Unwashed Village
General Discussion => Unwashed Village => Topic started by: Brugdor on August 17, 2007, 07:38:43 AM
-
High-fives on the right
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/16/breaking-padilla-verdict-expected-at-2-pm/
and bitter tears on the left
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-news/comments/2007/08/16/60738
best comment by a conservative trolling at HuffPo?
This slug gets a trial, Libs are not happy. If we shoot him on the battlefield, Libs won't be happy. If we lock him up at Club Gitmo, Libs are not happy.
Bottom line: Libs are never happy with anything our country does to protect their lame asses.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
-
Except that it is a huge overgeneralization.
I'm a massive tree-hugging liberal, and I'm glad the guy was caught, I'm glad he was in prison for 3 years, and I'm glad he was convicted.
And gee... I'm not the only liberal who thinks this.
And to generalize myself... why do rightists so quickly cry 'liberal'! when they see a few posts that support their lameass theory that all liberals think alike, all liberals are bad for the country, and all liberals don't have a clue.
I can find a few posts that support my theory that all republicans are whore-mongering capitalists, they don't give a damn about the environment, and want to abandon all social programs because they are greedy money-suckers.
But I don't believe that. So why sling such outrageous statements in our face? There's good guys and bad guys on both sides. To tar one side or the other with these huge (and blinded) generalizations is... wait for it, you knew it was coming... JUST FUCKING STUPID!
-
Except that it is a huge overgeneralization.
I'm a massive tree-hugging liberal, and I'm glad the guy was caught, I'm glad he was in prison for 3 years, and I'm glad he was convicted.
And gee... I'm not the only liberal who thinks this.
And to generalize myself... why do rightists so quickly cry 'liberal'! when they see a few posts that support their lameass theory that all liberals think alike, all liberals are bad for the country, and all liberals don't have a clue.
I can find a few posts that support my theory that all republicans are whore-mongering capitalists, they don't give a damn about the environment, and want to abandon all social programs because they are greedy money-suckers.
But I don't believe that. So why sling such outrageous statements in our face? There's good guys and bad guys on both sides. To tar one side or the other with these huge (and blinded) generalizations is... wait for it, you knew it was coming... JUST FUCKING STUPID!
Where did I say "all liberals"? Of course not all liberals feel that way but the ones that are running the party do for the most part. These are the Kos and HuffPo people that the Democratic leadership is stumbling all over themselves to please. Go ahead and head on over to Kos or that HuffPo link I provided and see what those people are saying. Most are beside themselves with anger or grief because a known terrorist was caught, tried, and convicted. They are crying, "Scapegoat!" and such about a guy whose fingerprints were found on an Al-Queda application and whose location and terrorist mission were given up to authorities by another captured terrorist.
-
I can't see why anyone could complain about this - at least he got a trial, which is more than you can say about many of the "terrorists" at Guantanamo.
-
I can't see why anyone could complain about this - at least he got a trial, which is more than you can say about many of the "terrorists" at Guantanamo.
Ah but see, he's another one that people referred to as a "terrorist". He was held as an enemy combatant without trial because...well he was an enemy combatant. Now I don't agree with holding American citizens without trial so I'd glad this one happened and he had his day in court. However it's not like the people being held down there are innocent little angels that were swept up out of their beds by a dictatorship in the middle of the night. Despite what many on the left would tell you.
As for the ones that aren't American citizens, they can rot in there. They are prisoners of war until the war is over.
-
Which still flies in the face of our agreements, no matter how you slice it.
That is the only problem I have. I dont think people are saying that these are great people who sould be released at once.. but that even if they are bad people, they are still protected under our international agreements to afford even enemy combatants basic rights such as representation.
-
That is the only problem I have. I dont think people are saying that these are great people who sould be released at once
Which of course is why so many have been calling for the prison down there to be shut down?
-
Because it has came to sybolise our flaunting of international agreements, human rights and other such deals? You dont have to release the prisoners to shut down a prison.. but fact of the matter is that Gitmo is tainted, not only at home but on the international stage and even if it is only symbolic, we would be better off shutting it down.
