NationStates Jolt Archive

To save the life of your own child?

I saw this article over on The Political Machine, and I think we need to discuss this. Too many people here seem to say, "we shouldn't stoop to their level because it makes us look bad". I disagree. Here's the article - I expect some spirited mudflinging...

Lets play a game.

Imagine you are sitting across the table from a person who has challenged you to a low stakes game of scrabble. You know this person to be a cheater, and someone who dislikes you and disapproves of your way of life, even though they aren't exactly a "nice person" either.

Still, you accept the challenge, and begin the game, knowing in your heart of hearts that you are a better player than they are, and are sure to win. Even though you are diligent, this person begins to cheat, subtly at first, then more brazenly, and finally begins to cheat openly, making no effort to conceal it. They are shifting letters, peeking when selecting new tiles, playing fake blanks, and padding their score with every turn.

You begin to lose the game in spite of being a better player, but you console yourself by adopting a morally superior stance, saying, " At least I'm not a cheater. I won't stoop to their level. I am a better person than that. If winning means so much to them, let them cheat, at least I will be able to sleep with a clear conscience tonight."

Yes, you are going to lose the game, but at least you can feel good about yourself, right? You are, after all, in the right, morally pure in every way.

You are also a loser.

Now, lets think of this on a global scale. America is currently in a quandry over issues like Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and what defines a POW. We fret and stress over the proper treatment of the Koran, we worry that our interrogation techniques are too harsh, we accuse our own soldiers of cold blooded murder for shooting a downed insurgent instead of rendering aid, we avoid targeting civilians whenever possible, and go through great pains to avoid damaging the enemies mosques and holy sites. We worry more about our opponents than we do ourselves, we want to be seen as the "good guys" no matter what it takes. We want to win, but we want our conscience clean when we do. We follow the rules, we take the moral high road. In our own minds, this makes us "better than them" regardless of the outcome.

Our opponent however, is a cheater. They break all the rules. They execute our prisoners on television so our enemies can laugh at their demise. They refuse to wear uniforms, making them indistinguishable from the civilians we try so hard to avoid in our attacks. They don't give a damn about our holy books, they arent even allowed in some of the nations these insurgents hail from, where their citizens can be imprisoned for even possessing one. They feign injury to lure our soldiers close enough to kill, and they turn their own mosques into arsenals and slaughterhouses. They care not for the rules because for them, winning is everything, and that alone justifies any means they use to bring their victory about.

Ahh, you say, but we are still the better people! If we resort to these tactics, we are no better than them! WE will play by the rules, and earn the world's RESPECT because we do!

Yeah, ok.

Lets go back to that scrabble game for a moment. Imagine it's no longer low stakes, that the price for losing will be your child's life.

Look at your babies now, and tell me you wouldnt cheat. Tell me that you would let them die for principal, to prove to yourself and anyone observing that YOU are the better person for not stooping to the cheater's level. Your baby may be dead, but your conscience is clear, right?

Of course, this is an easy route to take when its someone else's child over there in Iraq rather than your own, this stance of haughty moral superiority. But look at your own loved ones, and ask yourself if their lives are worth taking that moral high road over?

Hmm, I think most of you would be cheating as hard as you could, using every dirty trick your opponent does and THEN some. You would win, and you would be determined to win no matter what the cost to your own conscience.

Wouldnt you?

...Legs, you're sounding more and more like My Gun Not Yours with every passing day...

Ahh, you say, but we are still the better people! If we resort to these tactics, we are no better than them! WE will play by the rules, and earn the world's RESPECT because we do!

Yeah, ok.

Lets go back to that scrabble game for a moment. Imagine it's no longer low stakes, that the price for losing will be your child's life.

Look at your babies now, and tell me you wouldnt cheat. Tell me that you would let them die for principal, to prove to yourself and anyone observing that YOU are the better person for not stooping to the cheater's level. Your baby may be dead, but your conscience is clear, right?

Of course, this is an easy route to take when its someone else's child over there in Iraq rather than your own, this stance of haughty moral superiority. But look at your own loved ones, and ask yourself if their lives are worth taking that moral high road over?

Hmm, I think most of you would be cheating as hard as you could, using every dirty trick your opponent does and THEN some. You would win, and you would be determined to win no matter what the cost to your own conscience.

Wouldnt you?

You miss a crucial point here. The only way to win is to not cheat. In this game, if we cheat, the game never ends and more babies on both sides die.

I was gonna cheat anyway. But okay.

I still don't like the part where you imply that it's okay to destroy the Koran. I mean, as a kinda-sorta Muslim, that's just wrong. Leave the book alone man, it's done nothing to you.

I don't see how throwing urine on the koran would help anyone in Iraq...

You miss a crucial point here. The only way to win is to not cheat. In this game, if we cheat, the game never ends and more babies on both sides die.
How does it never end?

well if that is the case, then dont' get upset when an airplance comes crashing through a highrise cause they are only using whatever dirty trick then can....

Though, what we do in this era, in the start of this century, sets the stage for future world events.

Terrorism seems to be a thing that won't go away until some really big and nasty events later in the 21st century.

Alongside political questioning and moral questioning.

How does it never end?

We are fighting terrorism - an enemy borne out of hate. If we cheat - if we stoop to their level - all we are doing is increasing the chance that the people hate us enough to go to the terrorist camps. If we don't take the high ground, we will never be able to stop the terrorism we are fighting. We will be caught in the game forever, as more terrorists rise out of our last endeavors even more filled with hate and even more motivated to harm us.

...Legs, you're sounding more and more like My Gun Not Yours with every passing day...

I'm posting someone else's article as food for thought. It's from someone named "little_whip" over on www.politicalmachine.com

Not saying I agree with all of it, but I'm trying to understand just why people think that America is the "cause" of terrorism.

Having read translations of a lot of Osama's diatribes, and comparing them to 11th through 13th century Islamic treatises on jihad, it's quite clear that "they" see the only solution to their problem is the complete annihilation of Western culture and anyone who adheres to it. They have no reason to negotiate over it, will not surrender, will not stop.

Are we not supposed to interrogate anyone at all? The mere fact that you ask a detainee questions can be, by Amnesty International standards, a violation of human rights. No matter how nicely you ask, no matter how many witnesses are present.

well if that is the case, then dont' get upset when an airplance comes crashing through a highrise cause they are only using whatever dirty trick then can....

They already do that anyway - you've just made my point.

We are fighting terrorism - an enemy borne out of hate. If we cheat - if we stoop to their level - all we are doing is increasing the chance that the people hate us enough to go to the terrorist camps. If we don't take the high ground, we will never be able to stop the terrorism we are fighting. We will be caught in the game forever, as more terrorists rise out of our last endeavors even more filled with hate and even more motivated to harm us.

I believe that we possess the technical means to kill them faster than they can be recruited.

We are fighting terrorism - an enemy borne out of hate. If we cheat - if we stoop to their level - all we are doing is increasing the chance that the people hate us enough to go to the terrorist camps. If we don't take the high ground, we will never be able to stop the terrorism we are fighting. We will be caught in the game forever, as more terrorists rise out of our last endeavors even more filled with hate and even more motivated to harm us. Yes, that's absolutely right. Plus that it's arguable whether we need to, erm, behead them on live television or whatever. The British didn't convict suspects without trial even in the Second World War. (note I'm not talking POWs here)

Not saying I agree with all of it, but I'm trying to understand just why people think that America is the "cause" of terrorism.




