US public approves of Obama's handling of GWOT.

[Simon_Jester]

That is hair-splitting to the extreme and has no bearing on reality.

Probably not. I'm compulsively curious about things like this.

If you ask a person "do you approve of Obama's handling of the Global war on terror", then obviously none of the "yes" people think the civil rights abuses are strong enough.

Not a one? None who think the abuses are exactly strong enough, or maybe a little too strong but better safe than sorry?

No, none of the "yes" people think the civil rights abuses are strong enough. Gotcha.

Also, note that the questions were pretty detailed - like "suspected terrorists are us citizens, do you approve of killing them via drones?"

Some were, others weren't. Like I said, I'm compulsively curious. I don't think a poll designed to give as much information as I would want would be very useful, or easy to administer. But I like to think about these things anyway.

[Thanas]

That is hair-splitting to the extreme and has no bearing on reality.

Probably not. I'm compulsively curious about things like this.

If you ask a person "do you approve of Obama's handling of the Global war on terror", then obviously none of the "yes" people think the civil rights abuses are strong enough.

Not a one? None who think the abuses are exactly strong enough, or maybe a little too strong but better safe than sorry?

None who think the abuses are strong enough to warrant not voting for Obama.

[Simon_Jester]

Oh, I see. I should have assumed that's what you meant. Sorry.

[Zixinus]

As for the torture, these are spies we're talking about. Are you are aware of the meaning of the word, right? They were in Britain to gather information to pass on to the Nazis, they weren't entrusted with any information themselves. They weren't tortured because they didn't knew anything. 

Spies and terrorists are apples and potatos, and trying to compare the two is beyond idiotic.

No, it is not. First off, evilsoup also mentioned officials captured. Second, spies can still know useful information on the other side of the border, like who's who in the military chain, location of military bases, etc.

It is you who is idiotic to assume that the British were not interested in that. As well as for not realizing the exact parallel evilsoup is making: the British didn't torture members of the very same military that was bombing the shit out of them. How can the USA claim any sort of moral superiority against an inferior (in terms of military might) paramilitary group when faced with that? Especially when they rely on poor intel and torture (and have tortured) innocent people, while deliberately avoiding giving a trial to those people to actually see whether they are terrorists?

[TheHammer]

Um, what? I think my meaning was very clear.
1. as a citizen of a democratic country, you are partly responsible (maybe the wrong word? That point is that the government is acting in your name) for the government's actions. So instead of just going 'hurr hurr obama must know something I don't know, I know my place' people like thehammer should be at the very least condemning this horsefuckery.

Recognition of the fact that a President has to make tough decisions, often times balancing the lesser of two evils, is simply acceptance of reality. I happen to believe that there is a good reason for the Presidents actions because the alternative would be to believe that he is breaking his campaign promise for comic book super villain reasons. It would also be ignoring the fact that Obama has taken steps towards improving prisoner treament and closing the facility. Dealing with Gitmo is an extremely complicated situation, so excuse me if I cut the President a little slack and grant him a little patience in getting the job done.

2. It was somehow magically possible to not torture enemy spies (who were definitely spies, not just random people sold out by their greedy vindictive neighbours), even though they were working for possibly the worst regime of the twentieth century, and actively bombarding cities, and (in the minds of the decision-makers) maybe even able to mount a full-scale invasion. This makes the current situation with the US keeping these guys in horrible conditions even more grotesque by comparison.

I don't for one minute think that we are any better or any worse. If you don't think there was prisoner abuse, torture, etc occuring during every major conflict in world history then you are ignorant of history. The difference is that today we hear about it more often thanks to sources such as wikileaks and 24/7 news cycle. And for the record, the abusive treatment aka "Enhanced interrogation techniques" used under Bush were banned when Obama took office.

3. If I'm remembering right about his promise to close down gitmo, Obama is an anti-democratic asshole (but then so are all the alternatives, so I guess that makes it ok?)

Sometimes when you get into the grey of the REAL fucking world its not as simple as a simple minded person such as yourself. You bash the idea of "realpolitik", but that's the game the nations of the world play. You can't opt out of playing, and an attempt to do so means you are only playing badly. People like simply come off to me as living in a fantasy world where its all so simple. An Idealist would make a terrible president because the world is not based around idealism. No recognition of the fact that sometimes you may not like it, but you have to get your hands dirty. Striving towards the ideal should always be the goal, but it's got to be a steady climb up that hill. You try to jump at it and you could well end up falling farther back than where you started, losing much of what you had gained.

All of this shit is probably sailing right over your head... I honestly don't know why I bother...

