Iraq is preventing the U.S. from deploying more troops the the theater of operations where the people who actually brought us 9/11 reside. Thanks to Iraq, we might actually lose in the one theater were we had the legal and moral right to conduct operations.

Thank you President Bush for being such a complete screw up.

So to the support by both the Republicans and Democrats for the war on drugs gives direct “aid and comfort” to the Taliban.

OPIUM AND AFGHANISTAN: REASSESSING U.S. COUNTERNARCOTICS STRATEGY
John A. Glaze
October 2007
For the U.S. Army War College
http://www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil/

“..an estimated 70 percent of the Taliban’s income now comes from protection money and the sale of opium.”
—

Traitors:Bush, Walters, McCain & Obama
http://aleftindependent.blogspot.com/2008/07/traitorsbush-walters-mccain-obama.html

#20 Paddy

Read It Again!

“any call to indict the United States for torture is therefore a lame and diseased attempt to arrive at a moral equivalence between those who defend civilization and those who exploit its freedoms to hollow it out, and ultimately to bring it down. I myself do not trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint.”

“I myself do not trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint.”

And his very next words are…

“Against it, however, I call as my main witness…”

You clearly don’t understand what Hitchins is saying. He’s giving a point of view and then arguing against it. By saying he doesn’t trust anyone who doesn’t understand that viewpoint is not saying he agrees with it. No one can read that article and think that Hitchins is in agreement with the paragraph you quote. No one.

Except you.

(Or maybe you’re just fucking stupid. I suppose I could forgive the latter, but judging from your #19 post, you’re also a happily ignorant bigot, so maybe not.)

Hitchens then goes on to argue AGAINST that “analysis.” The next section after your quote is:

Against it, however, I call as my main witness Mr. Malcolm Nance. Mr. Nance is not what you call a bleeding heart. In fact, speaking of the coronary area, he has said that, in battlefield conditions, he “would personally cut bin Laden’s heart out with a plastic M.R.E. spoon.” He was to the fore on September 11, 2001, dealing with the burning nightmare in the debris of the Pentagon. He has been involved with the sere program since 1997. He speaks Arabic and has been on al-Qaeda’s tail since the early 1990s. His most recent book, The Terrorists of Iraq, is a highly potent analysis both of the jihadist threat in Mesopotamia and of the ways in which we have made its life easier. I passed one of the most dramatic evenings of my life listening to his cold but enraged denunciation of the adoption of waterboarding by the United States. The argument goes like this:

4. It opens a door that cannot be closed. Once you have posed the notorious “ticking bomb” question, and once you assume that you are in the right, what will you not do? Waterboarding not getting results fast enough? The terrorist’s clock still ticking? Well, then, bring on the thumbscrews and the pincers and the electrodes and the rack.

And the last paragraph in the article is:

Which returns us to my starting point, about the distinction between training for something and training to resist it. One used to be told—and surely with truth—that the lethal fanatics of al-Qaeda were schooled to lie, and instructed to claim that they had been tortured and maltreated whether they had been tortured and maltreated or not. Did we notice what a frontier we had crossed when we admitted and even proclaimed that their stories might in fact be true? I had only a very slight encounter on that frontier, but I still wish that my experience were the only way in which the words “waterboard” and “American” could be mentioned in the same (gasping and sobbing) breath.

You know, I’m done with you, Paddy. I often enjoy arguing with people I disagree with because I frequently learn something in the process. But with someone as dishonest and bigoted as you are, I might as well argue with a barking dog.

Adios, Amoeba!

If you’re not man enough to admit the flaw in that particular part of your reasoning, why don’t you just go over to Little Green Footballs or Free Republic, where one isn’t judged on the basis of intellectual arguments, but rather ideological loyalty?

“any call to indict the United States for torture is therefore a lame and diseased attempt to arrive at a moral equivalence between those who defend civilization and those who exploit its freedoms to hollow it out, and ultimately to bring it down. I myself do not trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint.”

“I myself do not trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint.”

Can we twist those words to mean something else?

This isn’t surprising.

No need to yell. I didn’t say that. I said that there were plenty of military folks who think we’ll never win in Iraq and/or Afghanistan and that, by your logic, they must want the terrorists to win. So, if you stop saying that having a different opinion of our chances for victory in Iraq means you want the terrorists to win, I’ll stop reminding you of just how stupid that sentiment is.

There is a silent respect for Bush in this country from people that understand what must be done. We understand that life aint no fucking city council meeting.

Wow, you are hard core! If they respect Bush, I’d imagine they’re silent because they’re embarrassed. And if it’s “what must be done,” why don’t you go do it?

And I also think we’re losing in Afghanistan. Do you mean to tell me that because I have this belief that I’m not patriotic or devoted to my country? I dedicated 10 long, hard years to my country, which is much more than most people can say.

That is damning! It must send a chill down your linguini spines to hear Hitch say that. Hitch is cool to you guys because he hates the Pope and Ronald Reagan. Plus he’s a Euro, or close to it, so he’s extra cool.

This hollowing out freedoms is exactly what the World left has been trying to do for the last 40 years or so. Socialism can not survive unless we take away peoples choice not to participate.

The U.S. problem in both Iraq and Afghanistan is that
we have not brought that reality to our enemies. We’ve
become too concerned about ROE and forgot that there
are no second place winners in combat.

Bringing the reality of war to our enemies means, as Gen. George Patton said, allowing the other fellow to die for his country. As soon as possible and in as large numbers as needed to totally eliminate his ability to fight.

Again, this is simplistic and, forgive me, juvenile thinking. There are lots and lots of military folks who believe that we are not winning and CANNOT win in either country. Are you going to tell them that they want the terrorists to win? Is it possible that people who love their country and only want the best for it think that the best thing to do is leave Iraq and focus on Afghanistan or even leave both countries?

What if someone accused you of wanting more service men and women to die in those countries since you obviously can’t see the “reality” that we can’t win? Well, that would be a rotten thing to say. People who love their country can have differing opinions on the best thing for the country and even on things like military progress in a war-zone.

In reality the US is winning both wars, at the same time. When people refuse to acknowledge this simple reality one has to wonder why. It is natural to think it is because people don’t want the US to win. Otherwise why fight reality so hard?

Your dishonesty is appalling. You have selectively withdrawn a quote from Hitchens’ recent article which he clearly states he is expressing two arguments (in their strongest form) about whether waterboarding constitutes torture, and whether or not the US should engage in it, and represented it as his actual position. It’s telling that you snipped “On this analysis,” from before “any call to indict…”, because then Hitchens expresses a contrary position in the next paragraph.

The previous part of the snipped out paragraph contrasts waterboarding to “real torture,” and implicitly assumes the justice and morality of certain goals (the US military’s), and the injustice and immoraltuy of other goals (Al Queda’s, the Iraqi insurgents, etc). And then Hitchens takes a crack at the alternative argument.

For what it’s worth, he comes out agreeing that waterboarding IS torture, AND that the US should not be engaged in it.

Anyone interested enough should read the whole thing for themselves:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808?printable=true&currentPage=all

To suggest that critics of the war want the terrorists to win is to lower yourself to a junior-high school level of discourse. There are plenty of active and retired servicemen who are extremely critical of this administration’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think they want the enemy to win? Really?