Obama is no dummy. With the recent Pelosi drama I bet money her, Obama and other Democrats will put this debate behind them very fast. I expect this to go away from the news headlines in about two weeks.
That supposes that Obama and Pelosi were ever the ones raising this debate, or that they are some how the masters of it.
Newsflash - opposition to torture is not a partisan game of revenge, it's opposition to torture.
Indeed, the loudest voice that I know of against it is probably Sullivan, and while I know the Republican party has cast him out, dude is conservative.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Why are you folks honestly wasting your time with this? The guy clearly doesn't read or doesn't get it, so the most viable explanation remaining is that you all like to see your own words.
Why are you folks honestly wasting your time with this? The guy clearly doesn't read or doesn't get it, so the most viable explanation remaining is that you all like to see your own words.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
This is a new kind of war so I suggest the government make new laws to deal with this. They can start by making EIT fully legal on those caught on the battlefield.
This isn't a new kind of war. Counter Insurgency is just the bullshit euphemism for Colonial Warfare. It's been around for a very long time, we are just taking our turn at it.
And also a very large percent (I won't say what percentage since I don't have the figures handy) of the prisoners that we have tortured didn't come from the battlefield. We got them by paying off scumbag mercenary criminals.
Sigh, same old thinking from new, theoretically less pansy Democrats (from This Week this morning):
ON TRUTH COMMISSION
STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s the irony here , Senator Webb, as Speaker Gingrich says, investigate. He wants a separate House investigation. Speaker Pelosi says, fine, let’s have a truth commission, the one that Senator Kyl doesn’t want. Where do you stand on this?
WEBB: I just don’t think it’s that big a deal. [...]
STEPHANOPOULOS: So, no truth commission?
WEBB: I think this will resolve itself without something like that.
ON RELEASING NON-DANGEROUS UIGHURS
STEPHANOPOULOS: I know there are about 17, I believe, Chinese Uighurs, they are called, who have been ordered released by a federal court, they’ve determined not to be a threat to the United States. And the administration has been working on plans to bring them to Virginia. Can you accept them in your state?
WEBB: Well, let me back up for a minute. The answer is no. No.
ON CLOSING GUANTANAMO
WEBB: We spend hundreds of millions of dollars building an appropriate facility with all security precautions in Guantanamo to try these cases. … I do not believe they should be tried in the United States. … We should, at the right time, close Guantanamo. But I don’t think that it should be closed, and in terms of transferring people here.
The hissy fits worked.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited May 2009
Eh, it's just one junior Democratic Senator. I don't see this as terribly indicative of the party waffling as a whole.
Except Webb flipped on Guantanamo I know for sure, and I *think* on the Uighurs. The truth commission I don't think I've ever seen anything. And he's one of the Democrats who are conventionally seen as strong on national security and if he's running scared of the hissy fits. Sigh.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited May 2009
And to balance Webb's waffling you have Maureen Dowd coming out against the President's 'looking forward' position. I'm willing to bet money we're just seeing signs of the Dems/liberals still debating internally over how to act uniformly, and so you're seeing occasional vents of one position or another.
This is a new kind of war so I suggest the government make new laws to deal with this. They can start by making EIT fully legal on those caught on the battlefield.
This isn't a new kind of war. Counter Insurgency is just the bullshit euphemism for Colonial Warfare. It's been around for a very long time, we are just taking our turn at it.
And also a very large percent (I won't say what percentage since I don't have the figures handy) of the prisoners that we have tortured didn't come from the battlefield. We got them by paying off scumbag mercenary criminals.
We've been taking our turn at it for a while. Ignoring many nations in Latin America briefly, turn your attention to the brutal suppression of the Philippines, something that we're still not completely clear on as a nation.
This is a new kind of war so I suggest the government make new laws to deal with this. They can start by making EIT fully legal on those caught on the battlefield.
This isn't a new kind of war. Counter Insurgency is just the bullshit euphemism for Colonial Warfare. It's been around for a very long time, we are just taking our turn at it.
And also a very large percent (I won't say what percentage since I don't have the figures handy) of the prisoners that we have tortured didn't come from the battlefield. We got them by paying off scumbag mercenary criminals.