[evilsoup]

Obama has had, what - three years to shit down gitmo? It is a military base, he's the head honcho of the military. If he wanted it gone, it would be gone by now.

If you don't think there was prisoner abuse, torture, etc occuring during every major conflict in world history then you are ignorant of history. The difference is that today we hear about it more often thanks to sources such as wikileaks and 24/7 news cycle.

I don't see how that's relevant? Especially since you lot like to present yourselves as defenders of democracy and freedom and so on.

I'm not going to say that there wasn't a single case of a German prisoner being tortured by the British in WWII, but the policy was that torture is wrong and that policy was followed according to everything I've read. Now if you want me to get into the various colonial rebellions, then you get nasty shit. But do you really want to hold your country to the standard of Imperial Britain? Don't you think you should be aiming higher than that?

Sometimes when you get into the grey of the REAL fucking world its not as simple as a simple minded person such as yourself. You bash the idea of "realpolitik", but that's the game the nations of the world play. You can't opt out of playing, and an attempt to do so means you are only playing badly. People like simply come off to me as living in a fantasy world where its all so simple. An Idealist would make a terrible president because the world is not based around idealism. No recognition of the fact that sometimes you may not like it, but you have to get your hands dirty. Striving towards the ideal should always be the goal, but it's got to be a steady climb up that hill. You try to jump at it and you could well end up falling farther back than where you started, losing much of what you had gained.

Man it's the best thing ever when you pro-torture pro-United Fruits fucks try to say REAL WORLD RAR RAR DOG EAT DOG. Do you also think it's ok for corporations to dump toxic waste into towns' water supplies? I mean fuck that's the REAL WORLD right there maybe you should just suck it up and stop complaining, that's the game the corporations play.

There are plenty of murderous fucks in the world. There are plenty of people who'd chuck their own grandmother under a bus for advancement, or who'd scam people out of their pensions. Would you do those things? That's how the real world works. That's the games people play.

How many innocent lives is it acceptable to end for the sake of a 4% increase in corporate profits (which is what 'American interests' normally boils down to)? Hint: if the answer is more than zero you are a terrible person.

Pragmatism in international politics is acceptable, but that doesn't mean becoming the national equivalant of a sociopath. Realpolitik is pragmatism devoid of idealism and is therefore worse than useless. Realpolitik is the realm of cowards and small-minded self-centred fools.

An Idealist would make a terrible president because the world is not based around idealism.

Idealists created the United Nations. Idealists created the European Union. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And, hell, your own country. Idealism doesn't mean you can't 'get your hands dirty' (though it does limit how dirty you can get your hands, but I'd say not being able to run torture camps is a good kind of limit to have): it means you have a moral purpose behind your actions.

[TheHammer]

Obama has had, what - three years to shit down gitmo? It is a military base, he's the head honcho of the military. If he wanted it gone, it would be gone by now.

The fact that you'd even say such a thing shows how ignorant you are of the situation. Obama signed an executive order his first year in office to do just that. The issue isn't whether or not to close Guantanamo Bay it's what to do with the inmates kept there that is the problem. Do a little research and you'll see why. You can start with the links I posted in my previous post, and then maybe look some shit up for yourself.

If you don't think there was prisoner abuse, torture, etc occuring during every major conflict in world history then you are ignorant of history. The difference is that today we hear about it more often thanks to sources such as wikileaks and 24/7 news cycle.

I don't see how that's relevant? Especially since you lot like to present yourselves as defenders of democracy and freedom and so on.

I'm not going to say that there wasn't a single case of a German prisoner being tortured by the British in WWII, but the policy was that torture is wrong and that policy was followed according to everything I've read. Now if you want me to get into the various colonial rebellions, then you get nasty shit. But do you really want to hold your country to the standard of Imperial Britain? Don't you think you should be aiming higher than that?

So you're going to tell me that Britain didn't use any "enhanced interrogation techniques" of their own during WWII?

And to be clear, I'm not advocating their use merely stating the fact that they were used despite your assertion to the contrary. And, as noted Obama put a stop the enhanced interrogation techniques aka torture that Bush approved. So you can kindly shut the fuck up about it.

Sometimes when you get into the grey of the REAL fucking world its not as simple as a simple minded person such as yourself. You bash the idea of "realpolitik", but that's the game the nations of the world play. You can't opt out of playing, and an attempt to do so means you are only playing badly. People like simply come off to me as living in a fantasy world where its all so simple. An Idealist would make a terrible president because the world is not based around idealism. No recognition of the fact that sometimes you may not like it, but you have to get your hands dirty. Striving towards the ideal should always be the goal, but it's got to be a steady climb up that hill. You try to jump at it and you could well end up falling farther back than where you started, losing much of what you had gained.

