NationStates Jolt Archive

There is a series of videos detailing torture and/or illegal detention of "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib.

High ranking Americans have their say.

Watch the videos, especially the one by PBS (http://www.kuwaitifreedom.org/video_index.php)and then share your thoughts and comments.

I could care less what happens to the detainees at Guantanamo.

In my opinion, they truly are prisoners of war (something I disagree with the Pentagon about).

Since they are prisoners of war, they are not entitled to "trials'. No one tried the Allied pilots shot down over Germany during WW II - they were simply marched to a POW camp and detained for the duration of the war.

It's in the Geneva Conventions, you know.

We should detain anyone captured fighting against our troops until the end of the war on terror.

Which essentially means forever.

And I would be completely within the Geneva Conventions in doing so.

I could care less what happens to the detainees at Guantanamo.

In my opinion, they truly are prisoners of war (something I disagree with the Pentagon about).

Since they are prisoners of war, they are not entitled to "trials'. No one tried the Allied pilots shot down over Germany during WW II - they were simply marched to a POW camp and detained for the duration of the war.

It's in the Geneva Conventions, you know.

We should detain anyone captured fighting against our troops until the end of the war on terror.

Which essentially means forever.

And I would be completely within the Geneva Conventions in doing so.
Two things....

IF they are POWs, then they cannot be tortured according to the Geneva Conventions.

IF they are not wearing uniforms, how can you determine that they are enemy combatants?

I note the protracted silence with nothing like surprise.

Two things....

IF they are POWs, then they cannot be tortured according to the Geneva Conventions.

IF they are not wearing uniforms, how can you determine that they are enemy combatants?

You would think that they wouldn't be tortured anyway for basic human rights. Of course recognizing them as POW's would tie the Bush Administrations hands, POW's have to be declared and these people in Cuba don't.

You would think that they wouldn't be tortured anyway for basic human rights.
Unfortunately, this hasn't been the case.
Of course recognizing them as POW's would tie the Bush Administrations hands, POW's have to be declared and these people in Cuba don't.
Exactly!!!

I note the protracted silence with nothing like surprise.
Perhaps they are busy watching all of the videos and that would take some time before anyone could make a reasoned response?

Perhaps they are busy watching all of the videos and that would take some time before anyone could make a reasoned response?
How dare you interject logic into a politically based one liner. The fact that every Conservative in the US hadn't written a reply within 4 minutes of the OP is proof enough that they are wrong about everything.
Sure it sounds stupid, inane, and hypocritical, but that's how we roll on the Interweb.

There is a series of videos detailing torture and/or illegal detention of "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib.

High ranking Americans have their say.

Watch the videos, especially the one by PBS (http://www.kuwaitifreedom.org/video_index.php)and then share your thoughts and comments.


There is no such thing as human rights any more. If the US can do this and get away with it then anyone can.

Plus all that feel good, "land of the free", "shining city on a hill" bullshit was just something we used during the Cold War to make the Soviet Union look bad. And apparently it fooled a lot of people, because now everyone still expects us to act like good guys.

Gitmo????

Sorry my friend. You forget the attention span of the average american. That is so OLD news.....

We are a civilize nation, we should know better then to torture our POW.

As I recall one of our founding father, (Roosevelt I assume.) Said we know better then that... Something like that.

As I recall one of our founding father, (Roosevelt I assume.) Said we know better then that... Something like that.
FDR was a founding father? I fucking knew that they discovered time travel during WWII. Finally, proof for my 18 page hypothesis on the time war that happened between Hitler and the Allies. Now all I need is proof of Patton's Legion of Steam Powered Soldiers.

We are a civilize nation, we should know better then to torture our POW.

As I recall one of our founding father, (Roosevelt I assume.) Said we know better then that... Something like that.

Aw man.. that's classic..

FDR was a founding father?

Of course not.. he meant Teddy... remember? :p

IF they are not wearing uniforms, how can you determine that they are enemy combatants?
'Cos Bush & Co., Inc. said so.

I am embarassed and ashamed by our actions. I expect more of my country.

This thread title sounds like something Jackie Chiles would say.

"Who told you to put the balm on? I didn't tell you to put the balm on. Why'd you put the balm on?"

I'm getting awfully sick of the Bush administration PR game that is actually weakening their policies. Now is not the time for moral wimps. Abu Ghraib did nothing to further the war effort, they can do what they want on that one. But as for Guantanamo, I say lock 'em up and get what information you can from them. If the government couldn't obtain useful information from those folks, they wouldn't bother trying to pry it out of them. When the media, half of America, and the Europeans come whining just tell them to jump off a cliff - we are fighting a war, those are the enemy, that is our prison camp.

It's just like hesitating when the enemy hides within mosques, or in civilian areas. Don't apoligize - that just screws each side over that much more. Just get in there and do what needs to be done. If that means flattening the mosque, too bad.

This thread title sounds like something Jackie Chiles would say.

"Who told you to put the balm on? I didn't tell you to put the balm on. Why'd you put the balm on?"
I was hoping that some idiot had said that Human Rights were "Illegal, Immoral, Unethical!!" Then he could punch a baby in the face because when commiting political suicide it is always best to be efficient.
Instead, this threat is just yet another dissapointment in the succession of dissapointment that is the Interweb.
Hours of fun, indeed!

Anyone wanna fill us 56k chumps in on the content of the OP's video? Any new claims, or just rehash? I'm assuming rehash, but lemme know, if anyone has the time..

I could care less what happens to the detainees at Guantanamo.You mean you couldn't care less right?

In my opinion, they truly are prisoners of war (something I disagree with the Pentagon about).

Since they are prisoners of war, they are not entitled to "trials'. No one tried the Allied pilots shot down over Germany during WW II - they were simply marched to a POW camp and detained for the duration of the war.And they were treated very well and were free when the war ended.

It's in the Geneva Conventions, you know.
The Geneva Conventions really don't address what the US is doing. It regards wars between states and assumes such wars end. The War on Terror®, not being not an actual war, hardly counts.

I could care less what happens to the detainees at Guantanamo.

In my opinion, they truly are prisoners of war (something I disagree with the Pentagon about).

Since they are prisoners of war, they are not entitled to "trials'. No one tried the Allied pilots shot down over Germany during WW II - they were simply marched to a POW camp and detained for the duration of the war.

It's in the Geneva Conventions, you know.

We should detain anyone captured fighting against our troops until the end of the war on terror.

Which essentially means forever.