-
With your subject title "the left cries", you are damning all persons with a liberal view. It's called 'tarring'. Just fucking stop it.
I'm on the left.
I'm not crying.
Could we just once debate the issue (the conviction) instead of dragging left/right (and the associated "those shites are always fucked") into it?
-
With your subject title "the left cries", you are damning all persons with a liberal view. It's called 'tarring'. Just fucking stop it.
I'm on the left.
I'm not crying.
Could we just once debate the issue (the conviction) instead of dragging left/right (and the associated "those shites are always fucked") into it?
Ok, from now on I'll try to substitute "the people running the political left in the US" for "the left". :P
-
"the left"
"the political left"
"The people running the political left"
Ya know, I just don't see any value in using these terms (substitute 'right' if you wish). It's just a misguided attempt to blame woes on a nebulous and undefined group who are basically just talking heads or entertainers.
Stick to specific issues.
-
"the left"
"the political left"
"The people running the political left"
Ya know, I just don't see any value in using these terms (substitute 'right' if you wish). It's just a misguided attempt to blame woes on a nebulous and undefined group who are basically just talking heads or entertainers.
Stick to specific issues.
I think the fact that a huge chunk of the people that vote for Democrats are upset that this scumbag was convicted is a very specific issue. These are the same people that have never wanted us to succeed in Iraq and only because it would be a victory for Bush in their eyes. How crazed do you have to be to actually root for our enemies to win or avoid conviction just because you hate the sitting President so much? That's freakin nuts.
-
The right and the left are both wrong.
We must go forwards, not backwards. Upwards, not forwards. And ever twirling, twirling towards freedom!
To be fair, though, I think the only thing that separates nations like the US from nations like Sudan are that we have citizens that get pissed when our nation does something stupid.
I believe we refer to that as "eternal vigilance."
If that's not enough enlightenment era rhetoric for you try this one on for size...
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." ~Thomas Paine
-
Yeah because the war was so unpopular at the start, right? Most of the 'nay sayers' didnt become nay sayers until things started to not pan out as far as the justifications used. A fairly limited number of people were actually strictly against the war when it was being talked about and that is something that most of these people have to eventually realise.. that it's as much their fault for the war as it is Bush's.
For the record, the issues ive always had with the war wasnt so much the war but the reasons.. and Ive voiced them since the very begining.
-
To be fair, though, I think the only thing that separates nations like the US from nations like Sudan are that we have citizens that get pissed when our nation does something stupid.
I have to disagree. I bet the Sudan is full of people that are pissed off at their government. It's just that, unlike us, they can't do anything about it. But then we have the power to do something about it and never do so *shrug*
-
However it's not like the people being held down there are innocent little angels that were swept up out of their beds by a dictatorship in the middle of the night. Despite what many on the left would tell you.
Indeed. I mean, if the police arrest someone, they must not be angels either. So let's just lock all of them up too without trial.
As for the ones that aren't American citizens, they can rot in there. They are prisoners of war until the war is over.
The "hiding behind the Geneva convention" argument is the dumbest excuse for the Guantanamo-situation ever. First of all, when is "the war" over? When all the "terrorists" are dead? How convenient that the US decides who the terrorists are then.
Second of all, before hiding behind international conventions, try actually following them. How long did it take before allowing the Red Cross to access the detainees? And what is currently being done after the Red Cross has reported the conditions as inhumane? Not enough, that's for sure.
I can't even begin to understand the "they're not American" excuse. So it's ok for the US army to travel to another country, "arrest" random people, and detain them as POWs? After all, they're not American. That just doesn't make sense.
The whole enemy combatant/Geneva convention babble only works in traditional warfare between two nation states / alliances. That was how the original convention was intended. One of the major requirements for having POWs is that the two sides are easily determinable, typically through similar clothing/uniforms. For Guerrilla warfare, this is modified to visibly wearing weapons during military operations.