This isn't America alone, but a problem of Imperialism. When you want to control the world and tell everyone what to do, yet dont' want to abide by the same rules.. people are only going to put up with that for so long.

We mess with everyone in the world, what do you expect ?

I believe that we possess the technical means to kill them faster than they can be recruited. Sorry to reopen old wounds, but you didn't possess the technical means to stop Communists in a primitive Asian country, otherwise known as Vietnam?

Surely it would be somewhat better to stop terrorism at the roots rather than just fighting a continual downward battle? If you want an example of retribution gone out of control, look no further than Israel and Palestine.

You miss a crucial point here. The only way to win is to not cheat. In this game, if we cheat, the game never ends and more babies on both sides die.

Dobbs has said it for me once again.


And to answer your question, WL, yes, this is a principle I would uphold, even if it meant the lives of my children. What would be the point of them living in a world where the only meanist, dirtiest, and most vile succeed?

Legs, this is starting to scare me. What is left to fight for if you become your enemy? All that is left to distinguish you from the terrorists is names, and that doesn't mean jack.

I would cheat at a scrabble game to save my childs life. That is a stupid question by the way.

I will not do horrible evil to beat the terrorists. The fact that you can compare cheating at a freaking game of scrabble to torturing prisoners, desecrating what they hold sacred, killing wantonly, etc, shows you are not thinking clearly. There is no comparison between the two, even if, and I stress if, the same stake - one's child - may be on the line.

You don't want the terrorists to win? I leave you with this advice -

Become the change you wish to see in the world. - Mohandas Gandhi

How does it never end?
It never will, no matter what you do.

But it most certainly can get worse. The more you oppress, the more you hate, the more you 'stoop'...the more the same things happen to you in return. One side needs to take the higher ground, or there IS no hope.

I believe that we possess the technical means to kill them faster than they can be recruited.

if you truely believe this, then you are no worse then Hitler because you are talking about genocide.

Yes, you are going to lose the game, but at least you can feel good about yourself, right? You are, after all, in the right, morally pure in every way.

You are also a loser.

Wait, whatever happened to the option of stopping the game, standing up, and saying "HEY WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE FUCKING CHEATING!"? That's what I would do.

Now, lets think of this on a global scale. America is currently in a quandry over issues like Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and what defines a POW. We fret and stress over the proper treatment of the Koran, we worry that our interrogation techniques are too harsh, we accuse our own soldiers of cold blooded murder for shooting a downed insurgent instead of rendering aid, we avoid targeting civilians whenever possible, and go through great pains to avoid damaging the enemies mosques and holy sites. We worry more about our opponents than we do ourselves, we want to be seen as the "good guys" no matter what it takes. We want to win, but we want our conscience clean when we do. We follow the rules, we take the moral high road. In our own minds, this makes us "better than them" regardless of the outcome.

Our opponent however, is a cheater. They break all the rules. They execute our prisoners on television so our enemies can laugh at their demise. They refuse to wear uniforms, making them indistinguishable from the civilians we try so hard to avoid in our attacks. They don't give a damn about our holy books, they arent even allowed in some of the nations these insurgents hail from, where their citizens can be imprisoned for even possessing one. They feign injury to lure our soldiers close enough to kill, and they turn their own mosques into arsenals and slaughterhouses. They care not for the rules because for them, winning is everything, and that alone justifies any means they use to bring their victory about.

Ahh, you say, but we are still the better people! If we resort to these tactics, we are no better than them! WE will play by the rules, and earn the world's RESPECT because we do!

Yeah, ok.

Fuck the world's respect -how about self respect by not DOING EXACTLY AS THE TERRORISTS DO?

The USA already did the equivalent of what I suggested - jumping up and down and shouting TERRORIST/cheater. That was well within our rights. We had the world's sympathy at that time.

But then we started cheating ourselves. So we come across as weak and hypocritical. This would be like me, after declaring my enemy a cheater, proceeding to cheat as well. Then we have what in NS roleplay circles is called a "godmod war" that ends with no victory, and both sides looking equally detestable.

Lets go back to that scrabble game for a moment. Imagine it's no longer low stakes, that the price for losing will be your child's life.

Now it's just silly. Who plays scrabble for the lives of children? You know WL, this makes me worry about you if you see it all as some sort of gambling game with children as the poker chips. Terrorists see it that same way.

Reminds me of that Nietzche quote. "He who fights monsters..."

Anyway.

Look at your babies now, and tell me you wouldnt cheat. Tell me that you would let them die for principal, to prove to yourself and anyone observing that YOU are the better person for not stooping to the cheater's level. Your baby may be dead, but your conscience is clear, right?

Of course, this is an easy route to take when its someone else's child over there in Iraq rather than your own, this stance of haughty moral superiority. But look at your own loved ones, and ask yourself if their lives are worth taking that moral high road over?

Hmm, I think most of you would be cheating as hard as you could, using every dirty trick your opponent does and THEN some. You would win, and you would be determined to win no matter what the cost to your own conscience.

Wouldnt you?

No. How would I win? We'd both be caught as cheaters. Some other guy would wind up winning.

Because in this case, the US is not a terrorist organization. It MUST be held to higher standards. It is a sovereign nation. If you accept that states should act like terrorists just because terrorists act like terrorists, you might as well throw away the entire concept of the United States along with it and replace it with just another terrorist organization, blowing up a bus full of kids because one of our bus filled with kids was blown up.

And in any case using the "well what if it was YOUR kid" emotive based argument is cheap, man. Even if it doesn't have any effect on me at all, since I hate kids.

Yes, that's absolutely right. Plus that it's arguable whether we need to, erm, behead them on live television or whatever. The British didn't convict suspects without trial even in the Second World War. (note I'm not talking POWs here)

I guess that explains the photos I have of UK troops executing German soldiers on the spot - without trial - because the German soldiers were not wearing the standard German uniform - they were wearing the new issue camouflage SS smocks - which the UK did not recognize as a valid German uniform.

Yes,I would gladly stoopp to that level, if not lower.
But there's a HUGE difference between me and say, the US. I don't claim to be the bastion of freedom and democracy, helping out with morales and values and trying to fight "terrorism".
In fact, I'm the opposite. I claim to be totalitarian, oppressive, and rude. I don't give a damn what terrorists think or do, and whatever "morales and values" anyone else thinks is right, because they're wrong.

If this article is asking why America shouldn;t stoop to this level, it's simple. Because America puts forth an image of itself that is the afformentioned "moral high ground", and advertises itself as such. It is what America is. Once the US drops that, it ceases to be America and turns to something worse. No longer can it claim to be the bastion of freedom, and no longer is it fighting terrorism, it IS terrorism.

Wait, whatever happened to the option of stopping the game, standing up, and saying "HEY WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE FUCKING CHEATING!"? That's what I would do.


We tried that. The majority of the world gave a rat's ass.

Actually, the terrorists recruit people quite easily, and far quicker than you can kill them. It's one thing to argue, "Well, this specific group of extremists will be targetted for detention (prior to their expulsion)," the only problem is where does it end?