And I would be completely within the Geneva Conventions in doing so.
I largely agree with you, but I should point out that Allied POWs were typically treated remarkably well by their German captors, for one reason or another. Movies like Stalag 17 and shows [based off Stalag 17] like "Hogans Heroes" are exaggerations of course, but they got the meat and bones of the POW situation more or less spot on. They had to do a fair bit of manual labor of course, but one can hardly make a case for that being any sort of cruel treatment. Reich officials let Red Cross packages in and everything: they viewed the American soldiers as racial allies and saw no reason to kill or mistreat them needlessly. It's one of those twisted situations where they came to the right conclusion based on completely erroneous and ridiculous premises.

Still, I'm not sure what they did with Jewish pilots; I'd be interested to find out.

Also, the "War on Terror" [if you can call it that] will never end in any meaningful sense of the term: I suspect the Pentagon knows this and it's probably part of the reason why they're so reluctant to call them outright POWs. When you wage war against a cultural phenomenon [Drugs, Homelessness, Terror], you're setting yourself up for failure every time. This "war" will certainly not end, and the detainees will be in Cuba possibly for the rest of their natural lives. I've already noticed the media has been paying less and less attention to them, and if I were a betting man I'd wager we'll forget about them entirely in another 5 years.

I could care less what happens to the detainees at Guantanamo.

In my opinion, they truly are prisoners of war (something I disagree with the Pentagon about).

Since they are prisoners of war, they are not entitled to "trials'. No one tried the Allied pilots shot down over Germany during WW II - they were simply marched to a POW camp and detained for the duration of the war.

It's in the Geneva Conventions, you know.

We should detain anyone captured fighting against our troops until the end of the war on terror.

Which essentially means forever.

And I would be completely within the Geneva Conventions in doing so.

Your opinion on this issue appears to have flip-flopped.

At least you are willing to call them POWs. You cannot, however, hold them forever.

When we fought "the Cold War," we didn't keep prisoners for 40+ years.

If the US is not actively engaged in combat in the country where the individual is seized, he/she must be released.

I largely agree with you, but I should point out that Allied POWs were typically treated remarkably well by their German captors, for one reason or another. Movies like Stalag 17 and shows [based off Stalag 17] like "Hogans Heroes" are exaggerations of course, but they got the meat and bones of the POW situation more or less spot on. They had to do a fair bit of manual labor of course, but one can hardly make a case for that being any sort of cruel treatment. Reich officials let Red Cross packages in and everything: they viewed the American soldiers as racial allies and saw no reason to kill or mistreat them needlessly. It's one of those twisted situations where they came to the right conclusion based on completely erroneous and ridiculous premises.

Still, I'm not sure what they did with Jewish pilots; I'd be interested to find out.

Also, the "War on Terror" [if you can call it that] will never end in any meaningful sense of the term: I suspect the Pentagon knows this and it's probably part of the reason why they're so reluctant to call them outright POWs. When you wage war against a cultural phenomenon [Drugs, Homelessness, Terror], you're setting yourself up for failure every time. This "war" will certainly not end, and the detainees will be in Cuba possibly for the rest of their natural lives. I've already noticed the media has been paying less and less attention to them, and if I were a betting man I'd wager we'll forget about them entirely in another 5 years.

1. Interesting that we aren't treating our prisoners as well as the Nazis did.

2. Some of us will never forget.

You would think that they wouldn't be tortured anyway for basic human rights.

Human Rights is a made up belief created by people with people who lived in seclusion in their nice little mansions away from the rest of the univese. It doesn't really exist. Example of how it doesn't exist: Ever stepped into the real world?

Human Rights only exists as far as people believe in it. So, I will agree with you, we should abide by it, because it's a nice thing. But not when dealing with people who don't believe in it.

"Oh! But that makes you the better person!"

Yeah, it also makes you the dead person. Human Rights only exist in the little mythical bubbles we create for them. It's like Gun Control Laws. The only people who follow gun control laws already follow the law. Criminals, if you hadn't noticed, don't. There are only two rights in the universe. I'll tell you what they are.

The Right to Die

And the Right to be Taxed.

BTW, the Geneva Convention wasn't signed by Islamic Terrorists. Since they never signed the contract, we don't have to follow it. It's like when someone rents an apartment without a contract. You can be evicted at anytime. Get Hamas and Al Qaeda to sign the Geneva Convention, then we can follow it.

OH! But wait! They won't.

Human Rights is a made up belief created by people with people who lived in seclusion in their nice little mansions away from the rest of the univese. It doesn't really exist. Example of how it doesn't exist: Ever stepped into the real world?

Human Rights only exists as far as people believe in it. So, I will agree with you, we should abide by it, because it's a nice thing. But not when dealing with people who don't believe in it.

"Oh! But that makes you the better person!"

Yeah, it also makes you the dead person. Human Rights only exist in the little mythical bubbles we create for them. The are only two rights in the universe. I'll tell you what they are.

The Right to Die

And the Right to be Taxed.

Ever read any Hobbes?

You paint a picture of life ...

where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

1. Interesting that we aren't treating our prisoners as well as the Nazis did.
Isn't it though?

Although in fairness, enemies taken by the Reich towards the end of the war [on the ground, at least] were generally executed, but that was more for practical reasons than anything else: they were just losing ground too fast to bother with it, really. We'd do the same thing if the US got invaded and we were losing the equivalent of one state every week or so.

2. Some of us will never forget.
Of course, but by "we" I meant the public at large; I was meaning to say this won't really be a major issue for very much longer. We [collectively] have a way of being rather easily distracted. Hell, if Ben Affleck has another big breakup and finds some other Hollywood Honey, we'll probably even forget there's a war in Iraq.

And yes, I know I'm exaggerating horribly. It just sounded good. ;)

BTW, the Geneva Convention wasn't signed by Islamic Terrorists. Since they never signed the contract, we don't have to follow it. It's like when someone rents an apartment without a contract. You can be evicted at anytime. Get Hamas and Al Qaeda to sign the Geneva Convention, then we can follow it.

OH! But wait! They won't.

Iraq and Afghanistan are signatories of the Geneva Conventions. Individuals don't sign, countries do.

Ever read any Hobbes?


Hobbes and I are home-boys. We go and pimp the hos every friday night ;) .

Isn't it though?

Although in fairness, enemies taken by the Reich towards the end of the war [on the ground, at least] were generally executed, but that was more for practical reasons than anything else: they were just losing ground too fast to bother with it, really. We'd do the same thing if the US got invaded and we were losing the equivalent of one state every week or so.


Of course, but by "we" I meant the public at large; I was meaning to say this won't really be a major issue for very much longer. We [collectively] have a way of being rather easily distracted. Hell, if Ben Affleck has another big breakup and finds some other Hollywood Honey, we'll probably even forget there's a war in Iraq.

And yes, I know I'm exaggerating horribly. It just sounded good. ;)

OMG!! We agree! Run for the hills! :)

Iraq and Afghanistan are signatories of the Geneva Conventions. Individuals don't sign, countries do.