Anyone not doing so, are unlawful combatants, and loose the privileges of POWs. They still retain the rights of civilians. Meaning that to retain them, they would need a fair trial. Isn't there a hole in the logic somewhere here?
Even if we should assume that the POW argument made sense, the Geneva convention actually requires that the POWs are quartered under the same conditions as the US troops. Please just try to tell me that is the case..
It's things like this that's making the US seem more like an undeveloped country in terms of politics. (This, and not allowing neutral observers to monitor the last presidential elections)
You can argue "they deserve it" all you want, and for the majority of detainees, I might agree with you. But the "everything is according to law" argument won't pass.
-
I think the fact that a huge chunk of the people that vote for Democrats are upset that this scumbag was convicted is a very specific issue. These are the same people that have never wanted us to succeed in Iraq and only because it would be a victory for Bush in their eyes. How crazed do you have to be to actually root for our enemies to win or avoid conviction just because you hate the sitting President so much? That's freakin nuts.
Huge chunk? Really. A few Moonbats on a liberal news site/aggregate blog think it's bad and that is a full representation. How do you know some of the people supporting the verdict aren't liberals? I don't see a little tag that defines the posters as "right-winger" or "left-winger," do you?
You want to know my opinions on the "right" vs. the "left." I find on the whole, the "left" tend to disagree amongst themselves much more than the right. In fact, most "lefties" don't really even consider themselves "left," but the "right" will label anyone not part of their groupthink as a "lefty." For example, most "right-wingers" would label me a "lefty," but I really don't think the Democrats would like me anymore than I like them. Heck, people like Night Owl would be labled a "lefty" by modern day "right-wingers," and I would never consider him anywhere close to a bleeding-heart type (he's more along the lines of an old school Teddy Roosevelt type). My experience in following various politically biased media sources is that those in the "right-wing" will actively band together to form a cohesive unwavering point-of-view. (Rush Limbaugh listeners, anyone?) The "left-winger" have little disparate communities by comparison. It's one of the main reasons left-wing radio doesn't work.
Heck, look at the WTO protests. You had about 10 agendas protesting against the WTO, including some "right-wingers" of the Pat Buchanan variety (i.e. very pro-labor). Although I disagree with Pat Buchanan in just about every way politically, I give the guy a lot of credit for being his own person. He makes no secret of what he believes in and will take anyone on that disagrees.
-
Even the provision under the geneva convention concerning enemy combatants lays out basic rights for illegal combatants. There isnt some giant void and, IIRC, it specificly states that an Illegal combatant must be tried under the law of the land in which they commited the offenses. So techically, alot of them should be tried under old Afghan/Iraq law.
-
Even the provision under the geneva convention concerning enemy combatants lays out basic rights for illegal combatants. There isnt some giant void and, IIRC, it specificly states that an Illegal combatant must be tried under the law of the land in which they commited the offenses. So techically, alot of them should be tried under old Afghan/Iraq law.
Which would be great if these particular enemy fit under the Geneva Convention rules...which they don't. So they can rot.
-
Erm, Illegal combatants is covered under Geneva.
The only exception that Geneva makes for 'Unlawful Combatants' is that they dont receive the same rights as a POW(as per the Third Geneva convention) but they still receive the basic rights to 'Humane treatment and cannot be deprived of the right to a fair and regular trial'(as per the 4th convention). Also, if they are an unlawful combatant(thus not a POW), they are considered a civilian and are then afforded the protections and rights granted to civilians under Geneva.(as stated under the Fourth convention, which lays out what qualifies for PoW status and what doesnt).
So they fall very firmly into Geneva. Seriously, i recommend you take the time to read through em all.. they are an eye opener as to why people across the world are so pissed off that we have Gitmo up and running.
-
Nope sorry but they aren't.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2846
I'll just cut and paste from someone that explains it far better than I can.
The Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War goes well beyond the convention against torture to impose a blanket prohibition on any sort of pressure during questioning. In fact, the Geneva Convention imposes such severe limitations on interrogators that it would outlaw routine investigative procedures used every day by Australian police.
