http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/washington/17detain.html?ref=washington
http://mmartine.newsvine.com/_news/2006/09/16/364196-bush-aims-to-kill-war-crimes-act
http://PamelaDrew.newsvine.com/_news/2006/09/16/364273-extraordinary-rendition-torture-and-disappearances-in-the-war-on-terror
http://aine.newsvine.com/_news/2006/09/16/364630-alternative-cia-tactics-complicate-padilla-case
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/16/jonathan-turley-on-legal-implications-of-detainee-treatment-act/
Hard to conclude that they aren't just covering their rears, and at the cost of the constitution and the spirit of the founding. Does anyone find this acceptable?

It makes the homeland safer, thus it's good. Especially in the long run.

As long as I got plenty of chex mix and cell phone and direcTV service, im good.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/17/graham-nails-geneva-conventions-argument/
word, fuj.
I need chocolate-flavored licorice and my John Sterward multipass.

It seems to me like we will end up losing this war if this trend continues. A lot of nice people in the West are increasingly getting their voices heard on war issues and it has made it almost impossible to achieve or try to do anything anymore. Look at the recent Israel-Hizbollah war and how Israel took most of the blame even though Hiz killed 8 israeli soldiers, captured 2 more and launched 3000 katiouchas randomly into Israeli cities. There are no easy solutions to conflicts with determined enemies and wars unfortunately sometimes need to be fought. Our abhorrence of war has made us very demanding of our armed forces rules of engagement. Our soldiers shouldn't die or very few only, so we avoid taking too many risks and bomb from the air. But civilians shouldn't be harmed either, even if the enemy hides in heavily populated areas, schools and hospitals. Also captured combatants, who'd love nothing more than a 9/11 repeat should be treated nicely, and of course we expect the government to do everything possible to prevent an other terrorist attack. That's a lot of work, almost an impossible task and it sure is easier to observe and criticize everything that goes wrong than to propose reasonable alternatives toward the resolution of the problems.

Last edited: Sunday, September 17, 2006 at 5:54:51 PM

^Couldn't agree with you more, except for the fact that you are more polished than I with your post.
Good job.
KKB

I continually read these threads and amaze myself at some of your stances.. I find it amazing that you expect one side of a war to fight by "rules" while the other side fights with no rules.. You do not seem to hold others up to the same ideals you hold yourselves.. You think beheading of people including innocents is OK? This is not a form of torture?

Maybe that is the problem.. We in the west expect to fight a war by the rules.. Fight a war to win boys and girls or do not fight at all..

@Doc, please continue on with your stance...

What exactly do you mean when you say we should simply "fight a war to win"? Should there be any rules? Or do you use the enemies' rules as a least common denominator? Should we behead some of our prisoners in Gitmo? Should we kill more innocent, Iraqi civilians? Should we bomb mosques? Should we kidnap their journalists?

Please, I'm all ears and interested in the genius of your next statement. Maybe you can amaze us, the way we've amazed you. Perhaps next you can expand on your stance and suggest we should just nuke the whole middle-east.

Or, if you prefer to think about it a bit, maybe you could take the stance that we should be able, get this, to both occupy the moral high ground and win the war....

Or, is that too confusing, muddled and non-linear? Is there too little upside in that type of goal? Or, are you ignorant to the downside of simply fighting a war to win?

Please, continue to enlighten and amaze us, Doc, because we're a stupid lot and need to be corrected.

Last edited: Monday, September 18, 2006 at 11:08:54 AM

Its because we are americans that we must fight with honor.

You pieces of crap wouldnt understand what honor is, freakin
cakers.

And if you do understand what honor is than you know we cant
stoop to the level of those freakin low life bastards.

You all that support criminal acts of war should join the other
criminals.

Last edited: Monday, September 18, 2006 at 10:48:48 AM

@44

I am not anti war or anti US.. I do not really care why you are there. I actually think its a waste of time to debate.. I think its more important to discuss how you are going to solve the problem. You do remember vietnam right. Another war where the US lost.. And I might ad NOT because it was not militarily capable of winning.. The other side did not fight by the "rules" and unfortunately waited for US public opinion to change. As for "both occupy the moral high ground and win the war" I certianly hope you are not serious about this statement.. I am not sure I remember any war that was fought where the winning side did this.. I would be willing to listen thought if you can come up with one. For the record I do not think any of you are stupid. I just think some of the debates on here are pointless.