Exactly my point... Last time I checked 'Al-Qaeda' wasn't a country where you could be a citizen.

Think of Al-Qaeda as an International, publically traded, Corporation. You can be an employee of 'Al-Qaeda' Inc. And since you're International, you can be sent to any country to work in that country. So, don't be suprised if you're put in jail for breaking a country's laws. ;)

OMG!! We agree! Run for the hills! :)
Hmmmm, I wonder if any of this is in Revelations.

Exactly my point... Last time I checked 'Al-Qaeda' wasn't a country where you could be a citizen.

Think of Al-Qaeda as an International, publically traded, Corporation. You can be an employee of 'Al-Qaeda' Inc. And since you're International, you can be sent to any country to work in that country. So, don't be suprised if you're put in jail for breaking a country's laws. ;)

The wording of the Geneva Conventions doesn't work that way. There is not the loophole that you think.

The wording of the Geneva Conventions doesn't work that way. There is not the loophole that you think.

Exactly. The Geneva Convention ONLY applies to Nation-States (haha, get it?) at war with one another. It does not apply to individuals. Remember the Oklahoma City Bomber? Does the Geneva Convention apply to him? Hell no. He's a terrorist.

Exactly. The Geneva Convention ONLY applies to Nation-States (haha, get it?) at war with one another. It does not apply to individuals. Remember the Oklahoma City Bomber? Does the Geneva Convention apply to him? Hell no. He's a terrorist.

McVeigh was punished according to the laws in which he committed his crime. That is allowed under the Geneva Convention, but such punishment is subject to the laws of the country in question.

If you are captured by the US in a country that is a signatory, you are governed by the Geneva Conventions. Period.

Two things....

IF they are POWs, then they cannot be tortured according to the Geneva Conventions.

IF they are not wearing uniforms, how can you determine that they are enemy combatants?

If they aren't in Military uniforms and they are confirmed Enemy Combatants You can do whatever you want with them, No Rules apply to soldiers caught out of uniform, soldiers for hire, or Rebels. You can do whatever you want to them and it's completely Legit.

I could care less what happens to the detainees at Guantanamo.

In my opinion, they truly are prisoners of war (something I disagree with the Pentagon about).

Since they are prisoners of war, they are not entitled to "trials'. No one tried the Allied pilots shot down over Germany during WW II - they were simply marched to a POW camp and detained for the duration of the war.

It's in the Geneva Conventions, you know.

We should detain anyone captured fighting against our troops until the end of the war on terror.

Which essentially means forever.

And I would be completely within the Geneva Conventions in doing so.
You know what, *insert expletive here*, by the current evisceration of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, YOU, right NOW, are capable of having what you think are your rights whisked away and someone could stick you on a stool with a black cloth over your head and some electrodes to your genitals and someone could get a few yuks out of it, and i suppose you'd have the exact same feelings then, huh?

If they aren't in Military uniforms and they are confirmed Enemy Combatants You can do whatever you want with them, No Rules apply to soldiers caught out of uniform, soldiers for hire, or Rebels. You can do whatever you want to them and it's completely Legit.

That is a canard.

Please cite the portion of the Geneva Conventions that allegedly says this.

There are only two rights in the universe. I'll tell you what they are.

The Right to Die

And the Right to be Taxed.

.
Hmmm.

right (OED):
n. 2. Justification or fair claim.
3. Legal or moral authority to act.

...so, as justification goes, it stands to reason that as a RIGHT, death is something that has a balance of option (fair, justice) ...
unless you're implying that the right to die issue is the euthanasia issue ...
As a right to die, do i have a moral authority as well to act upon it? Or a moral authority NOT to die? Or only to die?

Exactly my point... Last time I checked 'Al-Qaeda' wasn't a country where you could be a citizen.

Think of Al-Qaeda as an International, publically traded, Corporation. You can be an employee of 'Al-Qaeda' Inc. And since you're International, you can be sent to any country to work in that country. So, don't be suprised if you're put in jail for breaking a country's laws. ;)
CORPORATION .....
interesting choice of term.
*nods*

If they aren't in Military uniforms and they are confirmed Enemy Combatants You can do whatever you want with them, No Rules apply to soldiers caught out of uniform, soldiers for hire, or Rebels. You can do whatever you want to them and it's completely Legit.
I suppose that you did not watch the videos? Some of these so called combatants were not even fighting. They were kidnapped and turned over for ransom on false accusations.

Secondly, because there are "no rules" (according to the US), it is okay for the US to ignore "basic" human rights which is supposed to be the among the tenets of a free and just society?

I suppose that you did not watch the videos? Some of these so called combatants were not even fighting. They were kidnapped and turned over for ransom on false accusations.

Secondly, because there are "no rules" (according to the US), it is okay for the US to ignore "basic" human rights which is supposed to be the among the tenets of a free and just society?

I was just watching a show on the History Channel about Nazi resistance to Allied occupation. Roughly from 1945 to 1948, there was resistance by former soldiers, former Nazi party members, and some specially trained people.

They weren't fighting in uniform.

What happened when you were caught depended on whether you were in the British, US, French, or Russian sector of occupied Germany.

Americans had you shot after a brief hearing - summary execution by firing squad. There are also a few incidents of American reprisals - either by executing additional German POWs or shelling towns.

The British used a beheading machine.

The French were habitually executing the offenders, and were notorious for shelling towns as a standard reprisal.

The Russians would shoot the offender, and after counting their own dead, kill 100 to 200 German men for every dead Russian soldier.

By the Conventions of the time, the executions of captured combatants who were not in uniform was consistent and legal under international law. The violationsin these cases were the reprisals.

Technically, if you catch someone under arms without a uniform, and they have offered force against your military, you're within your rights not to take them prisoner at all, and shoot them while they still have their hands up.

<snip>
IF they are not wearing uniforms, how can you determine that they are enemy combatants?


Right. If they're not wearing uniforms they should simply be executed.

Any country that willingly participates in torture should have its leaders-who-knew and participants in the act tried in an international court, just like Saddham. Personally, I'd like to see it.

*Shrug*

There is no such thing as human rights any more. If the US can do this and get away with it then anyone can.
Unfortunately, I agree with you that this is, indeed, the obvious message we're sending. :(

Any country that willingly participates in torture should have its leaders-who-knew and participants in the act tried in an international court, just like Saddham. Personally, I'd like to see it.

Here's a thought experiment for you then.

Let's say that it's true that the CIA was flying people to and through Europe to be tortured.

I don't believe that much happens with the CIA in Europe without European intelligence services knowing what's going on - especially if their airfields and military bases and buildings are being used for black purposes.

So, the intelligence services HAD to know. Which means that it's very likely that the leaders of most of those EU nations knew - they get the reports from their intelligence services.