But that point is really academic, because the text of the conventions makes them inapplicable to the conflict with al-Qaeda. Human rights advocacy groups may not like it, but the letter of international law is not always consistent with their political agendas.
These are not simply hypothetical dilemmas that are the stuff of law school classrooms or philosophy seminars. We live in a time when these are real-world questions with real-world consequences. A case in point: last July, when the Chicago Tribune reported that “recent information from Guantanamo has derailed plans for attacks during the Athens Olympics next month and possibly forestalled at least a dozen attacks elsewhere”.
The laws of war essentially propose a contract to combatants: if you observe these rules of civilised warfare, then you will be treated in a civilised manner. The conditional nature of legitimate combatant status is reflected in the text of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. A common article two of those conventions states that parties to the treaty are under no legal obligation to apply their terms to non-parties who do not themselves abide by the law of armed conflict.
The men detained at Guantanamo were captured on the battlefield while fighting for organisations that systematically violated the most basic tenets of the law of war. Captured al-Qaeda fighters were drawn from the ranks of an organisation that sees the deliberate destruction of women, children and the elderly as a legitimate tactic. From flying hijacked airliners into office buildings to bombing commuter trains in Madrid, Osama bin Laden’s minions have committed every war crime on the books.
The Taliban were also serial transgressors against the law of war. At a press conference in early 2002, the US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, explained why Washington declined to recognise Taliban fighters as legal combatants:
The Taliban did not wear distinctive signs, insignias, symbols or uniforms ... To the contrary, far from seeking to distinguish themselves from the civilian population of Afghanistan, they sought to blend in with civilian non-combatants, hiding in mosques and populated areas. They [were] not organised in military units, as such, with identifiable chains of command; indeed, al-Qaeda forces made up portions of their forces.
The Guantanamo Bay detainees are illegal combatants whose actions placed them beyond the pale of international law. To afford them the privileges and protections of the Geneva Conventions, despite their crimes, would provide reward where retribution is warranted.
-
Which, again, ignores the tenats of the conventions.
Here's the two articles in which is being used to justify the notion that 'the conventions doesnt apply(which ignores that even within these articles, protections are clearly laid out):
GC IV, Article 5:
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
Now, lets take a look at that last paragraph. Humane treatment, check, fair trial and regular trial as laid out by the convention, check. Rights and privlages SHALL be restored at the earliest date consistant with the security of the state or Occupying Power... and if they are in prison, they can no longer be considered a viable 'threat' to the security of the occupying power(the US)... The first provision is questionable as to if it's being handled.. the second provision hasnt been followed and the last provision DEFINATELY hasnt been followed.
So even if they dont get the full rights of PoW's, they are still afforded basic rights under the convetion and there isnt some 'magic void', like the administration is insisting there is, for these people to fall in to where all of their rights under the convetion are non-exsistant.
-
Which, again, ignores the tenats of the conventions.
Here's the two articles in which is being used to justify the notion that 'the conventions doesnt apply(which ignores that even within these articles, protections are clearly laid out):
GC IV, Article 5:
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
Now, lets take a look at that last paragraph. Humane treatment, check, fair trial and regular trial as laid out by the convention, check. Rights and privlages SHALL be restored at the earliest date consistant with the security of the state or Occupying Power... and if they are in prison, they can no longer be considered a viable 'threat' to the security of the occupying power(the US)... The first provision is questionable as to if it's being handled.. the second provision hasnt been followed and the last provision DEFINATELY hasnt been followed.
So even if they dont get the full rights of PoW's, they are still afforded basic rights under the convetion and there isnt some 'magic void', like the administration is insisting there is, for these people to fall in to where all of their rights under the convetion are non-exsistant.
Except that they keep referring to the person as a "protected person" as in someone who already falls under the convention rules. So again, it doesn't apply. When the terrorists start following the rules of war outlined in the convention then get back to me. Otherwise they rot.
-
Then show me the exception?
Afghanistan and Iraq are both Signatories of the Geneva conventions, thus their nationals fall under the 'protected persons claus'. So is Iran, as well as Syria and many other places that these 'unlawful combatants' come from.