We've been taking our turn at it for a while. Ignoring many nations in Latin America briefly, turn your attention to the brutal suppression of the Philippines, something that we're still not completely clear on as a nation.
Yeah, we've been an imperial power since at least the 1890s, hell, TR explicitly pushed for imperialism. We've had an actual for real globe spanning empire for 60 years. This is more the death throes than the birth pangs.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
This is a new kind of war so I suggest the government make new laws to deal with this. They can start by making EIT fully legal on those caught on the battlefield.
This isn't a new kind of war. Counter Insurgency is just the bullshit euphemism for Colonial Warfare. It's been around for a very long time, we are just taking our turn at it.
And also a very large percent (I won't say what percentage since I don't have the figures handy) of the prisoners that we have tortured didn't come from the battlefield. We got them by paying off scumbag mercenary criminals.
We've been taking our turn at it for a while. Ignoring many nations in Latin America briefly, turn your attention to the brutal suppression of the Philippines, something that we're still not completely clear on as a nation.
Yeah, we've been an imperial power since at least the 1890s, hell, TR explicitly pushed for imperialism. We've had an actual for real globe spanning empire for 60 years. This is more the death throes than the birth pangs.
I was speaking more in reference to the centuries of Colonial Warfare as practiced by the European powers. We're relatively new at it, compared to the English, French and the rest of that gang.
This is a new kind of war so I suggest the government make new laws to deal with this. They can start by making EIT fully legal on those caught on the battlefield.
This isn't a new kind of war. Counter Insurgency is just the bullshit euphemism for Colonial Warfare. It's been around for a very long time, we are just taking our turn at it.
And also a very large percent (I won't say what percentage since I don't have the figures handy) of the prisoners that we have tortured didn't come from the battlefield. We got them by paying off scumbag mercenary criminals.
We've been taking our turn at it for a while. Ignoring many nations in Latin America briefly, turn your attention to the brutal suppression of the Philippines, something that we're still not completely clear on as a nation.
Yeah, we've been an imperial power since at least the 1890s, hell, TR explicitly pushed for imperialism. We've had an actual for real globe spanning empire for 60 years. This is more the death throes than the birth pangs.
I was speaking more in reference to the centuries of Colonial Warfare as practiced by the European powers. We're relatively new at it, compared to the English, French and the rest of that gang.
Eh, the Phillipino resistance and Vietnam are basically the same idea.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I think we need a softer word than imperialism to describe the US. I guess you can call us cultural imperialists.
I didn't know culture killed the Vietnamese and the other killed liberating various countries using our military or protecting our interests by crushing regimes.
Imperialism doesn't mean going to war with other countries, it means for one country to have complete authority over another. And as far us the US goes, complete authority over other countries hasn't ever been a priority. But the spread of our way of life and beliefs has. And yes we killed all those Vietnamese people with the hope that the end result would be the survivors adopting our way of life and our beliefs.
I know this is a terrible thing to say, but if the Republicans have one thing going for them it's that they know how to unify. I know that the Democrats all have different opinions on certain issues and that's a really good thing -- diversity of thought and all that. They can still have their opinions, but I wish they would shit or get off the pot.
I'd obviously prefer they all align themselves with investigations, since it doesn't take any party unity to overcome inaction.
They can unify and be obstructionist, but I'm not seeing a lot of ideological unity from them right now, unless purging the moderates so that everyone who's left has the same ideas counts as a step towards unity.
I think we need a softer word than imperialism to describe the US. I guess you can call us cultural imperialists.
I have no shame about us trying to spread our way of life to other countries, it's a question of how we do it that concerns me.
The problem comes that, in implementation, spreading the American way of life frequently means suppressing or exterminating the existing way of life (let's face it, the American way of life is, well, big). And that's ignoring that other, weaker but still sovereign countries have a variety of reasons for not wanting us to spread our way of life (from "You are evil. There." to "Actually, we'd much prefer avoiding certain aspects of American life, as crazy as this might sound to you.").
