Rice comes up with a plan to prevent rape in the Sudan

[hifi]

"All that's needed for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing."

It's the war cry of the neocons along with anything to do with WWII. That and 'OMG are you an appeaser!?!?"

Thankfully, for the most part thinking people have prevailed over emotional rhetoric. It's not in our best interest to get involved in entangling alliances or foreign affairs. We've become the nanny of the world. And we're paying for it too..

We've long forgotten the lessons of WWI as well.

 

[spartacus2002]

"[America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from *liberty* to *force*.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit...."
-- President John Quincy Adams's Fourth of July oration, 1821

If SecState wants to decry what's going on in Sudan, and wants to exhort US citizens to give to Docs Without Borders, Amnesty Intl, Oxfam, etc., good for her. However, what good does it do to embroil the US in Sudan's internal civil strife when it puts 290 Million American Citizens at risk of being targets for terrorism?

 

[BrokenPaw]

When asked that question, the victim is expected to say either that he has stopped beating his wife or he hasn't.
If he has, then he must have been beating his wife at some time in the past, no?
And yet if he hasn't stopped, then he must still beat his wife?
You notice that there's no quick and simple answer that expresses the idea "No, I never have beaten my wife and never will, you poopyhead!"

Don, the correct answer to this question is "mu". From the Jargon File:

mu /moo/

The correct answer to the classic trick question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?". Assuming that you have no wife or you have never beaten your wife, the answer "yes" is wrong because it implies that you used to beat your wife and then stopped, but "no" is worse because it suggests that you have one and are still beating her. According to various Discordians and Douglas Hofstadter the correct answer is usually "mu", a Japanese word alleged to mean "Your question cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions". Hackers tend to be sensitive to logical inadequacies in language, and many have adopted this suggestion with enthusiasm. The word `mu' is actually from Chinese, meaning `nothing'; it is used in mainstream Japanese in that sense, but native speakers do not recognize the Discordian question-denying use. It almost certainly derives from overgeneralization of the answer in the following well-known Rinzei Zen koan:

A monk asked Joshu, "Does a dog have the Buddha nature?" Joshu retorted, "Mu!"

In case you ever have to answer that question.

-BP

 

[roo_ster]

Please provide a single example in which she has disagreed with the official line (Dubya/Karl/Dick) and has voiced that disagreement.

A good administration will hash out its differences in private and present a united front. Also, personal loyalty might preclude her from undermining GWB's positions in public where the media and ohter administration opponents would use it as a club. Taking Rice to task for having the discretion to keep inter-administration debates private and for demonstrating loyalty is not a good way to bolster one's argument.

FWIW, Powell had no problem trying to kick GWB's legs out from under him. It showed:
1. He was not willing to be a team player
2. The Administration's objectives were not his
3. He did not have personal loyalty to GWB.
Powell's ethical option would have been to present his differences to GWB's face and offer his resignation if they could not has out an agreement.

It is absolute madness to believe that the US has the capacity to right every wrong and shine everywhere. Even the Sun shines on only half the Earth at a time. Making meaningless speeches of condemnation is the job of the UN impotents, rather than of USSoS. If the US have something to say, we should back it up.

Expressing disapproval of mass-murder and mass-rape is not a bad thing. If one has any sense of morality, it is the least one can do.

 

[roo_ster]

News flash: other people do not like the US meddling in their affairs, and it has created a backlash. Al-Qaeda is the result

Well, OBL listed, among other things, the loss of Al Andalus as one of his motivations for the founding of Al Queda.

Al Andalus: We know it as the Iberian Peninsula. We find Portugal and Spain there, today. It was a Christian state when the muslims overran & conquered it in the early 8th century. By the 15th century, the muslims were themselves run out.

You're telling me that the USA can avoid attacks by folks who hold against us (and all those in the West) actions and events that occurred over 500 years ago (nearly 300 years before the founding of the USA)...if only we were not "meddling in their affairs?"

I think you do not understand hte nature of our enemy. Or take them seriuosly enough to listen to what they say.

 

[CAnnoneer]

jfruser,

I am basing my criticism of Rice not just on what she has said (or failed to say) in public but also on what she has said (or failed to say) in the privacy of the cabinet. For details on this, please refer to "The Price of Loyalty" by Suskind about the former SoT Paul O'Neal. He gives a very good picture of what the discussions are like in the cabinet, where I am sure you would agree there is no need to hold back for the sake of public appearances.

The painted picture is one of abject incompetence and inability to produce healthy policy because the very process of policy-making is broken and replaced with subservience to Dubya and Dick. Another reason is that the presidential circles are highly saturated with political players and campaign strategists that only know how to win elections but know nothing about managing the biggest economy in the world and a superpower. The tragic consequences are all around us.