Makes you wonder how many you'll have to take to court - a few Americans and a very large number of Europeans.

Also, the "War on Terror" [if you can call it that] will never end in any meaningful sense of the term: I suspect the Pentagon knows this and it's probably part of the reason why they're so reluctant to call them outright POWs. When you wage war against a cultural phenomenon [Drugs, Homelessness, Terror], you're setting yourself up for failure every time. This "war" will certainly not end, and the detainees will be in Cuba possibly for the rest of their natural lives. I've already noticed the media has been paying less and less attention to them, and if I were a betting man I'd wager we'll forget about them entirely in another 5 years.
Oh, MU... If you were kinkier, I'd so do you. :D

Here's a thought experiment for you then.

Let's say that it's true that the CIA was flying people to and through Europe to be tortured.

I don't believe that much happens with the CIA in Europe without European intelligence services knowing what's going on - especially if their airfields and military bases and buildings are being used for black purposes.

So, the intelligence services HAD to know. Which means that it's very likely that the leaders of most of those EU nations knew - they get the reports from their intelligence services.

Makes you wonder how many you'll have to take to court - a few Americans and a very large number of Europeans.
Few compared to WWII. It would be well worth the time and expense in order to send the message that this isn't an acceptable tactic in our times.
Evolution hurts.

Here's a thought experiment for you then.

Let's say that it's true that the CIA was flying people to and through Europe to be tortured.

I don't believe that much happens with the CIA in Europe without European intelligence services knowing what's going on - especially if their airfields and military bases and buildings are being used for black purposes.

So, the intelligence services HAD to know. Which means that it's very likely that the leaders of most of those EU nations knew - they get the reports from their intelligence services.

Makes you wonder how many you'll have to take to court - a few Americans and a very large number of Europeans.
In the case of Iraq, you would have to take mostly Americans and British to court? Most of the people around the world look upon the Iraqi exercize as an illegal invasion.

Illegal invasion = strike one.

Torture of prisoners = strike two.

Denial of basic human rights = strike three.

You cannot compare this to WW 2 which ended over 60 years ago, and you can't support your CIA conspiracy theory either. Even large numbers of Americans are not buying todays "new and Improved" US warfare techniques.

In the case of Iraq, you would have to take mostly Americans and British to court? Most of the people around the world look upon the Iraqi exercize as an illegal invasion.

Illegal invasion = strike one.

Torture of prisoners = strike two.

Denial of basic human rights = strike three.

You cannot compare this to WW 2 which ended over 60 years ago, and you can't support your CIA conspiracy theory either. Even large numbers of Americans are not buying todays "new and Improved" US warfare techniques.

In the case of the "renditions" issue, you'll be taking quite a few EU leaders.

You could start with the previous PM of Germany, who evidently knew about it. What irony!

Of course not.. he meant Teddy... remember? :p

Teddy was FDR's father? ;)

Right. If they're not wearing uniforms they should simply be executed.

Again, this is a canard.

Please cite where in the Geneva Conventions it says this.

BTW, the Geneva Convention wasn't signed by Islamic Terrorists. Since they never signed the contract, we don't have to follow it. It's like when someone rents an apartment without a contract. You can be evicted at anytime. Get Hamas and Al Qaeda to sign the Geneva Convention, then we can follow it.

A slippery slope arguement that. Since someone else does something horrific to us and because they didn't sign to play by international rules then we can break them also? Sounds like the justification of a thug.

A slippery slope arguement that. Since someone else does something horrific to us and because they didn't sign to play by international rules then we can break them also? Sounds like the justification of a thug.

No, sounds like the justification of someone who doesn't want to be a victim anymore. What the hell does it matter if you're all 'high and mighty' with your piece of paper? Walk down the streets of Compton. The Constitution isn't going to save your ass from a bullet to the head. The Fifteenth Amendment isn't going to stop these gangstas from popping a cap in my ass because I'm some middle class white person walking down through the Ghetto.

You play by the rules set by neighborhood.

And sometimes, you just gotta be the better person:

By making sure you live long enough to make sure that shit doesn't happen again.

No, sounds like the justification of someone who doesn't want to be a victim anymore. What the hell does it matter if you're all 'high and mighty' with your piece of paper? Walk down the streets of Compton. The Constitution isn't going to save your ass from a bullet to the head. The Fifteenth Amendment isn't going to stop these gangstas from popping a cap in my ass because I'm some middle class white person walking down through the Ghetto.

You play by the rules set by neighborhood.

And sometimes, you just gotta be the better person:

By making sure you live long enough to make sure that shit doesn't happen again.

*sigh*

I pity your sad view of life.

*sigh*

I pity your sad view of life.

Yeah, how do you think I feel?

Does that somehow invalidate my point?

Nope.

If the US is not actively engaged in combat in the country where the individual is seized, he/she must be released.
This has to be one of the most ridiculous statements it has ever been my displeasure to read. You do know, do you not, that there are those who become terrorists in contravention of the stated policies of their own governments? :rolleyes:

Ever read any Hobbes?

You paint a picture of life ...

where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
How very droll. The only thing that separates the times of which Hobbes spoke from our own times is the thin, green line that stands between your little bubble of temporary safety and the total chaos of societal collapse a la the repeated sacking of Rome by the vandals and uncounted others.

No, sounds like the justification of someone who doesn't want to be a victim anymore. What the hell does it matter if you're all 'high and mighty' with your piece of paper? Walk down the streets of Compton. The Constitution isn't going to save your ass from a bullet to the head. The Fifteenth Amendment isn't going to stop these gangstas from popping a cap in my ass because I'm some middle class white person walking down through the Ghetto.

You play by the rules set by neighborhood.

And sometimes, you just gotta be the better person:

By making sure you live long enough to make sure that shit doesn't happen again.

This analogy doesn't fit the situation.

Your 'white middle class' wanderer is powerless, surrounded on all sides by things, situations, and people he doesn't understand, all of whom have more power, more control, than he has.

That's not America on the world stage, and it's a somewhat racist analogy to boot.

You can't think of your country as a free nation, espousing liberty and democracy, leading the free world, on the one hand and kidnapping, torturing, and imprisoning without trial suspects on the other. You spit on your constitution and every sacrifice that was ever made for it. The world needs a strong, just America, not an overweening international thug.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous statements it has ever been my displeasure to read. You do know, do you not, that there are those who become terrorists in contravention of the stated policies of their own governments? :rolleyes:

The statement is only ridiculous if taken way out of context.

I have specifically said that those who become terrorists in contravention of their own country's laws may be punished pursuant to those laws.

They may also be given a trial and punished under US law.

But they can't simply be held in limbo forever.

Elgesh']The world needs a strong, just America, not an overweening international thug.
This, at least, is true.

Elgesh']This analogy doesn't fit the situation.

Your 'white middle class' wanderer is powerless, surrounded on all sides by things, situations, and people he doesn't understand, all of whom have more power, more control, than he has.

That's not America on the world stage, and it's a somewhat racist analogy to boot.

You can't think of your country as a free nation, espousing liberty and democracy, leading the free world, on the one hand and kidnapping, torturing, and imprisoning without trial suspects on the other. You spit on your constitution and every sacrifice that was ever made for it. The world needs a strong, just America, not an overweening international thug.

Exactly! Unfortunately superpowers never seem to have any real positive goals in mind just pure self-interest that will be carried out by any means neccessary. There are all kinds of dictators and civil rights abuses that we could go after... but we don't because it does not affect us or we need their support so we will turn a blind eye on their doings. I seem to remember that some of the countries with the worst records on civil rights are now our allies. Hypocricy also goes along with being a superpower it seems.

How very droll. The only thing that separates the times of which Hobbes spoke from our own times is the thin, green line that stands between your little bubble of temporary safety and the total chaos of societal collapse a la the repeated sacking of Rome by the vandals and uncounted others.

The only thing that keeps us out of a Hobbesian state of nature is "the thin, green line" of the military?

Gee, ever heard of the Constitution?

Elgesh']This analogy doesn't fit the situation.

Your 'white middle class' wanderer is powerless, surrounded on all sides by things, situations, and people he doesn't understand, all of whom have more power, more control, than he has.



It fits perfectly. My 'white middle class wanderer' can continue to get shot, or can take matters into his own hands, or he can flee. He has three choices:

A) Can continue to the victim and let the status quo stay.

B) Can go and fight his opressors and change the status quo.

C) If he gets lucky, can escape the situation, and never return.

But, what does this leave us with? Option A) just leaves the status quo. There are still the oppressors. They are still oppressing those who can't fight back. Option C) makes the situation better for him but what about everyone else he left behind? Not only have you left the status quo in place, but you've left less victims to be victimized. Meaning that the people he left behind will be victimized more often.

So that leaves us with option B. Now, while I think that violence should never be resorted to, it most likely will. 'Tookie' Williams, who's going to be executed in my state, said that he could either be a victimizer or be a victim. For anyone who doesn't know, Tookie is a co-founder of the Crips gang, and was incarcerated for killing, brutally killing, 4 individuals. A husband, and wife, their daughter, and some random Asian guy because 'he felt like it'.

But 'Tookie' is an idiot. He didn't have to be a victimizer or a victim. He could stop be a victim, and could stop letting the victimizers hurt those who are unable to protect themselves. He could be a vigilante. Which, on the streets of Compton, is probably something that needs to happen, seeing as how we have such a large supply of Cops in LA. And since you're dealing with gangsters, you're most likely, unfortunately, going to have to resort to muscle to get them to change their minds.

These aren't 'Mob' Gangsters from the 1920s, these people cannot be reasoned with on anything beyond instant gratification and muscle power. They barely have the education of a 3rd grader and the brain capacity of a three year old (I'm sorry if I offended any three year olds). Paper, contracts, words, don't mean a thing to them. It's all about the action.

And the only action they understand is the blat from the gun blast.

The only thing that keeps us out of a Hobbesian state of nature is "the thin, green line" of the military?

Gee, ever heard of the Constitution?
Um ... the Constitution is the tangible document stating the principles under which the Country is to be governed, not something you can wave at terrorists and make them cower into submission. It is a piece of parchment, which, without adequate force to protect it, might make a good fish-wrap. Why do you suppose the oath every member of the armed services must take includes the pledge to "defend the Constitution?"

It fits perfectly. My 'white middle class wanderer' can continue to get shot, or can take matters into his own hands, or he can flee. He has three choices:

And the only action they understand is the blat from the gun blast.


Ergh... I don't deny that's the situation for some guy wandering a bad neighbourhood, but it's totally irrevelent. America is not knowledge-less, power-less, friend-less, without any means to control the situation it finds itself it. It's not anything like the little man wandering the bad neighbourhood, and ergo your analogy, your comparison of the 2 situations, is without foundation.

Um ... the Constitution is the tangible document stating the principles under which the Country is to be governed, not something you can wave at terrorists and make them cower into submission. It is a piece of parchment, which, without adequate force to protect it, might make a good fish-wrap. Why do you suppose the oath every member of the armed services includes the pledge to "defend the Constitution?"

My point is broader than that. John Locke and the Founders did not agree with Hobbes about how dire the state of nature would be. I am suprised you would adopt the Hobbesian view.

Also, there is far more to civilization than merely being protected from enemies.

Exactly! Unfortunately superpowers never seem to have any real positive goals in mind just pure self-interest that will be carried out by any means neccessary. There are all kinds of dictators and civil rights abuses that we could go after... but we don't because it does not affect us or we need their support so we will turn a blind eye on their doings. I seem to remember that some of the countries with the worst records on civil rights are now our allies. Hypocricy also goes along with being a superpower it seems.

I'm going to agree with you. I believe in an isolationist government personally.

But since we're taking out Saddam, we should take out all of the other Tin-Pot dictators on the planet.

BUT WAIT!

Europe will get mad at us, calling us dictators and war mongers. I guess a truly altruistic America would hurt too much. Jeez, we've only knocked off Saddam and the Taliban. Imagine if we tried to get rid of the Columbian drug lords, the Shah, the Princes of Saud, all of those African warlords, Castro (I do admit he has done some good), ad infinitum. But we can't, because it's that country's right to have any tin-pot dictator we want.

I guess it's because Europeans like the status quo. Remember South Africa, the Congo, Egypt, Indonesia, VIETNAM, China, Mexico, Cuba, Brazil, etc, etc, etc...

Um ... the Constitution is the tangible document stating the principles under which the Country is to be governed, not something you can wave at terrorists and make them cower into submission. It is a piece of parchment, which, without adequate force to protect it, might make a good fish-wrap. Why do you suppose the oath every member of the armed services must take includes the pledge to "defend the Constitution?"

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Sums up my point pretty well.

Also, there is far more to civilization than merely being protected from enemies.

Which comes first, Protection, or Civilization?

Protection.

How many examples can I name? hm...

Ancient Greece (Battle of Thermopylae, Battle of Salamis), the Roman Empire (Barbarians, Carthegians), Western European Civlization (Battle of Tours, Mongol Invasion which ended with the death of Ghengis at the gates of Vienna), the British Empire (Spanish Armada), The Crusades (creation under Suleman of the Arabic state and the creation of the Ottomon Empire later after the fall fo Byzantium), do you want me to keep going? I can start naming other areas of the globe if you want me to.

My point is broader than that. John Locke and the Founders did not agree with Hobbes about how dire the state of nature would be. I am suprised you would adopt the Hobbesian view.

Also, there is far more to civilization than merely being protected from enemies.
Really?? Wow! :eek: [/SARCASM]

The "state of nature" has little to do with it. As you undoubtedly know: there are times when there are not sufficient resources, there are times when civilizations clash, there are times when religious zealotry overwhemls reason., there are times when demented rulers seem to pratice war for the hell of it, there are times when sheer population pressure becomes a source of conflict. People, being people, will go to war over virtually anything ... or even nothing.

The times of peace and prosperity for most of human history are few and far between, and even in those times, things were not always as calm as might be supposed.

Which comes first, Protection, or Civilization?

Protection.

How many examples can I name? hm...

Ancient Greece (Battle of Thermopylae, Battle of Salamis), the Roman Empire (Barbarians, Carthegians), Western European Civlization (Battle of Tours, Mongol Invasion which ended with the death of Ghengis at the gates of Vienna), the British Empire (Spanish Armada), The Crusades (creation under Suleman of the Arabic state and the creation of the Ottomon Empire later after the fall fo Byzantium), do you want me to keep going? I can start naming other areas of the globe if you want me to.

All of these were world changing events. You're hysterically overestimating the power and potential of a bunch of loosely affiliated extremist mini-groups with smeg for brains, brought to temporary promenance by ephemeral social and cultural forces. America's current government's current policy is apparently designed to change these ephermal situations into lasting inequalities, I admit, but that would be it's own fault.

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Sums up my point pretty well.
Thank you, thank you. I try. Please though, no applause. Donations are gratefully accepted, however. :D

I'm going to agree with you. I believe in an isolationist government personally.

But since we're taking out Saddam, we should take out all of the other Tin-Pot dictators on the planet.

BUT WAIT!

Europe will get mad at us, calling us dictators and war mongers. I guess a truly altruistic America would hurt too much. Jeez, we've only knocked off Saddam and the Taliban. Imagine if we tried to get rid of the Columbian drug lords, the Shah, the Princes of Saud, all of those African warlords, Castro (I do admit he has done some good), ad infinitum. But we can't, because it's that country's right to have any tin-pot dictator we want.

Keeping the world in chaos gives politicians platforms to run for office on. Saudi Arabia is untouchable anyway for their oil and letting us put military bases there. It would just be nice to do something from pure altruism for once. Bush is just an arrogant man who thinks the world should fall in line with his policies. Other countries don't agree? Screw you I'm doing it anyway!

No, we will only help those who can give us something in return. Liberia asks for our help to end their civil war and we do nothing and that country has historical ties to our country. It should really speak to our priorites.

Eut and Empryia,

If the state of nature is so bad, why would you advocate it on the international level? Wouldn't it be better for the US to seek higher ground?

My point is broader than that. John Locke and the Founders did not agree with Hobbes about how dire the state of nature would be. I am suprised you would adopt the Hobbesian view.

Also, there is far more to civilization than merely being protected from enemies.

John Locke was kind of an idiot. Actually, no. He was NOT an idiot. He was an Idealist, and as such, didn't have too many examples to prove his point.

Go into a major city urban ghetto in the United States.

That proves that Hobbes was dead on the money.

Eut and Empryia,

If the state of nature is so bad, why would you advocate it on the international level? Wouldn't it be better for the US to seek higher ground?

Explain please. It's kind of vague and I don't want to answer something that you're not asking.

Elgesh']All of these were world changing events. You're hysterically overestimating the power and potential of a bunch of loosely affiliated extremist mini-groups with smeg for brains, brought to temporary promenance by ephemeral social and cultural forces. America's current government's current policy is apparently designed to change these ephermal situations into lasting inequalities, I admit, but that would be it's own fault.
You underestimate the clash of civilizations involved in the "War on terror." The primary driving force behind the Jihadist movement is the re-establishment of the Caliphate from Spain through Indonesia. The "War on terror" is only the current manifestation of the resentment many ( if not most ) Islamists feel at not having their "proper place" of dominance over the Infidel.

John Locke was kind of an idiot. Actually, no. He was NOT an idiot. He was an Idealist, and as such, didn't have too many examples to prove his point.

Go into a major city urban ghetto in the United States.

That proves that Hobbes was dead on the money.

If so, our civilization is based on false premises. The Founders were quite Lockian.

Keeping the world in chaos gives politicians platforms to run for office on. Saudi Arabia is untouchable anyway for their oil and letting us put military bases there. It would just be nice to do something from pure altruism for once. Bush is just an arrogant man who thinks the world should fall in line with his policies. Other countries don't agree? Screw you I'm doing it anyway!

No, we will only help those who can give us something in return. Liberia asks for our help to end their civil war and we do nothing and that country has historical ties to our country. It should really speak to our priorites.

Which why I advocate Isolationism. If we can't or won't help them all. We shouldn't help any.

I hate oil. We really need to move away from the god-damned substance. Or drill in alaska. It's mostly ice and snow anyways (jk... kind of). Or drill off the god-damned coast of malibu! It's about time those rich ass bastards have to give back after they keep buying all those gas-guzzling SUVs.

Eut and Empryia,

If the state of nature is so bad, why would you advocate it on the international level? Wouldn't it be better for the US to seek higher ground?
All things being equal, "seeking the higher ground" is a much better way. I have never stated that I agree with every action taken by the US since WWII. I am, however, not privy to all the information to which supposedly wiser heads than mine are privy.

NOTE: as I stated above, "the state of nature" has little to do with the topic of this discussion. "The state of the human heart," however, does.

If so, our civilization is based on false premises. The Founders were quite Lockian.

I never said false. I just said idealist.

There is nothing every wrong with idealism. I think idealism is definately a good thing, something everyone should strive for. To be the best at everything. I'm definately an idealist. I hope that the fight against the Iraq insurgency does go well, so then we have at least good standing with two Middle East countries. I hope that Bush is actually doing the right thing. I hope that some of my teachers aren't complete idiots. I hope that all pedophiles get what's coming to them. I hope that everyone, in a capitalist society of America, gets to live that American dream, and make it big. It would please me unto no end.

In practice, unfortunately, reality (Hobbes), kicks in.

You underestimate the clash of civilizations involved in the "War on terror." The primary driving force behind the Jihadist movement is the re-establishment of the Caliphate from Spain through Indonesia. The "War on terror" is only the current manifestation of the resentment many ( if not most ) Islamists feel at not having their "proper place" of dominance over the Infidel.

Good luck with that! It is quite doubtful that Arabism will ever make a comeback, Middle Eastern people have settled into their nationalist identities so the rebirth of a Islamic Empire is just not going to happen.

