them claim they don't agree with the way the war is being handled, not that they oppose the war. The same can be said for most Republicans, though they don't admit to it in public.
Id be interested to hear which parts of the military action in Iraq, the Dems have not complained about or opposed.

They didnt want an immediate military response. They didnt want a response without the UN. They didnt want action without allied support or a global test. Theyve opposed the basis for the war. Theyve called Bush a liar. They ran a Presidential candidate who said he would have not gone to war. Theyve jumped on every report of every bomb, detainee, victim, casualty in the hope it casts a bad light on the President. They want immediate withdrawal. They claim the US has lost this war. And now we have a Democrat telling us that US soldiers are willingly participating in something so horrid that it can be compared to the Nazis, Soviet Gulags and Pol Pot.

And yet when Karl Rove points out the obvious, that the Dems would have preferred to treat this as a law enforcement campaign, as their presidential candidate articulated, that inaccurate and offensive comments actually work against the difficult task of US soldiers and the country in a time of military conflict, they forget the soap box theyve been trying to lech votes from and attack a Presidential AIDE.

If they actually got their heads out of the sand and grew a spine, perhaps they would be in a position to be electable in 2008.
0
Iz the Wiz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#293
Report 13 years ago
#293
(Original post by Vienna)
... Karl Rove's suggestion that liberals wanted to fight terrorists with therapy and lawsuits
Karl Rove suggested a lot more than that:

"Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year? Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

This blatantly suggests that liberals' "motives" are to endanger American soldiers.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#294
Report 13 years ago
#294
(Original post by Iz the Wiz)
Karl Rove suggested a lot more than that.

Associated Press: "[Rove] said [Durbin's] statements have been broadcast throughout the Middle East, putting American troops in greater danger ... 'No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals,' Rove said." This blatantly imlpies that liberals' "motives" are to endanger American soldiers.
I find it implies their motives are to attack the administration, and in a time of war, that has implications on the work of the military. Lets remember why I and Rove and the Republicans are making these comments. Durbin suggested the work of his military, of American soldiers, was comparable to that of the Nazis or the Soviet Gulags, that claimed millions of lives in horrific fashion. He is a senior Democrat, no Democrats have condemned those comments. Do the Democrats honestly believe that these comments do not effect the morale of American soldiers? Im sure Karl Rove gave them the benefit of the doubt in not presuming them to be completely stupid.
0
Iz the Wiz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#295
Report 13 years ago
#295
(Original post by Vienna)
I find it implies their motives are to attack the administration, and in a time of war, that has implications on the work of the military. Lets remember why I and Rove and the Republicans are making these comments. Durbin suggested the work of his military, of American soldiers, was comparable to that of the Nazis or the Soviet Gulags, that claimed millions of lives in horrific fashion. He is a senior Democrat, no Democrats have condemned those comments. Do the Democrats honestly believe that these comments do not effect the morale of American soldiers? Im sure Karl Rove gave them the benefit of the doubt in not presuming them to be completely stupid.
What Durbin did was to point out that human beings are being treated this way---chained to the floor, starved, etc.---and that this treatment is characteristic of such regimes & not of the U.S. It does not follow that he's heaped all the crimes of totalitarianism on America's head. He has not. It does not follow that he has compared America to Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia in the sense you're trying to imply. He has not. He is not saying that America has "claimed millions of lives in horrific fashion." He has objected to this one practice in very strong terms---and that's all.

What Karl Rove did is in keeping with conservative rhetoric during W's presidency, in that he basically accuses liberals of treason.

I think I can safely say that I'm someone you would consider a "liberal," and I can assure you that my motives in wanting to end these Gitmo practices are not "to attack the administration, and in a time of war, that has implications on the work of the military." My motives are to end these practices. Simple as that.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#296
Report 13 years ago
#296
(Original post by Iz the Wiz)
What Durbin did was to point out that human beings are being treated this way---chained to the floor, starved, etc.---and that this treatment is characteristic of such regimes & not of the U.S. It does not follow that he has compared America to Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia in the sense you're trying to imply. He has not.
The treatment of detainees in Gitmo is "characteristic" of that in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

i) Thats a comparison.

ii) The comparsion is complete rubbish. If it was characteristic, we would have thousands if not millions of dead detainees, detainees being experimented on, not to mention other gruesome practices.

Such an inaccurate comparison does nothing but undermine US soldiers.

What Karl Rove did is in keeping with conservative rhetoric during W's presidency, in that he basically accuses liberals of treason.
He says that their comments imply that they are willing to put US soldiers in danger. Assuming that Durbin is at least partly intelligent, what other basis would the Dems have for allowing such remarks to go without comment, after the passing of time had offered the opportunity for reflection on their consequences.