It's basically a case of "America doesn't take 'no' for an an answer." In complete fairness, we're hardly the first country to do that either, and our global domination is actually less cultural and more military and economic than previous world-spanning empires.
That doesn't change the fact that we've practiced (and in many respects, still practice) imperialism. You can call it cultural imperialism, but there's still the economic imperialism and military imperialism too. And it's not always bad either (look at the Marshall Plan).
We've got info from Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff of the Department of State during the term of Secretary of State Colin Powell:
Last night I was on Rachel Maddow's show on MSNBC at the top of the hour. But before I came on, through the earpiece I listened to the five minutes that Rachel sketched as a lead-in. Most of it was videotape from the last few days of former Vice President Dick Cheney extolling the virtues of harsh interrogation, torture, and his leadership. I had heard some of it earlier of course but not all of it and not in such a tightly-packed package.
Let's just say that five minutes of the Sith Lord was stunningly inaccurate.
So, when I got home last night, I thought long and hard about what I knew at this point in my investigations with respect to the former VP's office. Here it is.
First, more Americans were killed by terrorists on Cheney's watch than on any other leader's watch in US history. So his constant claim that no Americans were killed in the "seven and a half years" after 9/11 of his vice presidency takes on a new texture when one considers that fact. And it is a fact.
There was absolutely no policy priority attributed to al-Qa'ida by the Cheney-Bush administration in the months before 9/11. Counterterrorism czar Dick Clarke's position was downgraded, al-Qa'ida was put in the background so as to emphasize Iraq, and the policy priorities were lowering taxes, abrogating the ABM Treaty and building ballistic missile defenses.
Second, the fact no attack has occurred on U.S. soil since 9/11--much touted by Cheney--is due almost entirely to the nation's having deployed over 200,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and not to "the Cheney method of interrogation."
Those troops have kept al-Qa'ida at bay, killed many of them, and certainly "fixed" them, as we say in military jargon. Plus, sadly enough, those 200,000 troops present a far more lucrative and close proximity target for al-Qa'ida than the United States homeland. Testimony to that fact is clear: almost 5,000 American troops have died, more Americans than died on 9/11. Of course, they are the type of Americans for whom Cheney hasn't much use as he declared rather dramatically when he achieved no less than five draft deferments during the Vietnam War.
Third--and here comes the blistering fact--when Cheney claims that if President Obama stops "the Cheney method of interrogation and torture", the nation will be in danger, he is perverting the facts once again. But in a very ironic way.
My investigations have revealed to me--vividly and clearly--that once the Abu Ghraib photographs were made public in the Spring of 2004, the CIA, its contractors, and everyone else involved in administering "the Cheney methods of interrogation", simply shut down. Nada. Nothing. No torture or harsh techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator. Period. People were too frightened by what might happen to them if they continued.
What I am saying is that no torture or harsh interrogation techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator for the entire second term of Cheney-Bush, 2005-2009. So, if we are to believe the protestations of Dick Cheney, that Obama's having shut down the "Cheney interrogation methods" will endanger the nation, what are we to say to Dick Cheney for having endangered the nation for the last four years of his vice presidency?
Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002--well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion--its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa'ida.
So furious was this effort that on one particular detainee, even when the interrogation team had reported to Cheney's office that their detainee "was compliant" (meaning the team recommended no more torture), the VP's office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods. The detainee had not revealed any al-Qa'ida-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, "revealed" such contacts. Of course later we learned that al-Libi revealed these contacts only to get the torture to stop.
There in fact were no such contacts. (Incidentally, al-Libi just "committed suicide" in Libya. Interestingly, several U.S. lawyers working with tortured detainees were attempting to get the Libyan government to allow them to interview al-Libi....)
Less important but still busting my chops as a Republican, is the damage that the Sith Lord Cheney is doing to my political party.
He and Rush Limbaugh seem to be its leaders now. Lindsay Graham, John McCain, John Boehner, and all other Republicans of note seem to be either so enamored of Cheney-Limbaugh (or fearful of them?) or, on the other hand, so appalled by them, that the cat has their tongues. And meanwhile fewer Americans identify as Republicans than at any time since WWII. We're at 21% and falling--right in line with the number of cranks, reprobates, and loonies in the country.