Quote: 1. He was not willing to be a team player

If you feel that a policy is wrong and your conscience rebels against it, what would you do? Goose-march along, or try to change things? By your logic, it is better to screw up the country rather than break ranks. What would be more useful for the American people?

Quote: 2. The Administration's objectives were not his

Who exactly is the administration? Isn't it all the cabinet members, including O'Neal and Powel? Are we equating the administration with Dubya alone? That stinks of dictatorship.

Quote: 3. He did not have personal loyalty to GWB.

What? Since when did personal loyalty to Dubya become a requirement for public service?? Hell, you and I should demand loyalty to the American people and their interests, not PERSONAL loyalty. This is just horrible!

For reference, many believe that the critical divide was passed in Nazi Germany when the army's oath of allegiance was switched from being vowed to Germany to being vowed PERSONALLY to the Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler. I am no pinko liberal but this parallel is just chilling!

What neocons do not understand is that aims do not justify means. Eroding the system of checks and balances now seems like a good idea to them because it makes the application of their power easier and because they feel they can control our moronic dictator. What they seem blinded to is that once the system is weakened enough, anyone in power would only grab more power, and if it so happens to be somebody other than them, they will be the ones on the business end of the monster they created.

 

[Control Group]

Who exactly is the administration? Isn't it all the cabinet members, including O'Neal and Powel? Are we equating the administration with Dubya alone? That stinks of dictatorship.

Huh? Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution: "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

He can delegate portions of his authority (with the advice and consent Senate as provided for in Article II, Section 2), but that doesn't stop him from being the final executive authority. The Constitution doesn't attempt to prevent dictatorship by making the President's discharge of executive duties dependent on a host of appointees, it attempts to prevent it by strictly curtailing what those executive duties and powers entail.

If you feel that a policy is wrong and your conscience rebels against it, what would you do? Goose-march along, or try to change things? By your logic, it is better to screw up the country rather than break ranks. What would be more useful for the American people?

Personally, if I felt that strongly about something I was asked to do in discharging my duties, I would resign my position. Otherwise, I'd better straighten up and fly right; it's my job.

The role of the Secretary of State is to act as a representative of the President's policies, and, by extension, as a representative of the body of the electorate. It is distinctly not the role of the Secretary of State to do whatever he or she feels like because he or she happens to think it's a good idea. This may seem like a neat thing for him or her to do when you happen to agree with whatever it is, but it may seem less neat when this unelected person acts in contravention to a policy you agree with and voted for.

Even in my much less glamorous role as a Systems Analyst, I don't get to decide what my company should be doing. If they decide to cut the fees to in-network providers for a D9110, I may think it's a bad idea, but I'd better change the fees to what they want them to be. If I don't think I can, in good conscience, do that, I'd better resign. It is completely outside the bounds of rationality that I should decide to do something else instead.

What? Since when did personal loyalty to Dubya become a requirement for public service??

Since when did being Secretary of State become public service? SecState is a political appointment, not an elected position. Since he or she isn't at all answerable to the public (can't be recalled, can't lose an election), he or she had damn well better follow the policies of the person who is.

Along the same lines, I don't think the Secret Service gets to decide which presidents are worth protecting and which aren't. It's their job to protect the person of the president, regardless of whether they think the country would be better off with him dead.

For reference, many believe that the critical divide was passed in Nazi Germany when the army's oath of allegiance was switched from being vowed to Germany to being vowed PERSONALLY to the Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler. I am no pinko liberal but this parallel is just chilling!

What parellel? The parallel of someone who is appointed by the President to execute his directives being expected to act in accordance with the President's policies? How is that even vaguely similar to the body of the US armed forces suddenly being sworn to the person of the President, rather than the Constitution?

What neocons do not understand is that aims do not justify means. Eroding the system of checks and balances now seems like a good idea to them because it makes the application of their power easier and because they feel they can control our moronic dictator. What they seem blinded to is that once the system is weakened enough, anyone in power would only grab more power, and if it so happens to be somebody other than them, they will be the ones on the business end of the monster they created.

As opposed to your modern liberals, who are, to a man - I mean, to a womyn - paragons of selfless virtue who would never stoop to the level of political power grabs. It's important to realize that Lord Acton's famous warning about power corrupting really only applies to "neocons."

 

[CAnnoneer]

Control Group,

Q: Since he or she isn't at all answerable to the public (can't be recalled, can't lose an election), he or she had damn well better follow the policies of the person who is.