If Durbin had later rephrased his comments, or sought to explain any misunderstanding, or god forbid, retracted them, I would see them in a very different light. But the Democrats as a party are standing by these comments, to what end?

I think I can safely say that I'm someone you would consider a "liberal," and I can assure you that my motives in wanting to end these Gitmo practices are not "to attack the administration, and in a time of war, that has implications on the work of the military." My motives are to end these practices. Simple as that.
Do you compare Gitmo to the practices of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Gulags?
0
Douglas
Badges: 0
#297
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#297
(Original post by Iz the Wiz)
This blatantly suggests that liberals' "motives" are to endanger American soldiers.
It may not be their intention, but I think it *IS* the result.
Iz the Wiz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#298
Report 13 years ago
#298
(Original post by Vienna)
The treatment of detainees in Gitmo is "characteristic" of that in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

i) Thats a comparison.

ii) The comparsion is complete rubbish. If it was characteristic, we would have thousands if not millions of dead detainees, detainees being experimented on, not to mention other gruesome practices.
I put a line in bold because to me that's the crux of this whole thing. You seem to think Durbin says it's characteristic of the U.S. But he's not saying that. I wasn't saying that. It's characteristic of Nazi Germany etc.; it's not characteristic of us; it's going on in these prisons; it ought to be stopped.

Such an inaccurate comparison does nothing but undermine US soldiers.
It's the practices that are undermining soldiers, not the fact that we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press in this country. Maybe the top brass (i.e., Rumsfeld) should figure out that they have responsibility for the protection of our troops from reckless stupidity, and end their policies of torture, "disappearing," and inhumane treatment. (These policies were obviously adopted by them in a frantic search for information, probably related to WMDs. They institute such practices, put our soldiers in harm's way, and then count on you to say it's all the Liberals' fault for talking about it.)

He says that their comments imply that they are willing to put US soldiers in danger. Assuming that Durbin is at least partly intelligent, what other basis would the Dems have for allowing such remarks to go without comment, after the passing of time had offered the opportunity for reflection on their consequences.

If Durbin had later rephrased his comments, or sought to explain any misunderstanding, or god forbid, retracted them, I would see them in a very different light. But the Democrats as a party are standing by these comments, to what end?
What is all this "reflection on their consequences" crap, anyway? The whole idea that Durbin's statements had or will have a material effect, upon any real soldier anywhere, is a remote conjecture. If there were some sort of massive Islamic uprising in response to Gitmo offenses, how could you blame Durbin? He's trying to END the offenses. Don't you see that the Republicans, and the Pentagon brass, by trying to hush the whole thing up & intimidate critics into silence, are doing far more harm? And if troops are in danger because of Gitmo, isn't it a good idea to do exactly what liberals are urging: end Gitmo or overhaul its policies?

No, what else could be motivating us except the desire to bring harm to the American soldier!
0
Iz the Wiz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#299
Report 13 years ago
#299
(Original post by Douglas)
It may not be their intention, but I think it *IS* the result.
Well, that's where you & Karl Rove differ, because he said endangerment of troops was liberals' motive.

I'm wondering how you could possibly know that "it *IS* the result." How can you tell? Has greater harm come to troops since Durbin's statements? Or is it still on the way, and if so, how will you know to what extent it was caused by Durbin? As for morale, how do you quantify a thing like that? How do you determine the percentage by which morale has decreased, and what percentage of that was caused by liberals? Most importantly, how do you trace fluctuations in morale to their various sources, and on what basis would you be able to attribute such-and-such a portion of such-and-such a fluctuation to a single remark by a liberal senator?
0
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#300
Report 13 years ago
#300
(Original post by Vienna)
Id be interested to hear which parts of the military action in Iraq, the Dems have not complained about or opposed.

They didnt want an immediate military response. They didnt want a response without the UN. They didnt want action without allied support or a global test. Theyve opposed the basis for the war. Theyve called Bush a liar. They ran a Presidential candidate who said he would have not gone to war. Theyve jumped on every report of every bomb, detainee, victim, casualty in the hope it casts a bad light on the President. They want immediate withdrawal. They claim the US has lost this war. And now we have a Democrat telling us that US soldiers are willingly participating in something so horrid that it can be compared to the Nazis, Soviet Gulags and Pol Pot.
Do you care more about actions or words? A vast majority of the Democrats voted for the war; this included Kerry.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you like exams?

Yes (172)
18.59%
No (560)
60.54%
Not really bothered about them (193)
20.86%

Watched Threads

View All