When will we hear from those in my party who give a damn about their country and about the party of Lincoln?
When will someone of stature tell Dick Cheney that enough is enough? Go home. Spend your 70 million. Luxuriate in your Eastern Shore mansion. Shoot quail with your friends--and your friends.
Stay out of our way as we try to repair the extensive damage you've done--to the country and to its Republican Party.
I think we need a softer word than imperialism to describe the US. I guess you can call us cultural imperialists.
I have no shame about us trying to spread our way of life to other countries, it's a question of how we do it that concerns me.
The problem comes that, in implementation, spreading the American way of life frequently means suppressing or exterminating the existing way of life (let's face it, the American way of life is, well, big). And that's ignoring that other, weaker but still sovereign countries have a variety of reasons for not wanting us to spread our way of life (from "You are evil. There." to "Actually, we'd much prefer avoiding certain aspects of American life, as crazy as this might sound to you.").
It's basically a case of "America doesn't take 'no' for an an answer." In complete fairness, we're hardly the first country to do that either, and our global domination is actually less cultural and more military and economic than previous world-spanning empires.
That doesn't change the fact that we've practiced (and in many respects, still practice) imperialism. You can call it cultural imperialism, but there's still the economic imperialism and military imperialism too. And it's not always bad either (look at the Marshall Plan).
Imperialism is an end, not a means. It's the definition of our state of being, not how we achieve it. And calling us a military empire is just redundant, what empire hasn't been militaristic. It doesn't make any sense. Obviously we're militaristic. But the point is that once we're done with our bombing and our subjugation of other countries, we really don't want to have complete authority over them like an empire would. We just want them to play by our rules. They can certainly piss us off within those rules, but we don't go to war over it. Hegemony seems to fit but we deal much more in influence than authority.
I guess the best description of us is a democratic hegemony. The elite can only exert direct authority on a global scale if the public sentiment is behind it, otherwise they must resort to more subtle means. And really, we're not that powerful. We can go 1v1 with any country, but we can't take on the whole world.
I think we need a softer word than imperialism to describe the US. I guess you can call us cultural imperialists.
I have no shame about us trying to spread our way of life to other countries, it's a question of how we do it that concerns me.
The problem comes that, in implementation, spreading the American way of life frequently means suppressing or exterminating the existing way of life (let's face it, the American way of life is, well, big). And that's ignoring that other, weaker but still sovereign countries have a variety of reasons for not wanting us to spread our way of life (from "You are evil. There." to "Actually, we'd much prefer avoiding certain aspects of American life, as crazy as this might sound to you.").
It's basically a case of "America doesn't take 'no' for an an answer." In complete fairness, we're hardly the first country to do that either, and our global domination is actually less cultural and more military and economic than previous world-spanning empires.
That doesn't change the fact that we've practiced (and in many respects, still practice) imperialism. You can call it cultural imperialism, but there's still the economic imperialism and military imperialism too. And it's not always bad either (look at the Marshall Plan).
Imperialism is an end, not a means. It's the definition of our state of being, not how we achieve it. And calling us a military empire is just redundant, what empire hasn't been militaristic. It doesn't make any sense. Obviously we're militaristic. But the point is that once we're done with our bombing and our subjugation of other countries, we really don't want to have complete authority over them like an empire would. We just want them to play by our rules. They can certainly piss us off within those rules, but we don't go to war over it. Hegemony seems to fit but we deal much more in influence than authority.
I guess the best description of us is a democratic hegemony. The elite can only exert direct authority on a global scale if the public sentiment is behind it, otherwise they must resort to more subtle means. And really, we're not that powerful. We can go 1v1 with any country, but we can't take on the whole world.
First, I think it's fairly clear that "we can't take on the whole world"--frankly, "wanting to take over the whole world" is not a requirement for an imperialist government. Really, the only 'power' requirement for imperialism is just barely enough force to exert on your neighbors--practically any nation that happens to be stronger than its neighbors can resort to colonial imperialism (and this is frequently how they become more powerful in the start). How America vs. The Rest of the World ends is pretty irrelevant.