To combat terrorism, certain nasty tricks need to be played. A nation can't come out of a "dirty war" looking spotless. At the same time, what it mustn't do is what had occurred in Latin America during the 1970s and 1980s (Chile, Argentine, Central America) when perfectly innocent people were targeted for torture and murder. It mustn't become like the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China with their gulags. European nations (Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, others) had to contend with terrorism since the 1960s and as such can be looked to for examples of what worked and what didn't.

I believe that we possess the technical means to kill them faster than they can be recruited.
You will create enemies out of allies if you do.

Think of it as guerrilla warfare on a global scale. Every time you 'crush' one cell, another rises.

If the US were to be as heavy handed as you suggest, I truly believe that even here in Canada, people would consider acts of terrorism against you.

Now consider the alternatives...what else could you possibly do that would avoid the mass slaughter you are suggesting, and still have the same result?

I guess that explains the photos I have of UK troops executing German soldiers on the spot - without trial - because the German soldiers were not wearing the standard German uniform - they were wearing the new issue camouflage SS smocks - which the UK did not recognize as a valid German uniform. Ahem. I said I wasn't talking about POWs, meaning not soldiers. I meant that the British government didn't have internment in WWII, which they're bringing in now.

The original post forgets one very important point... the US initiated this current game of scrabble in Iraq by spelling out "Weapons of Mass Destruction" without any spaces or vowels, and in a zig-zag pattern to cover extra triple-word and double-letter scores. Up until then, the US was winning a game in Afghanistan. That game has been left to lesser players without a dictionary, and now we're losing that one as well.

*sniappage*

And in any case using the "well what if it was YOUR kid" emotive based argument is cheap, man. Even if it doesn't have any effect on me at all, since I hate kids.
Santa Barbara...you are like a breath of fresh, but incredibly abrasive air...and I love it :fluffle:

I believe that we possess the technical means to kill them faster than they can be recruited.

There are two problems with this statement. First off, where does it stop? Do we keep killing until we have wiped out entire countries? Do you really think genocide is a good idea?

Second of all, terrorism doesn't work that way. You don't have to be recruited into an existing organization. Unless we get the people to trust us, more organizations will just spring up. We wipe out Al-quaida? Great! Oh shit, here comes a new organization in its wake. We wipe out that one? Great! Oh shit, now we have another new one... And a terrorist doesn't have to have an organization. You piss someone off enough, they'll simply pick up a gun and start making their own grenades and start attacking.

Let me ask you something. Suppose your family was killed or your innocent son who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time got tortured or even killed for information he didn't have. Would you not pick up a gun and go at the people who did it?

I guess that explains the photos I have of UK troops executing German soldiers on the spot - without trial - because the German soldiers were not wearing the standard German uniform - they were wearing the new issue camouflage SS smocks - which the UK did not recognize as a valid German uniform.
That was in response to German soldiers doing the same to Allied paratroopers because of Hitler's "commando orders," though being SS men didn't hurt -- there are also stories of American and Canadian soldiers doing the similar thing, in Normandy, but especially after the Battle of the Bulge.

You will create enemies out of allies if you do.

Think of it as guerrilla warfare on a global scale. Every time you 'crush' one cell, another rises.

If the US were to be as heavy handed as you suggest, I truly believe that even here in Canada, people would consider acts of terrorism against you.

Now consider the alternatives...what else could you possibly do that would avoid the mass slaughter you are suggesting, and still have the same result?

According to Osama's writings, and his fellows at al-Q, the only way to avoid mass slaughter is for everyone in the US to convert to his form of Islam, and for us to completely destroy all trappings of Western society.

When you're ready to put that blue burkha on, let me know.

You miss a crucial point here. The only way to win is to not cheat. In this game, if we cheat, the game never ends and more babies on both sides die.

i agree, this is more a practical issue than a moral one.

these abuses of "human rights," or whatever you want to call them, just add more fuel to the fire of extremist hate. now i'm not saying that if we didnt do these things, there would be no problems. i just question whether the information we get out of said extremists is worth the new enemies that such tactics will create. and to respond to whispering legs (i think)... i very much doubt that we possess the means to kill them faster than they can be recruited (vietnam, anyone?).

on another note, there is a reason why we do our best in this country to separate emotion from government (i.e. a president is supposed to temporarily remove himself from office if he is under "duress"). you're damn right that if my child's life was on the line, i'd be cheating like nobody's business. but using this analogy, with ONE opponent, and ONE child's life in the balance... it just doesnt work when discussing war on a global scale. it ignores the bigger picture.

Sorry to reopen old wounds, but you didn't possess the technical means to stop Communists in a primitive Asian country, otherwise known as Vietnam?

Surely it would be somewhat better to stop terrorism at the roots rather than just fighting a continual downward battle? If you want an example of retribution gone out of control, look no further than Israel and Palestine.

yes we did... just didn't use it.

Dobbs has said it for me once again.

So it's not just me, is it?

I've been wondering a bit of late...

if you truely believe this, then you are no worse then Hitler because you are talking about genocide.

I believe that's what Osama has in mind for us - and has had in mind for us since 1993.

I believe that's what Osama has in mind for us - and has had in mind for us since 1993.

well that's just super. genocides for everyone!!! :):):)

It's apples & oranges and not a good example. Sorry.

Using your original metaphor, I anyway cheat all the time in Scrabble. I'm not above coining new words for the purpose of gaining a few extra points, or changing letters when the other players aren't looking. Likewise in all other games I play, I cheat. The only thing that's important to me is winning.

So it doesn't matter. ;)

There is a vast diference between cheating at scrable (which I would do in an instant if my opponent were cheating as well) and engaging in torture and terrorisim.

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."
Friedrich Nietzsche

We have been gazing into the abyss for far too long.

If i caught someone cheating when my kids life was at stake i would not cheat back. I would smash his face against the table repeatedly and forcefeed him the tiles. Stupid example, btw.
That being said, you dont win in Iraq by killing all insurgents. You can end this by winning the hearts of the vast majority of the people alone.

well that's just super. genocides for everyone!!! :):):)
It's on the menu all the time - a lot of customers order it - and the UN doesn't seem to mind.

In fact, our maitre d', Kofi Annan, usually recommends it (off menu, of course).

According to Osama's writings, and his fellows at al-Q, the only way to avoid mass slaughter is for everyone in the US to convert to his form of Islam, and for us to completely destroy all trappings of Western society.

When you're ready to put that blue burkha on, let me know.
You can't stop fanatics from being fanatics...but that doesn't mean your only alternative is to adopt their tactics. Your country has done a bit of good in terms of cutting off their funding...but you'd do better if you were able to cut off their support. Part of doing that is not living up to the demonization of you that the terrorists use to 'inspire' new recruits.

[QUOTE=Jester III]If i caught someone cheating when my kids life was at stake i would not cheat back. I would smash his face against the table repeatedly and forcefeed him the tiles. Stupid example, btw.[QUOTE]I'd do something worse. For the guy I'd reinvent the meaning of "pain". The only advantage to it is that anything he feels in the future won't feel like much in comparison.