@Vash,

Wow.. Americans fight with honour.. (please not the PROPER spelling. Ahhahah) enough said on that.. Lol.. I think you misinterpreted my statement. I am not anti US.. I am not anti war.. I actually support what you are trying to do there.

^LOL

Just like a brit to be more worried about grammar above all else.

Brit.. Ahh the assumptions. Try again

^aww, forgot about canadian Independence Day.

@Vash,

How can you forget about us Canadians. I mean all you Americans wear our flags on your back when you travel around Europe.. Hahahaha

What's neat is the power of TV imagery: when a bunch of guys behead someone on TV, it counts as horrific, but the air bombing - untelevised, airborne and more or less undiscrimating - ok the air bombing campaign, that's legit, that's legit to bomb the crap out of people from 10,000'.

I fail to see what distinguish one murder from another.
I fail to see how we're gonna stop this killing by killing more people.

Seems the world is gonna turn into a big Arab-Israeli conflict, i.e. An eye for an eye, etc. A bomb for a bomb.

@Doc. Keep explaining, because I'm not getting your point. What type of war are you recommending we fight in order to "win"?

You believe we should be torturing POWs in order to win the war. Right? That's what you meant when you said "fight a war to win", correct? You believe we should not effort to obey the rules of the Geneva Convention, because our enemy is not doing likewise. Is that what you're saying?

Are you further saying that we lost the Vietnam War because we followed these "rules" and could have won had we done otherwise?

Please, continue explaining.

What would have you liked to have seen us do in Vietnam and which Geneva Convention articles do you believe we should now disregard?

Don't throw the responsibility for coming up with a solution back over the fence after you so quickly implied one of your own. Explain the solution you're proposing. Go ahead, I won't react too aggresively if you say we should 'nuke 'em' -- if you don't, KKB will.

Perhaps the pro-war crowd could remind me when the last war was. Do that, and I'm sure I'll feel safer.

@44..

I am still waiting for your example of "both occupy the moral high ground and win the war". Can you think of a single example?.

Olbermann on this moral highground, and what it means if we lose the very reason we are who we are.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/18/olbermann-the-president-of-the-united-states-owes-this-country-an-apology/

^Nice and flashy but he didn't have any substance in that shpeel.

There was substance.

@Doc. Are you trying to avoid having to finish your arguement? Sure seems like it.

Gulf War (1990 - 1991)

Now, can you please finish the arguement you began in your first post? What are you recommending we do with respect to the Geneva Conventions when you say, "We in the west expect to fight a war by the rules. Fight a war to win boys and girls or do not fight at all."?

Take a stance or get out of the ring.

Last edited: Monday, September 18, 2006 at 9:57:22 PM

Well my name isn't 44 (thankfully). But anyway, how about not starting the war in the first place?

@44

I think that is a bad example.

Clark, Ramsey. The Fire This Time: U.S. War Crimes in the Gulf. New York, Thunder's Mouth Press, 1992. 325 p.
Book call no.: 956.7043 C594f

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27c/063.html
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27c/067.html
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27c/069.html

The point I am trying to make is it is war.. Atrocities are committed by the very definition of war.

Not with weapons. Maybe with better ideas?

1) last things first. I agree entirely with that last statement. War is a shitty business, no? You shouldn't enter it lightly, because if you do it right, a whole bunch of people are going to die.

The point is that the right people die and for the right reasons. I think reasonable people would agree...but reasonable people would also agree that this is not the case in Iraq. Easy to conclude that it wasn't the right war at the right time. But why bother with conclusions? They are predicated on events having taken place....plenty of people tried to warn/inform the bush cabal years ago and in advance. Intelligence failure? Not so...intelligence gleaning. Contrary intelligence, and there was bushels of the stuff, was deliberately set aside.

2) but perhaps when you mention "war" you meant the "war on terror" aka: the war on a tactic. Its not just a semantically bankrupt statement, its a bankrupt idea. First, you don't fight a war on an idea. Second, you don't lump every dissident, or extremist be they sunni, shiite, or secular in as "the enemy in our war on terror." that makes no sense. Lastly, you don't declare a war that could conceivibly have no end. There have always been terrorists, and there always will be.

3) "fighting by the rules." versus what exactly? Full, unmitigated barbarity? Are you saying that that is how our boys fight? Complete unrestrained savagery? You are not saying that, unless you are an idiot. American forces bend over backwards to prevent collateral damage, I am convinced of that. There are rules of engagement: the question is one of where the line of permissible/inpermissible gets drawn (therefore your objection makes no sense). That discussion is tempered by the civility of the society that ultimately controls the war machine. We americans have considered ourselves to be the beacon of light to the rest of the world. Most of us would like to continue to try to live up to that ideal.

4) lets have a little fun with your language:

Which I'm sure was stated about 10,000,000 times by various and sundry of our whiter ancestors justifying the latest massacre, mass murder, raping and other beastialities suffered upon native americans. They scalp you, you just plain f@#% them up.

No, I know, the subject of the analogy is not analoguos. But the point stands: principles matter.

If that doesn't make sense to you, john mc cain's argument should: we don't torture them (ie we adhere to the geneva conventions regarding treatment civilized countries consider acceptable) because we don't want them to visit the same fate upon our boys. Aka: what goes around, comes around.

5) your amazement that others speak out. Are you amazed that others speak out at all? Or are you amazed that others have the temerity to question power? More likely you find it absurd and assanine and more than a little ironic that effete members of a liberal society defend the principles of the society to the point that they would demand the principles be extended to our enemies. There is a saying that a society will be judged by how it treats its enemies.

Make no mistake, we are being judged...and you can thank the omnipresent world media for that (this helps to explain why the numbers of insurgents in iraq has swollen so mightily...the cia has confirmed, as has military intelligence that our presence/conduct in iraq is al quada's greatest recruitment tool). Right now billions of disenfranchized, beat down people are watching our every move...formulating an impression regarding the conduct of the world's lone super power...

Touche! So unless you got the stomach for killing every one of them, you might espouse a different take on foreign policy.

Last edited: Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 8:03:37 PM

Ok 44... Ready fallacy logic books and you'll see a lot of what you do is bad illogical wise. You used the straw man fallacy where you made his argument and turned it into we should be evil and behead our prisoners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
these are sadly used a ton in todays politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_fallacy#Common_examples
I have to go to bed now.

Not to be overly pedantic, but I recommend at least a cursory acquaintance with the rules of grammar before admonishing someone regarding their method of argumentation.

But that's just me. BTW: just because the concepts of "strawman" and "fallacy" are new to you doesn't mean they are novel to us. No need to wiki us with them. High school - and college for that matter - was years ago. Punk :)

An apparently pro-fallacious--war post criticizing the logic of a person posting against the war because his comments are deemed " bad illogical wise."
Thanks for coming!

Torture? YES!! Look at what they've done to our soldiers... Brutally beaten beyond recognition. Look at the Goldberg kid, slowly beheaded as he screemed and gurgled in his own blood. THAT is torture.

No torture used by US in my book.
Sleep deprevation? Cold rooms? Give me a BREAK.
You guys look like a bunch of clowns. And yes you are the minority in your opinions about the war and this so called torture.

Hey Jacob. Thanks for the insight -- you must be smart! Can you help me with something else?

Tally and Stink have got me confused again and I suspect they're trying to insult me. Trouble is, I can't understand what they're saying in those last couple posts with words like "pedantic", "cursory" and "pro-fallacious". Help me out?

And, who uses words like those if they ain't making fun of you? Tally and Stink ain't nothing but a couple of know-it-alls, teasing me by using bad ironical sarcasm, right?

I'll bet you that's what it is...bad ironical sarcasm. I'll get them.

Last edited: Friday, September 22, 2006 at 8:30:49 AM

I wasn't saying what he said was wrong I was saying he shouldn't make up docs argument for him.

Jew / non-believer / unapologetic / think tanks.