There are plenty of times where we don't rely on 'subtle' influences--overthrowing governments and installing dictators is not a form of subtle suggestion. It wasn't subtle when the USSR did it in Eastern Europe, and it's not subtle when we do it in South America. To me, it's imperialism.
I personally find there's a very fine line between hegemony and imperialism, but that's just me--you say we only want the rest of the world to play by our rules, but that doesn't really change the fact that we've vigorously supported the overthrow of openly democratic governments simply because we disagreed with the results of democratic elections (Chile and Iran are two examples that come to mind).
Personally, that strikes me as much as "Do it our way, because we said so," as "Play by our rules, all right?". We deliberately shaped Cuba and the Philippines to our own choosing, often times at the point of a gun (or driving people into camps and letting them die en mass), though I'm not going to pretend to know how everyone responsible justified it. To me, that says colonial style imperialism, as much as Spain or Germany's behavior in the same time period. I guess you could call it "Hegemony with guns, bombs, and on occasion, mass murder."
But hey, that's just me, and now, we're drifting further off topic.
Sullivan is doing an interesting job of talking himself into things. It's the most plausible optimistic read I've seen thus far. Still think it's off and a more cynical take is probably accurate, but it's an interesting thought.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Ripp'd From Today's Headlines continues. See? What did I tell you. Not bleak or anything. Well, it's a little bleak. But it's not inaccurate.
As early as a week ago, I was set to bemoan the lack of demos recently, demos which would remind me that the PC is capable of more than acting as a WoW terminal. Then Freedom Force hit, then SWAT 4 which is also by Irrational, and just this morning Splinter Cell for the PC. If you've been having trouble tracking down that coverdisc, the demo is essentially the same content I referred to a couple days ago - Lighthouse. The Xbox version is already very pretty, but when you start creeping into the higher PC resolutions I think it's fair to say that you will be entering truly uncharted visual territory.
Humans have brought to my attention an interview with one Trip Hawkins, one where he claims that within five years Microsoft will own Nintendo. You can do your own research on the man and determine whether or not he is in possession of mighty powers of speculation or indeed something akin to prescience. I submit that he is not. I submit that he spends his day naked in a dunk-tank, and that from time to time a man throws a fish at him which he catches in his mouth. Check out his answer to this question:
With the next Xbox planned for release prior to Nintendo's and Sony's next systems, the cost of implementing a next-gen media format (HD-DVD or Blu-Ray) would be expensive. What do you think if Xbox 2 used the standard DVD format instead of high definition?
Personally, I don’t think this is an important distinction. But maybe some early adopters will care about this and at least initially sway market share. HD will only be relevant in the long run if applications like football use it effectively to enable you to see more of the field. But I think the players are already on information overload as it is.
Alright? So he doesn't even understand what question is being asked. As for the Nintendo thing, I mean, they're an extremely proud company. They're not going to sell to an American corporation because fucking Trip Hawkins says so. They didn't come out on top of this generation - in America or Europe, at any rate - but they're hardly destitute. They're not up to their elbows in the couch trying to scratch together some yens.
You might recall that I enjoyed Massive Assault a great deal, once I was able work out the disagreements it had with my system. The sequel just went gold, and hits stores on the 28th. It was called "Phantom Renaissance" up until they got a publisher, who decided to go with the less the somewhat less spectral Domination. I'm curious to see how it is going to pan out. The original game had two sides which were essentially "palette swaps" in terms of their functionality, the sequel distinguishes the sides and adds what looks like "General" characters you can customize with unique bonuses. Hmm. One of the things I liked about the first one, though this probably puts me in the minority, was that there was a very raw numerical symmetry between the sides. Well, that, and it used the hexes. Sweet hexes.
Posts
That supposes that Obama and Pelosi were ever the ones raising this debate, or that they are some how the masters of it.
Newsflash - opposition to torture is not a partisan game of revenge, it's opposition to torture.
This isn't a new kind of war. Counter Insurgency is just the bullshit euphemism for Colonial Warfare. It's been around for a very long time, we are just taking our turn at it.