But Scrabble is, as you said, quite different from a war. If an opponent was "cheating" and high stakes were at play, I would probably cheat too, in another way however. Flaming in response to godmoding in a RP would not be a good idea. ;)

You can't stop fanatics from being fanatics...but that doesn't mean your only alternative is to adopt their tactics. Your country has done a bit of good in terms of cutting off their funding...but you'd do better if you were able to cut off their support. Part of doing that is not living up to the demonization of you that the terrorists use to 'inspire' new recruits.

I'm convinced more and more that the purpose of Iraq was the same idea as hitting a hornet's nest.

Consider the entire Middle East as a hornet's nest.

You want to kill only the hornets - or anyone who might like to be one if the situation arose.

So you whack on that nest. Of course, you're wearing a protective suit, and you'll get a few stings - but you have a a can of hornet killer...

Eventually, no matter how fast the hornets reproduce, you win.

It would appear that Iraq is making an excellent example of this. Insurgents are coming mostly from other Arab countries. They eventually end up dead. And none of this action is taking place within the US - it's taking place elsewhere, where the average American doesn't care who gets hurt (kinda like the average Frenchman not caring who gets shot in Ivory Coast, as long as the chocolate keeps coming).

I do actually believe that it is a viable technique. Not saying it's moral or ethical - but it keeps the conflict over there and it keeps them perpetually off balance.

It also dispenses with the problems we had with Guantanamo. It was probably a big mistake to accept the surrender of any fighter under arms - better just to shoot them while they're still holding the AK and leave it at that.

Ok, so you claim we can wipe out terrorists faster than they can be recruited, and in the same breath criticize osama for his (undoubtedly) genocidal policies.

So americas response to the holocaust in wwII would have been (by your reasoning)

"Ok hitlers killed 6 million jews, lets kill 12 million german immigrants"

You're scaring me.

I don't see how the scrabble analogy works. It ignores the historical context of the game. The US is reaping what it sowed. Time was when it suited their national interests to fund Islamic extremeists in Afghanistan. Those same people are now biting the hand that once fed them.
Atrocities on both sides are excellent recruiting sargents. The insurgents in Iraq are fighting a gueurilla war, they're never going to have stand up fight with the biggest and best equipped armed force in the world. Rightly or wrongly these peple believe themselves to be defending their homeland, they're not going to "fight fair" if that means suicide. Would you fight fair if your country had been invaded?

It's on the menu all the time - a lot of customers order it - and the UN doesn't seem to mind.

In fact, our maitre d', Kofi Annan, usually recommends it (off menu, of course).

Whoa.. thats a line, and you crossed it. The UN has NEVER reccommended genocide, much less Koffi Annan himself. In fact it is stricly prohibited by UN adopted international law. Those that commit it are brought before the International Criminal Court(except the US of course, they won't join it).

Do you have a source that Kofi Annan reccomends Genocide?

Are you advocating Genocide? Are you saying it's okay for us because others have done it? Please don't force me to fulfill Godwin's law.

Do you have a source that Kofi Annan reccomends Genocide?

He told the Belgian peacekeepers in Rwanda not to interfere with the genocide. His orders, his memos, all in writing. And additional urgent phone calls to Dallaire ordering the same in no uncertain terms - don't save ANYONE.

Not that Daillaire could have saved too many - he didn't have enough troops. But he could have saved some.

Stooping to their level would only escalate everything. Back and forth. Also, as someone mentioned, no one wins, or someone else does. Behaving like this would make the world believe a lot of the garbage they already believe, thanks also to several assholes in Gitmo and Abu. Just a few pictures, and THAT is all it takes for the world to believe ALL American soldiers behave this way. I think those soldiers should get life in prison for defamation of the US, causing more hatred towards us from the rest of the world. I wanted to personally go and punch every one of those people involved in that. And I think some of the higher command needs to be looked at as well.

We have to rise above, and show the world that we are not like the terrorists. Every incident like those pics from the prisons adds fuel to the fire.

A little tangent: I find even sleep deprivation to be torture. (I have gone 16 days without sleep... no hallucinations, but not in good shape.) What kind of info do you think you're going to get from someone who hasn't slept, has been listening to Christina Aguilara blasting out of speakers in a continuous loop, and basically scrambling their brains. Likely it won't be very accurate.

So we take the high road, and somewhere down the line, other countries will see this... (way down the line...).

"Whoever fights monsters..." is an extremely appropriate quote.

As far as scrable goes, I would stand up and bitch at them for cheating. I wouldn't cheat myself, but I would end the game and give them a few choice words.

To save the life of your own child?

I saw this article over on The Political Machine, and I think we need to discuss this. Too many people here seem to say, "we shouldn't stoop to their level because it makes us look bad". I disagree. Here's the article - I expect some spirited mudflinging...

Lets play a game.

Imagine you are sitting across the table from a person who has challenged you to a low stakes game of scrabble. You know this person to be a cheater, and someone who dislikes you and disapproves of your way of life, even though they aren't exactly a "nice person" either.

Still, you accept the challenge, and begin the game, knowing in your heart of hearts that you are a better player than they are, and are sure to win. Even though you are diligent, this person begins to cheat, subtly at first, then more brazenly, and finally begins to cheat openly, making no effort to conceal it. They are shifting letters, peeking when selecting new tiles, playing fake blanks, and padding their score with every turn.

You begin to lose the game in spite of being a better player, but you console yourself by adopting a morally superior stance, saying, " At least I'm not a cheater. I won't stoop to their level. I am a better person than that. If winning means so much to them, let them cheat, at least I will be able to sleep with a clear conscience tonight."

Yes, you are going to lose the game, but at least you can feel good about yourself, right? You are, after all, in the right, morally pure in every way.

You are also a loser.

If you gave to cheat to win, you are very weak and sad individual. You can't do anything on your own. Your self esteem will be very low. If I stooped to their level i'd be no better, I like my self esteem.

Now, lets think of this on a global scale. America is currently in a quandry over issues like Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and what defines a POW. We fret and stress over the proper treatment of the Koran, we worry that our interrogation techniques are too harsh, we accuse our own soldiers of cold blooded murder for shooting a downed insurgent instead of rendering aid, we avoid targeting civilians whenever possible, and go through great pains to avoid damaging the enemies mosques and holy sites. We worry more about our opponents than we do ourselves, we want to be seen as the "good guys" no matter what it takes. We want to win, but we want our conscience clean when we do. We follow the rules, we take the moral high road. In our own minds, this makes us "better than them" regardless of the outcome.

The problem is we aren't acting like good guys. I wish you paragragh was right though. I don't believe the ends justify the means. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Our opponent however, is a cheater. They break all the rules. They execute our prisoners on television so our enemies can laugh at their demise. They refuse to wear uniforms, making them indistinguishable from the civilians we try so hard to avoid in our attacks. They don't give a damn about our holy books, they arent even allowed in some of the nations these insurgents hail from, where their citizens can be imprisoned for even possessing one. They feign injury to lure our soldiers close enough to kill, and they turn their own mosques into arsenals and slaughterhouses. They care not for the rules because for them, winning is everything, and that alone justifies any means they use to bring their victory about.

Ahh, you say, but we are still the better people! If we resort to these tactics, we are no better than them! WE will play by the rules, and earn the world's RESPECT because we do!

Yeah, ok.

Yeah, we should try to earn world's respect. Why aren't we at lest trying? Nope, we just keep acting like terrorist. Why should I root for our side if we are just as bad? See you lose moral support and rationale.

Lets go back to that scrabble game for a moment. Imagine it's no longer low stakes, that the price for losing will be your child's life.

Look at your babies now, and tell me you wouldnt cheat. Tell me that you would let them die for principal, to prove to yourself and anyone observing that YOU are the better person for not stooping to the cheater's level. Your baby may be dead, but your conscience is clear, right?

I wouldn't cheat. There I said it, I'd be crying the whole game, but I'd make my babies proud of me. They would know their father as a good man. They will go on to Heaven so what is the big deal?

Of course, this is an easy route to take when its someone else's child over there in Iraq rather than your own, this stance of haughty moral superiority. But look at your own loved ones, and ask yourself if their lives are worth taking that moral high road over?

Hmm, I think most of you would be cheating as hard as you could, using every dirty trick your opponent does and THEN some. You would win, and you would be determined to win no matter what the cost to your own conscience.

Wouldnt you?
Yes, they are worth the high road. How can you ask that? You don't think you children are worth it? I'd love them too much to let them be dirtied by corrupt practices.

If you seriously think that of humanity than I shall pray for your soul. You'll need it.

I'd like to make a request...

Please stop calling it genocide if someone points out the tactic of eliminating enemy forces faster than they can be replenished. That's distorting the argument and isn't communicating anything.

In 1943 the Allies were killing off German soldiers faster than they could be replenished. Does that constitute genocide? No. They weren't exterminating Germans, they were eliminating the ones who participated in the fighting.

See the difference?

Lets go back to that scrabble game for a moment. Imagine it's no longer low stakes, that the price for losing will be your child's life.

Look at your babies now, and tell me you wouldnt cheat.
I wouldn't cheat.

I would pull out my concealed carry .45 and shoot the son-of-a-bitch! :D

I'd like to make a request...

Please stop calling it genocide if someone points out the tactic of eliminating enemy forces faster than they can be replenished. That's distorting the argument and isn't communicating anything.

In 1943 the Allies were killing off German soldiers faster than they could be replenished. Does that constitute genocide? No. They weren't exterminating Germans, they were eliminating the ones who participated in the fighting.

See the difference?

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. NAZI's were a political group, thus Genocide is an appropraite term.

I'm sorry you don't like the word.

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. NAZI's were a political group, thus Genocide is an appropraite term.

I'm sorry you don't like the word.

Please don't turn it into an argument of semantics. That may be the dictionary definition but if I go blow up the local Boyscouts of America meeting I assure you "genocide" is not a word that would be applied to the incident.

I like the word just fine when it's used in a manner that is commonly understood. Can we get back to the real issue now, please?

I believe that we possess the technical means to kill them faster than they can be recruited.
Oh yes, because killing people who are martyring themselves a dozen times a day is seriously hurting the recruiting effort. You obviously don't get the point, you can kill terrorists all you want, you can also pull tails off lizards, but to no avail. No matter how many you kill more will be recruited because of two factors: 1) you have not killed every upper level member of the organization 2) You have given the general populace a reason to believe the propaganda and join the terrorists against you by killing hundreds or thousands of innocent people because that is where teh terrorists come from

I believe that's what Osama has in mind for us - and has had in mind for us since 1993.

I'm sorry, but this has been bugging me for some time... if the United States wasn't wandering around stamping on everyone and annoying a whole bunch of people (hyperbole, I know), would Osama actually be /able/ to wipe out the entire USA? Does anyone think he would?

If the US wasn't so willing to declare war and blow things up - whether civilians are harmed or not, you are still invading and ruining their country - there wouldn't be so many people willing to attack it. Think about it. On September 11th, /four/ aeroplanes were hijacked. Four. That's it. If you were an operation capable of destroying a superpower, would you send in four planes and then wait for them to come and take you out? No. You'd hijack every single aeroplane over the North American continent and crash them all into things. You might even do the same to various other countries. You wouldn't just pick /four/.

There's also a lot of paranoia about chemical and biological weapons or whatever being used against the US. Again, if you had a choice when attacking a relatively undefended country, would you hijack four planes, or use a chemical/biological agent to kill millions? I don't know about you, but /I'd/ go for the latter.

To put it simply, September 11th, 2001 was a publicity stunt - a tragedy, but the equivalent of a small company having a very large fireworks display. If the US had done nothing offensive - or even if it had just attacked Afghanistan - the terrorists would have remained a very minor threat. Yes, minor. If you don't do anything to provoke them, to make entire populations hate and despise you, they aren't going to grow nearly as fast.

So I'll say it again. Who here thinks that, prior to September 11th, Osama bin Laden had the ability to wipe out the entire United States of America? Who thinks he has that ability now? The man gets four planes hijacked - no matter /what/ he did with them, and no, I'm not being disrespectful to the people that died as a result of them, merely saying that it could have been a lot worse - and suddenly he's a threat to civilisation as a whole? /I/ don't believe it, for one.

Ihatevacations']Oh yes, because killing people who are martyring themselves a dozen times a day is seriously hurting the recruiting effort. You obviously don't get the point, you can kill terrorists all you want, you can also pull tails off lizards, but to no avail. No matter how many you kill more will be recruited because of two factors: 1) you have not killed every upper level member of the organization 2) You have given the general populace a reason to believe the propaganda and join the terrorists against you by killing hundreds or thousands of innocent people because that is where teh terrorists come from

Doesn't it take a few days for a Lizard to regrow a tail? I've never knew how long so I was wondering.

Of course it would take a few days to train more terrorist so I guess analogy works.

Hrmmm ...

Well let me pose a different scenario ... since we're comparing Scrabble to Gitmo.

You're about to play a game of Scrabble with someone who may or may not cheat. So, you grab and torture his cousins. Game over.

That's the game the US is playing. Of the prisoners held at Gitmo, how many are guilty? How many have actually commited an act of terrorism? How many have stood before a judge or jury or tribunal or whatever and had the facts of their case presented? How many can be shown to be cutting someone's head off on camera?

I *might* pick up a rifle and start shooting at people ... but since when does a *might* constitute any form of reasonable due process? Any one of us *might* do anything. There isn't enough room in all the prisons in all the world to hold all the people who *might* do something.

If I catch the other player cheating, fine. I stop the game and call them out. I don't round up everyone who looks like them or has the same religion as them or has their same last name as them and keep them in prison and pee on their life. I go to the source.

The US is playing the game where they know who the cheater is, but they'd rather gun down the cheater's brother than the cheater himself. Makes gobs of sense to me ... yup.

By stooping to their level, what exactly have we achieved? Got rid of one evil... only to become the evil you wanted to get rid of in the first place.

240 or more have been released from Gitmo.
Everyone has had a tribunal to determine if they were captured under arms fighting against US forces.

Of those that remain, about half are in relatively light confinement - they live in air conditioned dorms with 10 men to a section - that's a hallway with individual rooms.

The hard cases are locked up.

Captured in battle, as per the Geneva Conventions, does not mean you were captured by the police and are an "accused". Captured under arms, you're the enemy, and you stay in the camp until the war is over.

Hrmmm ...

Well let me pose a different scenario ... since we're comparing Scrabble to Gitmo.

You're about to play a game of Scrabble with someone who may or may not cheat. So, you grab and torture his cousins. Game over.

That's the game the US is playing. Of the prisoners held at Gitmo, how many are guilty? How many have actually commited an act of terrorism? How many have stood before a judge or jury or tribunal or whatever and had the facts of their case presented? How many can be shown to be cutting someone's head off on camera?

I *might* pick up a rifle and start shooting at people ... but since when does a *might* constitute any form of reasonable due process? Any one of us *might* do anything. There isn't enough room in all the prisons in all the world to hold all the people who *might* do something.

If I catch the other player cheating, fine. I stop the game and call them out. I don't round up everyone who looks like them or has the same religion as them or has their same last name as them and keep them in prison and pee on their life. I go to the source.

The US is playing the game where they know who the cheater is, but they'd rather gun down the cheater's brother than the cheater himself. Makes gobs of sense to me ... yup.


Thats you're opinion on whats happening at Gitmo, but I dont think its close to being true, nor is there any credible evidence anywhere to say we are rounding up people of the same religion name or look. It might feel good to believe that if you're against it, but thats not making it true.
If it were-there would be a hell of a lot more people there.

I'm not going to dance around language and argue semantics.

Depending on the stakes, I'll cheat. If I'm playing a simple game of scrabble, I'm going to play by the rules because I want to win on a level playing field.

If my family or my way of life is on the line-I want those whose job it is to play the game to use whatever means necessary to secure it for me. I'm not worried about us stepping on the toes of other whiners who might be friendly one day and not the next-I want those toes stomped hard because they were in the way in the first place. Next time, they'll know which side to be on.

And if I'm leaving the amusment park with my family at night and meet some punk in the lot that wants trouble-will I stand toe to toe and have a fist fight-fair and square till one of us wins and one loses?
Fuck no- I'm putting my spiderco in him just above his belt buckle and unzipping him to his sternum. I'm not going to see what his intentions are and realize too late-then if I'm beaten my family is at his mercy.
Nope-I will always do what it takes to win when those are the stakes. If thats winning badly, I'll face the criticism or charges later-But I'll be alive and so will those I care about.

+1, Carnivorous.

we have to be careful that cheating against this one cheater in order to win a game we "should" win doesnt make us cheaters in EVERY game we play

isnt that exactly what is happening?

a terrible thing happened to us. we know who (more or less) and we know where they are (or were, more or less). so we went into afghanistan like the wrath of god, even though the afghan people/government were innocent of this crime. we "cheated" because that was the only way to get alqaida and osama bin laden. that was OK because it was the only way to get those who murdered thousands of our people. no problem

does that make it OK to do the same thing in iraq? because ONE guy "cheated" are we allowed to cheat forevermore??

i say NO

I forgot to add to my last post: "And never play scrable w/Czardas!" :p

240 or more have been released from Gitmo.
Everyone has had a tribunal to determine if they were captured under arms fighting against US forces.

Of those that remain, about half are in relatively light confinement - they live in air conditioned dorms with 10 men to a section - that's a hallway with individual rooms.

The hard cases are locked up.

Captured in battle, as per the Geneva Conventions, does not mean you were captured by the police and are an "accused". Captured under arms, you're the enemy, and you stay in the camp until the war is over.

Fair enough and agreed ... but ya have to admit, some of it was getting pretty ugly there for a while. I do not believe the US should stoop to other's tactics. Regardless of all my problems with her, I am still very proudly American. I hate every action we take that sullies our good name.

Incidently, you only have to follow the Geneva Convention if your enemy does. ;)

Incidently, you only have to follow the Geneva Convention if your enemy does. ;)

Under Geneva Convention I, Article 2, they have no protections at all.

For some odd reason, Bush gave the order to follow the Geneva Conventions on their treatment (although that sounds like it wasn't followed - it's likely that the UNCAT was violated in some way for some detainees).

But I would bet the vast majority of detainees haven't had it rough. I'm sure the hard ones who really know something and really hate the US are already known, and they're the ones who got the abuse.

Really, there's no need to abuse people when you have modern drugs and ECT.

They won't even remember being asked questions.

And when we're done with them, we should ask them openly, "Do you hate America?" And if the answer is yes, put them on a plane to Ramadi and give them an AK and a magazine of ammunition. And if we see them 30 minutes later, just gun them down.

And if the answer is no, send them home to their mother with our best wishes.

+1, Carnivorous.


+1 what ?


Did my situation in the parking lot make the papers yet?

+1 what ?


Did my situation in the parking lot make the papers yet?
+1 means I agree with you

And when we're done with them, we should ask them openly, "Do you hate America?" And if the answer is yes, put them on a plane to Ramadi and give them an AK and a magazine of ammunition. And if we see them 30 minutes later, just gun them down.

I wonder what the US government would think of a proposal to arm terrorists...

Nope-I will always do what it takes to win when those are the stakes. If thats winning badly, I'll face the criticism or charges later-But I'll be alive and so will those I care about.

I agree, completely.

This is why the Scrabble analogy isn't quite adequate. Generally when the average person sits down to play a board game there's a certain expectation of sportsmanship and honesty. These concepts have no place in warfare. War is fought through whatever tactics are necessary and deception is a powerful strategy. This is why Scrabble games don't have such high stakes ;)

When somebody cheats in my game of Scrabble, he ends up with a fuckin broken nose.

+1 means I agree with you

I'm dense. Thanks.

I thought maybe something had appeared in the Asbury Park press. *L*

I wonder what the US government would think of a proposal to arm terrorists...

Oh, there are people around the world who say that NONE of the people in Guantanamo are terrorists. That we should release them.

If they hate America, send them to Iraq, and give them a weapon. Give them 30 minutes. If you see them again, kill them.

we have to be careful that cheating against this one cheater in order to win a game we "should" win doesnt make us cheaters in EVERY game we play

isnt that exactly what is happening?

a terrible thing happened to us. we know who (more or less) and we know where they are (or were, more or less). so we went into afghanistan like the wrath of god, even though the afghan people/government were innocent of this crime. we "cheated" because that was the only way to get alqaida and osama bin laden. that was OK because it was the only way to get those who murdered thousands of our people. no problem

does that make it OK to do the same thing in iraq? because ONE guy "cheated" are we allowed to cheat forevermore??

i say NO

wasnt the Afghan government dee taleeban? Didnt those people recently vote and elect a president? And women may have voted?

Oh, there are people around the world who say that NONE of the people in Guantanamo are terrorists. That we should release them.

If they hate America, send them to Iraq, and give them a weapon. Give them 30 minutes. If you see them again, kill them.

a big proponent of free speach, are you?

this is a principle I would uphold, even if it meant the lives of my children. What would be the point of them living in a world where the only meanist, dirtiest, and most vile succeed?

heh, you're not a parent, are you? from what I read here, there's no way you can even be married.

Any man, as adhered to his principles as he may be, will go through the extremes to preserve his family. I'm quite prepared to kill, should the need arise.

Oh, there are people around the world who say that NONE of the people in Guantanamo are terrorists. That we should release them.