Man it's the best thing ever when you pro-torture pro-United Fruits fucks try to say REAL WORLD RAR RAR DOG EAT DOG. Do you also think it's ok for corporations to dump toxic waste into towns' water supplies? I mean fuck that's the REAL WORLD right there maybe you should just suck it up and stop complaining, that's the game the corporations play.

So now I'm "pro-torture" because I recognize the fact that closing Guantanamo at this point isn't as easy as simple minded fucks like you seem to think it is? You then proceed to stuff that strawman with more bullshit. First sign that you're losing an argument is to try and change the position of your opponent into something easier to argue against.

There are plenty of murderous fucks in the world. There are plenty of people who'd chuck their own grandmother under a bus for advancement, or who'd scam people out of their pensions. Would you do those things? That's how the real world works. That's the games people play.

Yes and those same people use various loopholes in the rules to protect themselves. Sometimes it takes someone with the courage to compromise their ideals to prevent "murderous fucks" from using the system as a shield while they simultaneously stab that system in the back.

How many innocent lives is it acceptable to end for the sake of a 4% increase in corporate profits (which is what 'American interests' normally boils down to)? Hint: if the answer is more than zero you are a terrible person.

Irrelevent bullshit - more strawman stuffing.

Pragmatism in international politics is acceptable, but that doesn't mean becoming the national equivalant of a sociopath. Realpolitik is pragmatism devoid of idealism and is therefore worse than useless. Realpolitik is the realm of cowards and small-minded self-centred fools.

Regardless of your opinion, Realpolitik is the game the nations of the world play. They are all looking out for their own interests. As I said, whether you would like to or not you can't opt out of playing. Refusing to play means you are only playing badly, and the other nations of the world will chew you up at the first opportunity. Idealism should always be the goal, but not at the expense of pragmatism. You take what you can get when you can get it without losing everything you have already gained.

An Idealist would make a terrible president because the world is not based around idealism.

Idealists created the United Nations. Idealists created the European Union. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And, hell, your own country. Idealism doesn't mean you can't 'get your hands dirty' (though it does limit how dirty you can get your hands, but I'd say not being able to run torture camps is a good kind of limit to have): it means you have a moral purpose behind your actions.

Ah yes the United Nations, EU, and UDHR. They are all working out wonderfuly right? And we're all well aware of your opinion of the United States, although I'd disagree with your notion that it was "created by idealists". Idealists come up with wonderful goals to aspire too, but they are absolutely terrible at getting those goals achieved. They see things far too black and white rather than the various shades of grey that the world really is. It takes a broader vision to move towards ever ligher shades of grey while being cautious not to mis-step back to the darker shades. And it is not a straight line progression.

Idealism DOES mean you can't get your hands dirty because then would mean you compromise your "ideals" and thus become a realist. Just for example, Idealists are the ones who want to keep letting men like Al Awlaki alive because he "deserves a fair trial". A realist knows that a trial was never going to happen. A realist knows that every day he is alive Awlaki is putting in motion plans to kill innocent people and that he had to die for the greater good.

[Thanas]

Obama has had, what - three years to shit down gitmo? It is a military base, he's the head honcho of the military. If he wanted it gone, it would be gone by now.

The fact that you'd even say such a thing shows how ignorant you are of the situation. Obama signed an executive order his first year in office to do just that. The issue isn't whether or not to close Guantanamo Bay it's what to do with the inmates kept there that is the problem. Do a little research and you'll see why. You can start with the links I posted in my previous post, and then maybe look some shit up for yourself.

Oh no, poor US might be forced to let some people they tortured for years to go free. And they might not be able to put some others in prison because the only "evidence" came through torture.

Your argument is...what, exactly?

And to be clear, I'm not advocating their use merely stating the fact that they were used despite your assertion to the contrary. And, as noted Obama put a stop the enhanced interrogation techniques aka torture that Bush approved. So you can kindly shut the fuck up about it.

In Guantanamo. It is still ongoing in Bagram and all the other black sites we do not know about yet.

So now I'm "pro-torture" because I recognize the fact that closing Guantanamo at this point isn't as easy as simple minded fucks like you seem to think it is? You then proceed to stuff that strawman with more bullshit. First sign that you're losing an argument is to try and change the position of your opponent into something easier to argue against.

Well, considering how you defend Obama on every extrajudicial thing he does the inferrence was there.

Yes and those same people use various loopholes in the rules to protect themselves. Sometimes it takes someone with the courage to compromise their ideals to prevent "murderous fucks" from using the system as a shield while they simultaneously stab that system in the back.