And also a very large percent (I won't say what percentage since I don't have the figures handy) of the prisoners that we have tortured didn't come from the battlefield. We got them by paying off scumbag mercenary criminals.
The hissy fits worked.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
We've been taking our turn at it for a while. Ignoring many nations in Latin America briefly, turn your attention to the brutal suppression of the Philippines, something that we're still not completely clear on as a nation.
Yeah, we've been an imperial power since at least the 1890s, hell, TR explicitly pushed for imperialism. We've had an actual for real globe spanning empire for 60 years. This is more the death throes than the birth pangs.
I was speaking more in reference to the centuries of Colonial Warfare as practiced by the European powers. We're relatively new at it, compared to the English, French and the rest of that gang.
Eh, the Phillipino resistance and Vietnam are basically the same idea.
I have no shame about us trying to spread our way of life to other countries, it's a question of how we do it that concerns me.
I'd obviously prefer they all align themselves with investigations, since it doesn't take any party unity to overcome inaction.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
The problem comes that, in implementation, spreading the American way of life frequently means suppressing or exterminating the existing way of life (let's face it, the American way of life is, well, big). And that's ignoring that other, weaker but still sovereign countries have a variety of reasons for not wanting us to spread our way of life (from "You are evil. There." to "Actually, we'd much prefer avoiding certain aspects of American life, as crazy as this might sound to you.").
It's basically a case of "America doesn't take 'no' for an an answer." In complete fairness, we're hardly the first country to do that either, and our global domination is actually less cultural and more military and economic than previous world-spanning empires.
That doesn't change the fact that we've practiced (and in many respects, still practice) imperialism. You can call it cultural imperialism, but there's still the economic imperialism and military imperialism too. And it's not always bad either (look at the Marshall Plan).
What you're looking for is 'hegemony.' Which is what we are; a Hegemon, not an Empire.
This is why I hope the Republicans never win an election ever again, because we will never hear from these people nearly as much as we do now.
e: And that quote got a +24 "thumbs up" on yahoo news.
I guess the best description of us is a democratic hegemony. The elite can only exert direct authority on a global scale if the public sentiment is behind it, otherwise they must resort to more subtle means. And really, we're not that powerful. We can go 1v1 with any country, but we can't take on the whole world.
But if it was just "pouring water on someone's face" how would that be an "enhanced interrogation method"?
Maybe it was really, really cold water. They didn't want to catch the flu... The Swine flu.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
edit: re Hoz
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
First, I think it's fairly clear that "we can't take on the whole world"--frankly, "wanting to take over the whole world" is not a requirement for an imperialist government. Really, the only 'power' requirement for imperialism is just barely enough force to exert on your neighbors--practically any nation that happens to be stronger than its neighbors can resort to colonial imperialism (and this is frequently how they become more powerful in the start). How America vs. The Rest of the World ends is pretty irrelevant.
There are plenty of times where we don't rely on 'subtle' influences--overthrowing governments and installing dictators is not a form of subtle suggestion. It wasn't subtle when the USSR did it in Eastern Europe, and it's not subtle when we do it in South America. To me, it's imperialism.
I personally find there's a very fine line between hegemony and imperialism, but that's just me--you say we only want the rest of the world to play by our rules, but that doesn't really change the fact that we've vigorously supported the overthrow of openly democratic governments simply because we disagreed with the results of democratic elections (Chile and Iran are two examples that come to mind).
Personally, that strikes me as much as "Do it our way, because we said so," as "Play by our rules, all right?". We deliberately shaped Cuba and the Philippines to our own choosing, often times at the point of a gun (or driving people into camps and letting them die en mass), though I'm not going to pretend to know how everyone responsible justified it. To me, that says colonial style imperialism, as much as Spain or Germany's behavior in the same time period. I guess you could call it "Hegemony with guns, bombs, and on occasion, mass murder."
But hey, that's just me, and now, we're drifting further off topic.
Id rather be aborted than waterboarded. Probably less painful.
It is just one of the few things the xkcd guy got right.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
This being the other thing: