Eh, you're right. I looked at the link address and snark got the better of me. Mea Culpa. Still, what's said is no better. And the NYTimes piece is a bit more detailed than anything the Bush Admin has put out. So, given these two contrasting pieces, what do you think about torture? Not the kind you choose to do in the privacy of your own home for your own gratification, but government-sponsored, administration-hiding torture?
still waiting for your exposition on where in the world liberals are defying totalitarianism. Something's actually happening Reg! <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5P2jJdrz9bY&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5P2jJdrz9bY&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> What are you prepared to do? <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ve3l_fuLpQo&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ve3l_fuLpQo&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
I'm against totalitarianism, basso. See how easy that was? What cowardly reason is preventing you from doing the same? Go poof, coward.
You want me to give you a detailed strategy for defeating totalitarianism around the world? Wow, that seems like a much taller order than a yes or no question on supporting torture. How's this? I don't have a detailed strategy. I vote for people who deal with these problems for a living. And I tend to vote against those who believe the only way to effect change around the world is by killing people. My short answer would be that I think it is unrealistic to think we can wipe out totalitarianism, but that we should try. We should do that first by example, second by diplomacy, third by sanctions and fourth by force. I also tend to believe that we should be more active in opposing it around the world than any modern president has been and that we should use the power we have to try to effect change for the good, with vigorous diplomacy at least, even in places where our national interest is not directly at stake. Back on topic: Do you support torture? Yes or no? Run away, scaredy cat.
Perhaps you could expand on this. I must have missed what you're referencing. Liberals defended The West against Soviet/Red Chinese totalitarianism for decades. Do you recall Adlai Stevenson at the UN holding up those photos of the Soviet missile site being constructed in Cuba? A liberal Democrat. Who else stood up to them? His President, Jack Kennedy. LBJ. Hubert Humphrey. Bobby Kennedy. Carter, in his bumbling fashion. Truman. FDR. All considered liberals of their day. "The academic unfashionability of political biography (and political history in general) is . . . the result of an ideological viewpoint that prefers to ignore the success of liberal democratic politics in America. The latest generation of scholarly ideologues focuses single-mindedly on varieties of social history that with varying degrees of persuasiveness emphasize oppression or injustice, rather than liberty, democracy, or opportunity. Harry Truman's story largely refutes them." - Alonzo L. Hamby (author of Beyond the New Deal: Harry S. Truman and American Liberalism, 1945-1953 ) D&D. Attempt Civility! Impeach Bush for Promoting Torture.
i completely agree- there is a long, noble history of liberals confronting totalitarianism around the world. but the modern democratic party has forsaken that legacy, which is the point of my question. and as to batman's post, the Bush admin is doing everything that you suggest, diplomacy, sanctions, the use of force, applying each to the unique demands of the individual situation.
Yea Deck. Don't you realize that the WOT as defined by the administration is the same as the Cold War, WWII, the American Revolution and all glorious US wars except Vietnam (unless it's used to make a pro-Iraq War domestic political point). So, if you are against the administration in any aspect of the WOT, as again, defined exclusively by the administration, you are logically not against totalitarianism and other values fought for in those earlier wars. I can't believe I have to explain this basic fact to you guys. A corollary to this is that you have to also be pro-torture to be serious about protecting American freedoms. Which brings us back to the original question. I think it's clear looking at basso's torturous thinking on totalitarianism that he stands unalterably in favor of torture as long as the current administyration is in charge. If a Dem did it, he would rediscover his humanity post haste and stand with us in outrage. But then, I don't know what basso really thinks because he won't tell us.
You are creating a false syllogism. From my perspective, you are saying if you don't act like a bull in a china shop and flail about ineffectually, you are embracing totalitarianism. Perhaps it is just that Democrats take the slightly circumspect and more strategic view, that punching people in the nose usually doesn't make them amenable to what you are saying about freedom and liberty. Perhaps the Democrats understand that freeing the world one country at a time by full frontal assault at a cost of $2 billion per country would not result in a free world, but rather a bankrupt America and a bunch of dictators with nobody to oppose them. Your version of fighting totalitarianism is apparently some sort of exercise in making you feel like a righteous person, as opposed to achieving results. This again fits right back into the drum that I have been beating about the romanticization and fetishization of World War 2 by the militant minority. You want your chance to 'fight the good fight' (at least as long as you don't have to embrace the reality of death and destruction any closer than you do when watching Saving Private Ryan). Work smarter against totalitarianism, not harder.
The question was where as in "on what front?" It's probably a longer answer (in letters) than the YES or NO you are asking of Mr. basso...
how lovely that you and rim both took my question, and then constructed your own strawmen, that have nothing to do with the question asked. which proves the point i should think.
That goes to my point. If torture is used so rarely why change policy to allow it? The problem I see with carving legal exceptions that just makes it more tempting to use.
Isn't there a powerful law in psychology known as intermittent reinforcement? It would seem to apply here... I wonder if the possibility of torture is more powerful than the certainty of it which would seem to quash all hope.
It perfectly does deal with the question you asked. Any one of 1,000,000 decisions taken during the Clinton administration were done in opposition to totalarianism, but because they didn't invade anybody, you feel you can somehow forward this bogus claim that Democrats are soft on dictators. Your fundimental question is slanted. Ever hear of Democracy Alliance as well as several other groups funded by the antichrist George Soros? But I guess since they aren't invading people, you feel free to make up crap questions which fundimentally skew the discussion? Was it Republicans who sent scholars to Iran to promote democracy? I don't think so.