How the heck was torture necessary.

Regardless of your opinion, Realpolitik is the game the nations of the world play. They are all looking out for their own interests. As I said, whether you would like to or not you can't opt out of playing. Refusing to play means you are only playing badly, and the other nations of the world will chew you up at the first opportunity. Idealism should always be the goal, but not at the expense of pragmatism. You take what you can get when you can get it without losing everything you have already gained.

Oh bloo bloo bloo. As if the USA would suddenly lose its power should it stop torturing brown people.

Ah yes the United Nations, EU, and UDHR. They are all working out wonderfuly right?

The EU is working wonderfully, yes.

Idealism DOES mean you can't get your hands dirty because then would mean you compromise your "ideals" and thus become a realist. Just for example, Idealists are the ones who want to keep letting men like Al Awlaki alive because he "deserves a fair trial". A realist knows that a trial was never going to happen. A realist knows that every day he is alive Awlaki is putting in motion plans to kill innocent people and that he had to die for the greater good.

Now who is throwing out strawmen here? Oh, and yes, invoking of the greater good. How old are you?

[TheHammer]

Obama has had, what - three years to shit down gitmo? It is a military base, he's the head honcho of the military. If he wanted it gone, it would be gone by now.

The fact that you'd even say such a thing shows how ignorant you are of the situation. Obama signed an executive order his first year in office to do just that. The issue isn't whether or not to close Guantanamo Bay it's what to do with the inmates kept there that is the problem. Do a little research and you'll see why. You can start with the links I posted in my previous post, and then maybe look some shit up for yourself.

Oh no, poor US might be forced to let some people they tortured for years to go free. And they might not be able to put some others in prison because the only "evidence" came through torture.

Your argument is...what, exactly?

My argument is that he's fucking working on it?

And to be clear, I'm not advocating their use merely stating the fact that they were used despite your assertion to the contrary. And, as noted Obama put a stop the enhanced interrogation techniques aka torture that Bush approved. So you can kindly shut the fuck up about it.

In Guantanamo. It is still ongoing in Bagram and all the other black sites we do not know about yet.

You are basing this on what?

So now I'm "pro-torture" because I recognize the fact that closing Guantanamo at this point isn't as easy as simple minded fucks like you seem to think it is? You then proceed to stuff that strawman with more bullshit. First sign that you're losing an argument is to try and change the position of your opponent into something easier to argue against.

Well, considering how you defend Obama on every extrajudicial thing he does the inferrence was there.

I defended the things I defended. That falls far short of "everything". I've also argued against the notion that he "doesn't care" about human rights when the majority of his career speaks to the opposite.

Yes and those same people use various loopholes in the rules to protect themselves. Sometimes it takes someone with the courage to compromise their ideals to prevent "murderous fucks" from using the system as a shield while they simultaneously stab that system in the back.

How the heck was torture necessary.

Who the fuck is talking about torture being neccessary? I see you're going right along with E-S's strawman. I was specifically referring to the "murderous fucks" as E-S calls them, who cause harm to others, all while hiding behind the laws of the very system they are trying to exploit. People who abuse protections by twisting intents, corrupting meanings, and taking advantage of technicalities. See my Awlaki example, for an example.

Regardless of your opinion, Realpolitik is the game the nations of the world play. They are all looking out for their own interests. As I said, whether you would like to or not you can't opt out of playing. Refusing to play means you are only playing badly, and the other nations of the world will chew you up at the first opportunity. Idealism should always be the goal, but not at the expense of pragmatism. You take what you can get when you can get it without losing everything you have already gained.

Oh bloo bloo bloo. As if the USA would suddenly lose its power should it stop torturing brown people.

More irreverent bullshit.

Ah yes the United Nations, EU, and UDHR. They are all working out wonderfuly right?

The EU is working wonderfully, yes.

Hardly

Idealism DOES mean you can't get your hands dirty because then would mean you compromise your "ideals" and thus become a realist. Just for example, Idealists are the ones who want to keep letting men like Al Awlaki alive because he "deserves a fair trial". A realist knows that a trial was never going to happen. A realist knows that every day he is alive Awlaki is putting in motion plans to kill innocent people and that he had to die for the greater good.

Now who is throwing out strawmen here? Oh, and yes, invoking of the greater good. How old are you?

Where is the strawman? I was explaining to E-S the difference between an idealist and a realist. The point at which an idealist decides to get his hands dirty in the sense that I'm referring to he or she becomes a realist. And the concept of the "Greater good" is merely another way of viewing "lesser of two evils". The end result is a world better off than it was before.