If they hate America, send them to Iraq, and give them a weapon. Give them 30 minutes. If you see them again, kill them.

So you'd drop them into a war zone and then shoot them if they didn't voluntarily give up a weapon gifted to them? Interesting concept.

The US payed the rebels in afganishtan to kick out the USSR; the US combated "communism" in vietnam with carpet bombing and the senseless slaurghter of thousands of innocents-mainly by giving guns and cash to the indigenous population. This was replacated a thousand times over, especially when the US SUPPORTED corrupt dictatorships to stop Russia; but wait-where IS america? over the atlantic-separated from Russia, europe; its all ALONE so why bother with europe, indeed, the rest of the world? simple-power, money; the ability to have something over somebody else.

25 years later, the US invades afganistahn-the rebels used the same tactics against the "coalition" forces as they did against the russians, a quarter of a century before. Never has there been so much...contradiction in warfare; they kick out one super power with the aid of the "good guys" to gain themselves 25 years of...absolutely nothing. We all know that Capitalism, that democracy in itself, is corrupt; desgined by corruption TO BREED CORRUPTION.

so, when you say they cheat-they are fighting the enemy how YOU tuaght them too; they are making thier terrible last stand-but, they will win; do you think that when the Germans went to war in 1939, they where all thinking "oh god, we'er the bad guys" NO-niether do the arabs, the muslims-The TERRORIST'S you fight, fight for for thier OWN truths, beliefs and thoughts.

Remeber, the masses will ALWAYS destroy the individual-they pull them down, and burn them. They outnumber us; the United States of America has lead us to the end; thanks guys-but this time, i'm with the dude in the turban.

By stooping to their level, what exactly have we achieved? Got rid of one evil... only to become the evil you wanted to get rid of in the first place.
That is utter bullshit. By that line of reasoning, you should be a fundamentalist Christian: comitt one sin and you're friggin' doomed forever!

There is no Cheating in war. Remember that old phrase "alls fair in love and war". You have to take into account that we don't KNOW what exactly is going on over there. And what we're fed by our corporate owned media may not always be the TRUTH. MAybe what they tell us is correct on TV. Maybe not. The fact is we don't really KNOW for sure how dirty these people are fighting. This country's media is so gung ho about showing this war in a heroic light that we can't even get a straight answer anymore. They show the civilian casualties and injuries nationwide, just not HERE. What does that tell you? Don't believe the hype. YES, these people cut off people's heads for an audience, and I would NEVER condone that kind of senseless violence. But we also dropped bombs on civilians in Baghdad. War is not a game of scrabble and that is the SHITTIEST analogy I have ever heard. Not only does it trivialize the war in general but its just plain NOT even CLOSE to the situation at hand. Let us not get confused by the corporate mass media.

These people ARE vile. No doubt about that, they're radical fundamentalist muslims. Fundamentalists in general are vile animals. And I am by NO means saying that what they are doing is acceptable. But war is a dirty game, there's no such THING as cheating in war. Perhaps they find it cheating to drop bombs on civilians, or perhaps they found it to be cheating when we basically gave the go ahead for other countries to kill civilians during their Holy days and on Holy ground. We don't know if what we're seeing on Tv and what is being reported is actualy TRUE or just biased nonsense is my point. SO who knows if we are really going out of our way to be the "morally" correct ones. War isn't morally correct, anyway.

The US payed the rebels in afganishtan to kick out the USSR; the US combated "communism" in vietnam with carpet bombing and the senseless slaurghter of thousands of innocents-mainly by giving guns and cash to the indigenous population. This was replacated a thousand times over, especially when the US SUPPORTED corrupt dictatorships to stop Russia; but wait-where IS america? over the atlantic-separated from Russia, europe; its all ALONE so why bother with europe, indeed, the rest of the world? simple-power, money; the ability to have something over somebody else.

25 years later, the US invades afganistahn-the rebels used the same tactics against the "coalition" forces as they did against the russians, a quarter of a century before. Never has there been so much...contradiction in warfare; they kick out one super power with the aid of the "good guys" to gain themselves 25 years of...absolutely nothing. We all know that Capitalism, that democracy in itself, is corrupt; desgined by corruption TO BREED CORRUPTION.

so, when you say they cheat-they are fighting the enemy how YOU tuaght them too; they are making thier terrible last stand-but, they will win; do you think that when the Germans went to war in 1939, they where all thinking "oh god, we'er the bad guys" NO-niether do the arabs, the muslims-The TERRORIST'S you fight, fight for for thier OWN truths, beliefs and thoughts.

Remeber, the masses will ALWAYS destroy the individual-they pull them down, and burn them. They outnumber us; the United States of America has lead us to the end; thanks guys-but this time, i'm with the dude in the turban.
What are you, about 12? I guess you've never had time yet to make a decision under stress which you thought was a wise dicision at the time, but later discovered that your decision had unforseen consequences. Isolationism is no longer an option and hasn't been one since before WWII. Go back and do a bit of study on what you were suppose to have learned in your history classes, then go out and learn a bit about what the world is really like, THEN come back and tell us what you think.

wasnt the Afghan government dee taleeban? Didnt those people recently vote and elect a president? And women may have voted?
yes, yes, and.... YES

but what does that have to do with anything?

You miss a crucial point here. The only way to win is to not cheat. In this game, if we cheat, the game never ends and more babies on both sides die.

Actually, the crucial point is: Why are you playing with a known cheater? Why don't you just not play the game?

Not saying I agree with all of it, but I'm trying to understand just why people think that America is the "cause" of terrorism.

Here is the argument: America (especially the political, religious, and, most importantly, corporate faces of the US), in all it's arrogance, ignorance, and intolerance, feels the need to make the rest of the world conform to it's views, no matter how hypocritical they may be. Some (if not most) of the rest of the world doesn't appreciate this, and, when confronted with the US's apparent might, some of that group will turn to whatever tactics they feel may be effective in getting the US to release it's grip. The most effective have been any actions that expose the hypocrisy of America or generate more hypocrisy that is felt by the American people (such as the enactment of the treasonous Patriot Act).

The current problem is twofold: We have fucking morons playing a game we shouldn't even be playing.

He told the Belgian peacekeepers in Rwanda not to interfere with the genocide. His orders, his memos, all in writing. And additional urgent phone calls to Dallaire ordering the same in no uncertain terms - don't save ANYONE.

Not that Daillaire could have saved too many - he didn't have enough troops. But he could have saved some.

Googled it.