On this one I disagree. Even if the letter of the law says she is not unaswerable, ethically she is. So long as she is paid by tax dollars, she works for the American people, including you and me. POTUS may be her direct boss, but her ultimate boss is we the people. If we try to replace commonsense ethics completely with letter of the law, one day we will wake up in a thoroughly twisted, evil, and grotesque society. Due to the efforts of lawyers and legislators we are heading there, but we are not there yet. Let's not get there.

Let's reverse the discussion and say that for whatever reason, maybe even without reason, I as POTUS decide to take the country to utter ruin. I start with a balanced cabinet following an electoral platform of a uniter. Then as my policies produce more and more damage and are shown to be single-minded and divisive, any opposition is dealt with by quiet resignations, as per your logic. By natural selection, I would be surrounded by yes-men (or yes-women) that are answerable only to me, rather than the good of the country. In esence, they are my vassals, paid for by the American taxpayer, but PERSONALLY loyal only to me.

I cannot be impeached because my party controls both the congress and senate, while the army is loyal to me as the leader of the free world. Meanwhile my policies lead to economic devastation and military overstretch that hurts the country's strategic position.

In your mind, is this an acceptable picture?


Q: As opposed to your modern liberals, who are, to a man - I mean, to a womyn - paragons of selfless virtue who would never stoop to the level of political power grabs. It's important to realize that Lord Acton's famous warning about power corrupting really only applies to "neocons."

So, by your logic, it is okay to power-grab because the opposition might do it too? That pretty much guarantees the demise of the system when both sides try to outdo each other in undermining it any time they get a chance. Again, is this acceptable to you?

 

[longrifleman]

I think you do not understand hte nature of our enemy. Or take them seriuosly enough to listen to what they say.

I've tried to listen and learn the motivations of our current enemies, and while it is true that the hatred goes deep, I've learned something else about human nature over the years. Talk is cheap. It takes a lot more than a historical grudge to motivate most people to get off their butts and kill. Or die.

When we meddle in their biddness and provide a huge amount of support for the govts that are oppressing them TODAY, we are furnishing the motivation necessary to get them off their keisters and studying chemistry. Not to mention killing family members brings the grudges up to date.

I have no illusions that quite a few of the jihadists will have to be killed, but going out of our way to make new enemies doesn't seem too wise in the long run.

We've long forgotten the lessons of WWI as well.

Ain't it the truth.

 

[Control Group]

Let's reverse the discussion and say that for whatever reason, maybe even without reason, I as POTUS decide to take the country to utter ruin. I start with a balanced cabinet following an electoral platform of a uniter. Then as my policies produce more and more damage and are shown to be single-minded and divisive, any opposition is dealt with by quiet resignations, as per your logic. By natural selection, I would be surrounded by yes-men (or yes-women) that are answerable only to me, rather than the good of the country. In esence, they are my vassals, paid for by the American taxpayer, but PERSONALLY loyal only to me.

I cannot be impeached because my party controls both the congress and senate, while the army is loyal to me as the leader of the free world. Meanwhile my policies lead to economic devastation and military overstretch that hurts the country's strategic position.

Quite frankly, this is a stretch in more ways than one, but I'll run with it. I see no problem with this scenario. Or rather, I see plenty of problems with it, but I'm not looking to the cabinet to fix it. I'm looking to the people responsible for reigning in presidential abuses of power: that is, the legislature. If you postulate a legislature so corrupt and/or complicit that they are unwilling to impeach a truly criminal president based solely on their matching party allegiance, I cannot believe that you expect more from a cabinet member who isn't even theoretically beholden to anyone but the President.

Moreover, in that scenario, how long do you suppose a cabinet member engaged in active opposition would continue being a cabinet member? There's nothing stopping the President from replacing cabinet members at will, after all (remember, with a completely complicit legislature, advice and consent don't mean much).

In other words, I don't see a cabinet member having either the theoretical responsibility, not the practical ability, to effectively overrule the president. And, frankly, I don't think any cabinet member should have the authority to overrule the elected president. After all, we elected him president, not that cabinet member.

On this one I disagree. Even if the letter of the law says she is not unaswerable, ethically she is. So long as she is paid by tax dollars, she works for the American people, including you and me. POTUS may be her direct boss, but her ultimate boss is we the people. If we try to replace commonsense ethics completely with letter of the law, one day we will wake up in a thoroughly twisted, evil, and grotesque society. Due to the efforts of lawyers and legislators we are heading there, but we are not there yet. Let's not get there.