If so, our civilization is based on false premises. The Founders were quite Lockian.
I would say that our civilizaton is based on hopeful premises. So far they seem to have worked, but the jury is still out.

I would say that our civilizaton is based on hopeful premises. So far they seem to have worked, but the jury is still out.

Agreed.

It is quite doubtful that Arabism will ever make a comeback, Middle Eastern people have settled into their nationalist identities so the rebirth of a Islamic Empire is just not going to happen.
I sincerely hope you're right. If not, the "War on terror" is going to be a decades-long struggle.

Agreed.
:eek: [ Faints! ] **THUD!** :D

You underestimate the clash of civilizations involved in the "War on terror." The primary driving force behind the Jihadist movement is the re-establishment of the Caliphate from Spain through Indonesia. The "War on terror" is only the current manifestation of the resentment many ( if not most ) Islamists feel at not having their "proper place" of dominance over the Infidel.

I still think you overestimate the risk. Weirdos aside (the terrorists themselves), right? Forget about them, they'd think their weird thoughts whatever the situation, agreed?

"the resentment many (if not most) Islamists feel"

What's an Islamist? Is it a Weirdo, as I said above? Or do you mean Muslim? The ordinary man in the Mosque cares about his job, what's for dinner tonight, how his kids get on at school - not unlike us! They don't have horns either! :p This stuff, this 'resentment' is fuelled by something; find out what it is, and counter it at the source, at its cause. Is it economic inequality, social problems political prolems? Is this resentment not in fact it media led, propagandised, by some politico-religious leaders to distract their Muslim public from its real problems?

Find the cause, and work on a solution. Fight the symptom, terrorism, by invasions and unscrupulous exploitations, kidnap and torture, imprisonment without trial, and you create new causes you have to fix! Your solution vastly escalates the problem and turns it into a clash of civilizations if it goes on long enough!

I sincerely hope you're right. If not, the "War on terror" is going to be a decades-long struggle.

I don't know about that. I don't see the Muslim "man on the street" being a hardliner. It seems democracy is brewing under the fundamentalist governments and is waiting to spring forth. If America would stop its arrogant policies perhaps it will come forth in places like Iran.

Elgesh']I still think you overestimate the risk. Weirdos aside (the terrorists themselves), right? Forget about them, they'd think their weird thoughts whatever the situation, agreed?

"the resentment many (if not most) Islamists feel"

What's an Islamist? Is it a Weirdo, as I said above? Or do you mean Muslim? The ordinary man in the Mosque cares about his job, what's for dinner tonight, how his kids get on at school - not unlike us! They don't have horns either! :p This stuff, this 'resentment' is fuelled by something; find out what it is, and counter it at the source, at its cause. Is it economic inequality, social problems political prolems? Is this resentment not in fact it media led, propagandised, by some politico-religious leaders to distract their Muslim public from its real problems?

Find the cause, and work on a solution. Fight the symptom, terrorism, by invasions and unscrupulous exploitations, kidnap and torture, imprisonment without trial, and you create new causes you have to fix! Your solution vastly escalates the problem and turns it into a clash of civilizations if it goes on long enough!

Yes, find a solution. Since the Dems in this country haven't found a better solution to fighting Islamic Militants, and no one else has, and Bush, for all of his faultsm, is the only one doing anything, I think I'll follow him. I may not agree with it all, but it's better than sitting on my hands waiting for the problem to be magically fixed.

Elgesh']I still think you overestimate the risk. Weirdos aside (the terrorists themselves), right? Forget about them, they'd think their weird thoughts whatever the situation, agreed?

"the resentment many (if not most) Islamists feel"

What's an Islamist? Is it a Weirdo, as I said above? Or do you mean Muslim? The ordinary man in the Mosque cares about his job, what's for dinner tonight, how his kids get on at school - not unlike us! They don't have horns either! :p This stuff, this 'resentment' is fuelled by something; find out what it is, and counter it at the source, at its cause. Is it economic inequality, social problems political prolems? Is this resentment not in fact it media led, propagandised, by some politico-religious leaders to distract their Muslim public from its real problems?

Find the cause, and work on a solution. Fight the symptom, terrorism, by invasions and unscrupulous exploitations, kidnap and torture, imprisonment without trial, and you create new causes you have to fix! Your solution vastly escalates the problem and turns it into a clash of civilizations if it goes on long enough!
My dear friend, most of the "little" people the world over have the same concerns: family, job, and keeping body and soul together. The same cannot be said of those with sufficient money/power to enforce their will on the rest of us. You know this.

If you treat symptoms without treating the root causes, you will become like many American doctors of my acquaintence: mere pushers of pills and paliatives. So what are the "root causes?" I'm so pleased you asked! Greed, the incessant search for the illusion called "safety," fear, the unending search for that which satisfies, and the drive to dominance.

If you can harness those in the service of humankind as a whole, then things will decidedly change for the better. If not, keep your military well trained and your powder dry.

Yes, find a solution. Since the Dems in this country haven't found a better solution to fighting Islamic Militants, and no one else has, and Bush, for all of his faultsm, is the only one doing anything, I think I'll follow him. I may not agree with it all, but it's better than sitting on my hands waiting for the problem to be magically fixed.

But what he's doinig is making it worse. You'd actually be _better_ doing nothing!

I feel conflicted. I supported Bush like hell when the war with Afghanistan was starting, and I defended him, said moderation would be used there... and it was. The situation there now is a million miles from perfect but it's better than it was - and would be better still if resources weren't being pumped into Iraq.

Don't you see that the threat of force is so much more than the use of force? A quick, relatively painless victory in Afghanistan, supported by the world... Bush could have waved his stick at extremist countries wil simultaneously offering carrots of aid, redevelopment, and fosting trade links etc. Instead, by attacking Iraq, all he's done is display the weakness of the US miltiary - shown how it's limited by political and diplomatic pressures at home and abroad. The threat of military annhiliation could keep a dozen countries in thrall, whereas now all you've got is one truculant, halftamed one, crawling with newly-generated extremist weirdos, and all similar countries feeling safe and defiant in the knowledge that the American public will not support another disastrous war without direct evidence of a present threat. Meanwhile, it encourages them to keep up the extremist rhetoric, knowing they'll be plenty of mini-'successes' (roadside/suicide bombs) against American forces to bolster their arguments, and so generate yet more weirdos.

You've given them a whole cottage industry!

If they still had the _threat_ of force over them, you'd have the opportunity to find the real causes and do something about them.

Elgesh']But what he's doinig is making it worse. You'd actually be _better_ doing nothing!

I feel conflicted. I supported Bush like hell when the war with Afghanistan was starting, and I defended him, said moderation would be used there... and it was. The situation there now is a million miles from perfect but it's better than it was - and would be better still if resources weren't being pumped into Iraq.

