The President's brochure..er-um War Plan

[Gunny]

GunnyL, that Bush knew perfectly well that there would be looting and an insurgency made up of 100s of new groups? That he was quite comfortable with the idea of 160,000 U.S. troops remaining in the country 3 years later at a monthly cost of $6 billion? That he predicted his disapproval ratings about the war would climb over 60%, but didn't care?

Come on, admit that he was clueless.

Mariner
By the way, today's New York Times has a good piece on torture in China. If being cruel to your citizens is our new threshold for invading, then we'd better get ready to start a new war with a bigger foe. Of course, we can't invade them, because they might really fight back, and because we depend on them to buy $4 billion a month of our treasury bonds in order to keep us from going bankrupt, under Tax and Borrow Republicanomics. In other words, we borrow from one torturer to finance our war on another.

Torture Is 'Widespread' in China, U.N. Investigator Says

By JOSEPH KAHN
Published: December 3, 2005

BEIJING, Dec. 2 - A high-level United Nations investigator condemned the "widespread" use of torture in Chinese law enforcement and said Beijing must overhaul its criminal laws, grant more power to judges and abolish labor camps before it can end such abuses, according to a summary of his findings released Friday.

The investigation, by Manfred Nowak, the special rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, noted some progress by Chinese officials in reducing violence against prisoners since the country signed an international covenant banning torture in 1988.

But Mr. Nowak said that "obtaining confessions" and fighting "deviant behavior" continued to be central goals of China's criminal justice system. The police and prison guards are pushed to extract admissions of guilt and are rarely punished for using electric shock, sleep deprivation and submersion in water or sewage, among other techniques the Commission on Human Rights considers torture, to obtain them, he said.

I cannot and do not speak for President Bush. Unlike you, I don't presume to put words in his mouth, nor apply my motives to his actions.

It was common knowledge throughout the military that the various religious/ethnic factions in Iraq would run amock. I'm sure someone mentioned it to Bush.

Compare your cost analysis up there to how much it cost to babysit Saddam's borders for 13 years. Please try to not forget the logistics -- travel to and from, provisions and maintenance for ships/planes ..... maintaining bases halfway around the world. Oh, and don't forget, military personnel in the Gulf region don't pay FICA.

And of course, had we not invaded, that tab would STILL be running.

Just thought I'd add a little perspective your one-sided version of events.

As far as your kaka on torutre goes ..... I don't care what the UN nor the rest of the world thinks of how we do business, and I have little-to-no sympathy for terrorists and could care less what fate befalls them.

And I really don't care what the Chinese are doing internally, at the moment.

 

[deaddude]

Nice try dude.

If your reading was so thourough, or thourough enough as you claim, then why did you ask PJ?

Like I said, and you questioning PJ confirms, you hadnt read the thing entirely and were relying on someone else confirmation to make your opinion.

I said I skimmed the last 38 pages, skimmed. Never siad that my reading was thourough, I asked PJ because he DID thrououghly read all 48 pages and because he might have found somthing I didn't. Since when is getting a second oppinion somehow damning evidence? I still feel entitled to my "blistering opinion" of the "plan."

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I said I skimmed the last 38 pages, skimmed. Never siad that my reading was thourough, I asked PJ because he DID thrououghly read all 48 pages and because he might have found somthing I didn't. Since when is getting a second oppinion somehow damning evidence? I still feel entitled to my "blistering opinion" of the "plan."

Oh, thats perfectly fine. It just proves a bias, and that you were reading with a pre conceived conclusion in mind.

With that fact in hand, we can realize that your interpetation of the document will never be even handed or accurate.

Thats all.

 

[deaddude]

Oh, thats perfectly fine. It just proves a bias, and that you were reading with a pre conceived conclusion in mind.

With that fact in hand, we can realize that your interpetation of the document will never be even handed or accurate.

Thats all.

How does any of that prove bias. At all. I do not see your argument. You say it "proves bias" then you describe it as "fact" when it does nothing of the kind. Saying it does not make it so. Right now you are bias against my oppinion when you will not even say whether you have read the thing at all.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

How does any of that prove bias. At all. I do not see your argument. You say it "proves bias" then you describe it as "fact" when it does nothing of the kind. Saying it does not make it so. Right now you are bias against my oppinion when you will not even say whether you have read the thing at all.

I havent given an opinon on the document, hence my reading it or not is irrelevant, and I wont fall for that sidetracking.

I gave my opinon about YOUR opinion, of which I read ALL OF YOUR OPINION, that is relevant to this discussion.

You gave an opinion on something which you only skimmed.

ANYTHING, ANYTIME, BY ANYONE who skims something, then gives a STRONG opinon on it, shows a bias. Period. If you really wanted to give a strong opinion, that is fully credible, read the ENTIRE REPORT. Its only 48 pages for chrissakes, its not like Im asking for your opinion on the tax code or the Patriot act.

Bias is having an opinion on something with only partial information on that "said" something.

You only skimmed the document, hence, partial information. Your opinion is biased untill you read the whole thing.

 

[dilloduck]

Re: China v. Iraq. Yes, you're right on all counts. But Bush openly played up Saddam's history of violent repression, talking about torture rooms and rape centers (almost all of which took place early in Saddam's rule, even before he was our ally in the Iran Iraq war under Reagan and was Dick Cheney's business partner via Dresser Industries, Cheney's Halliburtonn subsidiary). I'm simply contrasting Bush's willingness to "play the torture card" with Saddam with his weakness in similarly confronting China. As the neutral magazine "The Week" put it, Bush came back "most empty-handed" from his visit to China, completely empty-handed on human rights.

Mariner.

Different problems require different solutions--trying to equate China to Iraq is bogus.