Re: Re: Intellectual Debate

I think it's ok to label people with the labels they've chosen for themselves. And, I think it's not a good thing to take partisanship completely out of a debate. It is expedient to apply labels to things, and it allows people to catch up on a conversation without excessive definitions. Even if those labels portray groups not exactly correctly, they are still a useful shortcut. I agree that we should cut off the windbaginess of most partisanship, but sometimes it's useful to refer to the 'left' and the 'right'.

An example of what we would like to avoid is found in Aristotle. One of the reasons he's pretty boring to read for most people is that he is always making definitions. For him, they were necessary, because he was pretty much the first person to write them down...but if we eschew labels, we'll be doing work that others have already done for us.

And, where Aristotle is saying that ”Aristotle said that those with more reason, whose soul rules their bodies, should rule others." he is making an argument that slavery is ok. Which it isn't, so I don't know where your "Unfortunately" comes from...

I'm also going to nitpick with your choice of quotes at the bottom...

Why should you want George to say that he would have done things differently? I know you don't like how things have ended up, and I'm sure he also wishes things had gone differently...but he was working with the information he had at the time, and I'm sure he feels he made the best decision that he could...and it seems, most Americans and most Pundits, and most Senator's agreed with him...at least until we went on a few months and could look back with more information. I know you want him to admit that what is going on isn't perfect...but that wasn't the question he was asked...he said that he wouldn't have made different decisions if he was put into the same situation with the same information...

I'm not sure where you got the Condi quote from...cause it's completely out of context...do you have a link to somewhere she says something similar? But I will defend it anyway...it's inconceivable that we would think Hamas would win the elections if we believe that most Palestinians want their own state and peace, with no more violence. A relatively informed Palestinian must come to the conclusion that Hamas isn't going to get them their own state peacefully, if only for the reason that the rest of the world will refuse to deal with who they view as terrorists. So, if we put ourselves a few months back, when things were going relatively well for the Palestinians, and the peace process was moving along decently, before Hamas started to change it's focus, it would be fair to say that, "No one saw the possibility of Hamas winning the election." But I'm pretty sure that Condi didn't say anything that absolute, because she's a diplomat, and smarter than that. I'd like to see a link to anywhere where she comes close to saying anything like that.

Rummy thinks about torture differently than you do and judging from what you've said about it (which is admittedly, not much) I probably do to. I don't think anyone should be cut up, beaten to near death, or starved or drugged or anything like that...I don't mind messing around with lights, and music, and other things similar to that. No one is going to die because I change their sleep schedule, at least not without a lot of warning. I also think that torture is different in every case. I would never condone the least bit of torture against (god forbid this ever happens) someone like the French, cause I know they're not going to be torturing my troops at all. I would even not condone the above situations at all, we've both signed the Geneva conventions, and neither side would have violated them, so anything is out of the playing field. However, the people we are currently incarcerating are not playing by the same rules we are. They have no compunctions about torturing our soldiers, and they seem to view it as part of their duty when they capture someone, and they also seem to be beheading a bunch of the people they capture. So I'm not exactly afraid of the retaliation, since it's our turn to be retaliating. The people we're catching are also not soldiers in uniform...which you may think is a small thing, but you need to think again. Putting on a uniform is saying to your enemy "I'm a target, shoot me, not these civilians around me" If you don't put on a uniform, you are not defending your fellow countrymen like you should be...this should be discouraged by the people you say you're trying to protect...but it also means that you are giving up on the protections that would be given to a soldier who is captured. Look to history for examples of this, in WWII, an American spy found in Germany out of uniform lost the protections of the Geneva Convention...and American prisoners in Japanese hands had a horrible survival rate...something like 20%...and we had both signed the convention.
So, in the end, Rummy is correct in saying that he did not ask for torture...but he was referring to the kind of torture that Saddam habitually used, the application of electrical wires and water to uncomfortable places, the removal of extremities and that sort of thing...he was not saying that he had never asked for aggressive interrogation techniques. And to me, that is a completely different thing.

( Update: here is an example of what the UN thinks of as torture...)
So, you may not agree with the things that Bush and that crowd say, but it's wrong for you to say they were lying. It's also sophomoric to give examples without providing a link or context. Any of these quotes could have been taken from anytime and anywhere, we don't know. A link is very easy to make, and you should use it if you need outside evidence, rather than transcribing from your own head. I can assure you that if we both watched the same press conference, we would take very different things from what was said...and we don't even disagree that much on most things...imagine what someone from the bushitler crowd would hear every time he opens his mouth!