Don't you see that the threat of force is so much more than the use of force? A quick, relatively painless victory in Afghanistan, supported by the world... Bush could have waved his stick at extremist countries wil simultaneously offering carrots of aid, redevelopment, and fosting trade links etc. Instead, by attacking Iraq, all he's done is display the weakness of the US miltiary - shown how it's limited by political and diplomatic pressures at home and abroad. The threat of military annhiliation could keep a dozen countries in thrall, whereas now all you've got is one truculant, halftamed one, crawling with newly-generated extremist weirdos, and all similar countries feeling safe and defiant in the knowledge that the American public will not support another disastrous war without direct evidence of a present threat. Meanwhile, it encourages them to keep up the extremist rhetoric, knowing they'll be plenty of mini-'successes' (roadside/suicide bombs) against American forces to bolster their arguments, and so generate yet more weirdos.

You've given them a whole cottage industry!

If they still had the _threat_ of force over them, you'd have the opportunity to find the real causes and do something about them.

I agree with most of what you say. I've been given a hard time for my views on Afghanistan and Iraq. Iraq could've been dealt with so much better. But, in all seriousness, had we NOT, hit Iraq, I'm pretty sure we would've had to deal with new terrorists showing up in Afghanistan and we would've had to fight them off to.

The problem with America anymore is that it only sees Movements towards a Better Society as 'Anti-Government' movements. It's reminiscent of the 1960s. The thing with the 1960s is that they at least had a purpose in protesting, no matter how selfish it was: they didn't want to get drafted. Nobody is going to get drafted anytime soon. Bush isn't THAT retarded.

The thing with the 'Threat of Force' is that once you use it, you have to be able to back it up. We threatened Saddam with force... and he asked for it. We had to give it to him. Don't misconstrue that. We had to give it to him, or we'd be in an even worse position than we're in now. At least the Terrorists know we WILL take action if provoked. Brinkmanship is a DANGEROUS game to play.

It's like bear analogy. The bear is hibernating, and will stay asleep, and will forever leave you in peace. Disturb his sleep, and you will have to deal with the thousand sorrows of waking the great killer from its peaceful dreams.

Now that the terrorists know they've awoken the bear, with every attack they make, we must continue. I know this sucks, but we're in. We're in this. We CAN'T, CAN'T, CAN'T, let this become another Vietnam. We HAVE to see this through. To not see this through is inviting a disaster worse than the outcome of Vietnam.

The United States cannot take such another humiliating defeat. Vietnam was NOT unwinnable. We could've won. Politics made it unwinnable. We CAN win this too.

Unfortunately, it's only going to get worse before it gets better.

I agree with most of what you say..

Now that the terrorists know they've awoken the bear, with every attack they make, we must continue. I know this sucks, but we're in. We're in this. We CAN'T, CAN'T, CAN'T, let this become another Vietnam. We HAVE to see this through. To not see this through is inviting a disaster worse than the outcome of Vietnam.

The United States cannot take such another humiliating defeat. Vietnam was NOT unwinnable. We could've won. Politics made it unwinnable. We CAN win this too.

Unfortunately, it's only going to get worse before it gets better.

"I agree with most of what you say"

Thank you :) NIce to know we've got similarities as well :D

I certainly agree Bush can't cut and run from Iraq, that'd be remarkably dumb; it'd be reinforcing the notion of American Military weakness-by-constraints. I'm surprised to see the Democrats apparently push for it.

I still don't think it's impossible to defeat terrorism by attacking the source of it. Keep up protection and information gathering on terrorists of course, that's a given!! Keep using force to fight them of course, but by squads and in operations, not country-wide invasions. You generate more extremists that way. And in the meantime, while working to maintain Iraq, go for working the source and solutions to the causes of the symptoms of weird thought and terrorism, and take what steps you can to solve it.

Elgesh'] Keep using force to fight them of course, but by squads and in operations, not country-wide invasions.

hm... Do you think we should send individual commando squads into sovereign countries? Iran Hostage style (without the screw-ups of course). Though, I must admit, country-wide invasion isn't the best, it surely takes care of a lot of logistical problems. Our troops always have a base, they're never behind enemy lines, there are always reinforcements nearby.

Besides, extremists are hard to get at. But, I can see your logic and agree with it mostly (90%). The whole, 'can blow up the broad side of a barn but couldn't hit a fly' thing?

Eh, whatever... All I know is the Dems are screwing us. We have too much Anti-War sentiment leftover from Vietnam. We also have short-attention spans. Add those two together and you get the poll numbers like you do now.

Squads in sovereign countries is fine... if they let you in, or at least ttolerate your precence! It's unimaginable at the moment, but covert operations operating with the tacit permission of the sovreign nations concerned would have been doable, I believe, in my alternative timeline above :p Threat of stick and plenty of carrots as incentives for sov. nations to take this course, of course :p

We also have short-attention spans.

You've hit the nail on the head here. Short interventions, even badly thought out ones, can be at best vastly improved and at worst mostly salvaged by seeing them through.

But this is also a problem at the level of government. Politicians decide what to do internationally; they're used to dealing with problem on a much shorter time scale. In cultural problems like this, you need a much longer perspective - a sociological and historical take on what happens to groups, countries, and culutures in conflict. They need to be statesmen and think longterm, not like politicians up for reelection in a few years, or you end up making the problems worse, and letting your children/granchildren fix it...

Been pleasant debating with you, and coming closer in thought and theory! But it's late, I need sleep...3am here! Hope to see you in the lists again, though :)

Elgesh']This analogy doesn't fit the situation.

Your 'white middle class' wanderer is powerless, surrounded on all sides by things, situations, and people he doesn't understand, all of whom have more power, more control, than he has.

That's not America on the world stage, and it's a somewhat racist analogy to boot.

You can't think of your country as a free nation, espousing liberty and democracy, leading the free world, on the one hand and kidnapping, torturing, and imprisoning without trial suspects on the other. You spit on your constitution and every sacrifice that was ever made for it. The world needs a strong, just America, not an overweening international thug.
Wow!! I am absent for a few hours and some intelligent rebuttal goes forth. I like your style and what you have to say.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Um ... the Constitution is the tangible document stating the principles under which the Country is to be governed, not something you can wave at terrorists and make them cower into submission. It is a piece of parchment, which, without adequate force to protect it, might make a good fish-wrap. Why do you suppose the oath every member of the armed services must take includes the pledge to "defend the Constitution?"
And an invasion of Iraq under extremely dubious circumstances is somehow a defense of this Constitution? Embolden by the words on a "piece of parchment" it is the US duty to force the US sense of democracy on other nations, and strip them of thier rights and their beliefs?