No, we do need to rely on the letter of the law, because the alternative is far, far worse. I don't want the people my taxes pay for to just do whatever they feel is best, regardless of their legal duties, and that opinion stretches all the way up and down the line. I don't want a mail carrier to decide that he's not going to deliver mail to me because I own guns, and he thinks that's unethical. I don't want a cop in the old south not arresting people for crimes of violence against blacks because he doesn't agree with the new laws. I don't want the Secretary of Defense to decide that it's his moral responsibility to take out all them Ay-rabs after 9/11.

I want the people my tax dollars pay for to do what I tell them to, and I tell them to do things by voting people into or out of office. It is not the role of a political appointee to decide that the electorate, that the Constitution itself, is wrong in its delegations and curtailments of power, and seize for himself decision-making authority.

So, by your logic, it is okay to power-grab because the opposition might do it too? That pretty much guarantees the demise of the system when both sides try to outdo each other in undermining it any time they get a chance. Again, is this acceptable to you?

You missed my point completely. The offenses you named in the paragraph I quoted are committed by virtually every politician at all levels of government. This does not make them right, but it makes accusing the "neocons" of them more than slightly disingenuous. If for no other reason, singling out one group of people guilty of a crime exonerates by implication everyone else who is also guilty of it.

 

[Control Group]

Talk is cheap. It takes a lot more than a historical grudge to motivate most people to get off their butts and kill. Or die.

True, but the historical grudge often makes it possible for the one person (or group of people) who are willing to get off their butts to cajole others into doing the same.

You're right, historical transgressions and millenia-old grudges do not a war make. However, they do "prime the pump," as it were, and make a population ripe to be plucked by one firebrand with a completely different - and current - axe to grind.

 

[longrifleman]

one firebrand

One bullet.

axe to grind

Let's remove the sharp objects.





I do agree that the history makes it easier to motivate the footsoliders.

 

[Control Group]

One bullet.

I like the cut of your jib, sir!

 

[Matt G]

Just as an example, one of the most commonly-raped groups in Africa is young girls.

It seems that there's a persistent superstition ongoing throughout much of Africa that the cure for AIDS is to have sex with a virgin. Only way to be sure they're a virgin, these jerks believe, is to make sure she's too young to have acted consensually. And thus, a lot of pre-adolescent girls are raped and exposed to HIV.

This is the kind of thing that we can help address with a little education and some aid. Again, it's worth a shot, and makes no attack on the good people of Sudan.

 

[Mr Kablammo]

Why should you care? Because habits and methods of victimization learned on one continent can be transferred to another. Without a forward defense-a good offense- those habits and methods will be applied here in the CONUS.
Maybe not next year, maybe not next decade, but certainly by next century if we do not prevail in the GWOT.

 

[Art Eatman]

"...habits and methods of victimization learned on one continent can be transferred to another. Without a forward defense-a good offense- those habits and methods will be applied here in the CONUS. Maybe not next year, maybe not next decade, but certainly by next century if we do not prevail in the GWOT."

It's not a matter of events of the future. It's both past history and nowadays.

There have already been calls for Sharia to be allowed by the Canadian government, in two or three predominantly Islamic areas there. Same in England.

Santaria has been a problem in south Florida for quite a few years. I understand there has been some troubles with it up in New York, but I'm not calling that to be absolute fact.

Art

 

[klover]

Send heavy wall tubing, rubber bands, and toy cap guns.

With .22 ammo, and instructions on how to build a "ZIP" gun.

Much cheaper than Makarovs or AK's. For less than one million bucks, I bet the entire country could be packing.

 

[hifi]

Sudan Rape Victims Get Free Copy of UN Report

July 30, 2005

Sudan Rape Victims Get Free Copy of UN Report

by Scott Ott

(2005-07-29) -- In another display of the value of the United Nations, Secretary-General Kofi Annan today announced that women brutally raped by Sudanese government forces would each receive a free copy of the latest report documenting the widespread, savage abuse.

"It legitimizes their suffering and lets them know that they are not alone," said Mr. Annan, as he held aloft a copy of the 29-page report. "This is why the United Nations is so desperately needed in today's world. We will continue to take bold action in producing reports on the rape and abuse of Sudanese women. The U.N. exists to fearlessly monitor tragic violence against oppressed people by government forces in our U.N. member states."

One woman in Darfur, who had been sexually assaulted by an armed Sudanese law enforcement official while on an excursion to gather firewood, welcomed the free copy of the report.

"Perhaps I can use the paper to make fire," said the unnamed rape victim. "I only wish it was a much longer document so I wouldn't have to risk gathering wood again soon."
www.scrappleface.com

 

[hifi]

With .22 ammo, and instructions on how to build a "ZIP" gun.

Much cheaper than Makarovs or AK's. For less than one million bucks, I bet the entire country could be packing.

Airdrop those "Liberator" pistols.