Koffi Annan is not a genocidal maniac. He was it appears a cog in the biggest international failure the International Community has ever done. He played a part in it, no doubt, but neither a malicious nor massive one.
At the time he was in charge of UN Peacekeeper operations, not Secretary-General - that position was held by a man named Boutros-Ghali.
Before the genocides started, Boutros-Ghali had recieved a fax from Dalliere, a Canadian commander of the UN forces in Rwanda, which showed evidence that a genocide was being planned. Boutros-Ghali claimed to have sent this to the Security Council, but this was proven a lie.
When the Genocides started, Belgium requested UN aid. They were turned down and told to handle it themselves.
Then the Security Council cut Dalliere's forces from 2,500 to 450. The US supported this move. Furthermore, urgent requests from Dalliere to get a mandate to stop the genocides were turned down by the council. Dalliere himself refused to abandon his post, but was not allowed to and didn't have enough forces to intervene.
Koffi Annan may have indeed ordered Dalliere not to intervene, but as Annan was a subordinate at that time, he was following directives agreed upon by Boutros-Ghali and the International community. The world failed Rwanda, and 800,000 people paid for it. Kofi Annan had his role, and had he defied his superiors this might have been different, but the same thing can be said for Dalliere, for Boutros-Ghali, for the Security council... everybody failed. He played a part in failing Rwanda, but that's a far cry from supporting genocide or saying it's okay. Annan has, however, apologized several times, and admitted his part. He has, notably, worked with Rwanda to ensure this is never forgotten. I still respect the man.

Sorry to reopen old wounds, but you didn't possess the technical means to stop Communists in a primitive Asian country, otherwise known as Vietnam?

Surely it would be somewhat better to stop terrorism at the roots rather than just fighting a continual downward battle? If you want an example of retribution gone out of control, look no further than Israel and Palestine.

Technical means do not reflect political will. We bombed rice-paddies while Soviet Freighters unoaded weapons in Haiphong Harbour, took territory only to abandon it back to enemy hands 24 hours later, and operated under severe rules-of-engagement that guaranteed a lot of ammunition expenditure for minimal benefit (or none at all). Vietnam was a war that was defined by incoherence at the middle-levels and "Guns'n'butter" economics at the highest levels. Technology does not equal Will to Win. In Vietnam, the Johnson Administration had no intention of victory-only of prolongation, because as long as the war continued, they could soak up the Baby-boomers to tighten the Labour market, boot, chemical, and equipment manufacturers were employing people making gear, and a socialist could pretend to be anticommunist (LBJ).

In Vietnam, Victory was never an Option in the long-run at the top levels of government. You realize that during that conflict, thanks to the marvels of then-cutting-edge tech, LBJ was giving direct orders to Leutenants in the Field over the Telephone??

the Conflict was micromanaged to defeat and used as a "Career Step" by senior officers and ambitious men like John Kerry.

The Iraq war is different for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that commanders in the field have discretion that they were forbidden in Vietnam, they are also fighting in terrain the U.S. army has been training to fight in under conditions the U.S. Army has been trianing to fight under, for over thirty years.

Yes, you are going to lose the game, but at least you can feel good about yourself, right? You are, after all, in the right, morally pure in every way.

You are also a loser.

*ultra-snip*
1. I support the Iraq war for human rights reasons. How could I not support human rights universally? Should I only support human rights when they are convenient to the US government?

2. Who honestly thinks that al-Qaeda has a chance in hell of ever beating the USA?

3. The game analogy is bad. You (the US) has more power and deals many more hands than the cheater (terrorists).

and a socialist could pretend to be anticommunist (LBJ)....

the Conflict was micromanaged to defeat and used as a "Career Step" by senior officers and ambitious men like John Kerry.

Wow, you really see a vast left-wing conspiracy behind everything, don't you!

yes, yes, and.... YES

but what does that have to do with anything?

Ashmoria- I just re-read your post and see that you and I agree on the subject of Afghanistan. I'm afraid I misunderstood it the first time around.
Sorry- I was challenging something that actually something I agreed with.

Ashmoria- I just re-read your post and see that you and I agree on the subject of Afghanistan. I'm afraid I misunderstood it the first time around.
Sorry- I was challenging something that actually something I agreed with.
oh ok. no problem

i do hope we leave afghanistan better off than when we started. we have made a really good start there. we need to get bin laden and make sure the taliban doesnt regain power. imagine the bloodbath that would take place if they got back into power!

If a dude wanted to play scrabble for the lives of my children, I'd get him some therapy.

Bin Laden and his gang have ISSUES dudes, shooting at them won't change their opinions.

heh, you're not a parent, are you? from what I read here, there's no way you can even be married.

Any man, as adhered to his principles as he may be, will go through the extremes to preserve his family. I'm quite prepared to kill, should the need arise.

Actually, Sinuhue is a married woman with two children.

You don't believe a mother could be a pacifist?

He told the Belgian peacekeepers in Rwanda not to interfere with the genocide. His orders, his memos, all in writing. And additional urgent phone calls to Dallaire ordering the same in no uncertain terms - don't save ANYONE.

Not that Daillaire could have saved too many - he didn't have enough troops. But he could have saved some.


You're blaming the Rwandan genocide on Kofi Annan? Don't be ludicrous. If the US hadn't vetoed the resolution to send more troops to Dallaire, Kofi would have had an entirely different message for the general.

The UN has its problems and a lot of different voices, but don't saddle that one on Annan.

If a dude wanted to play scrabble for the lives of my children, I'd get him some therapy.

Bin Laden and his gang have ISSUES dudes, shooting at them won't change their opinions.

That is, unless, you are double-tapping each of them.

oh ok. no problem

i do hope we leave afghanistan better off than when we started. we have made a really good start there. we need to get bin laden and make sure the taliban doesnt regain power. imagine the bloodbath that would take place if they got back into power!


Ideally, we could leave them able to govern and defend themselves, with their population thankful for the assistance we lent. It would be nice if they remembered the US as a friend, rather than an enemy.

What are you, about 12? I guess you've never had time yet to make a decision under stress which you thought was a wise dicision at the time, but later discovered that your decision had unforseen consequences. Isolationism is no longer an option and hasn't been one since before WWII. Go back and do a bit of study on what you were suppose to have learned in your history classes, then go out and learn a bit about what the world is really like, THEN come back and tell us what you think.

I didn't SAY the US had to be ISOLATIONIST! asctually, i mean the oposite; participate With the world, rather than ABOVE it-STOP trying to be the wrolds police, and START trying to be just another nation; YOU go back to the "history class" and the news programs-YOU read about the United Nations, and the G8 summit Appeasing the US, jst as the World Appeased hilter; evil is held at bay-by, as history has taught us, not for long.

by the way, i have an AS in History, so-i HAVE been in the history calss, both in school and college; when i finish this year, i shall take it in University.

:sniper:

If i caught someone cheating when my kids life was at stake i would not cheat back. I would smash his face against the table repeatedly and forcefeed him the tiles. Stupid example, btw.
That being said, you dont win in Iraq by killing all insurgents. You can end this by winning the hearts of the vast majority of the people alone.

if the vote numbers are accurate, and if soldiers i've talked to are right, then we already have.

problem is, the insurgents are at odds with the majority of Iraqis... the Shi'a and Kurds who (mostly) are glad that Saddam is gone.

You're blaming the Rwandan genocide on Kofi Annan? Don't be ludicrous. If the US hadn't vetoed the resolution to send more troops to Dallaire, Kofi would have had an entirely different message for the general.

The UN has its problems and a lot of different voices, but don't saddle that one on Annan.
I think it is more sensible to blame the Rwandans for their genocide, not the US of Mr Annan. And I cannot recall what Security Council resolution regarding Rwanda was vetoed by the US.

Nevertheless, Kofi Annan was a preferred candidate of the United States for Secretary General in 1996, when the US blocked the incumbent, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, vetoing the second term for the Egyptian.