So, if there is some exception that they specificly fall under.. where is it?
Just for the record, Im not arguing that they should be PoW's.. but that even without being PoW's, they have basic rights guaranteed by the conventions which they are being denied and that is why Gitmo is such a bad thing for the US on the international stage.
-
Then show me the exception?
Afghanistan and Iraq are both Signatories of the Geneva conventions, thus their nationals fall under the 'protected persons claus'. So is Iran, as well as Syria and many other places that these 'unlawful combatants' come from.
So, if there is some exception that they specificly fall under.. where is it?
Just for the record, Im not arguing that they should be PoW's.. but that even without being PoW's, they have basic rights guaranteed by the conventions which they are being denied and that is why Gitmo is such a bad thing for the US on the international stage.
And if we catch members of the Afghanistan or Iraq armies fighting against us, they fall under the convention rules. Unless of course they are breaking the rules of the convention themselves and then I think we have a legit argument to also ignore those rules in regards to them. Terrorists do not have protection under the convention rules at all however. They are not considered the armed forces of a country, do not wear uniforms, specifically target civilians, and don't follow convention rules themselves in regards to POWs they capture. Unless of course beheading people on video tape falls under convention rules. I can't seem to find that section though.
-
Yes, they wouldnt be a PoW.
If we catch a civilian from Iraq or Afghanistan fighting against us that isnt a member of the armies, militias and other 'recognized' fighting groups, then they fall under citizens who are subject to the provisions laid out in the article that I posted which guarantees even basic rights, even if they are illegal combatants(the basic guarantees of humane treatement, fair and regular trial as laid out under geneva provisions and the guarantee of having their full protected status restored as soon as they are no longer a 'threat' to the state or occupying forces).
*edits to add a needed nt*
-
Yes, they wouldnt be a PoW.
If we catch a civilian from Iraq or Afghanistan fighting against us that isnt a member of the armies, militias and other 'recognized' fighting groups, then they fall under citizens who are subject to the provisions laid out in the article that I posted which guarantees even basic rights, even if they are illegal combatants(the basic guarantees of humane treatement, fair and regular trial as laid out under geneva provisions and the guarantee of having their full protected status restored as soon as they are no longer a 'threat' to the state or occupying forces).
*edits to add a needed nt*
Even if you believe they are covered under that article (which I don't) it says, "They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be." which means it's basically up to our government to determine when their trial is. So they still rot.
Now, switching gears here as it doesn't appear either of us is going to budge on this subject. How do you justify holding our troops to standards and rules that our enemies aren't following and then granting our enemies protection under those same standards and rules? This whole argument is just another way for the the fringe left (happy now BC?) to keep "Bushitler's war" from being successful.
* Edit to add the Hitler part of Bush's name since I was quoting the fringe left.
-
Now, switching gears here as it doesn't appear either of us is going to budge on this subject. How do you justify holding our troops to standards and rules that our enemies aren't following and then granting our enemies protection under those same standards and rules? This whole argument is just another way for the the fringe left (happy now BC?) to keep "Bushitler's war" from being successful.
It's called taking the high road. It's called standing for what you believe to be right. It's called not mud wrestling with a pig because you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it. It's called not giving the international stage anymore reason to view us as hypocrites. It's called not giving other people any legitimate incentive to treat our combatants the same way we treat the Gitmo detainees. Two wrongs don't make a right. Turn the other cheek. Yadda yadda yadda insert cliche here.
In the past, conservatives believed in governmental openness. They fully supported the Geneva Convention not because they had any real concern about treating enemy combatants well, but because they wanted to see their own soldiers afforded the same benefits. If there was any doubt, the erred on the side of giving more rights than the combatants might have been entitled to. Bush runs the most closed-off executive branch ever. He refuses to release any info on those held at Gitmo unless the law forces him to. His contempt for The International Court of Justice is expressed openly. Maybe if the neo-cons could actually give me a reason to believe they have the nation's best interests at heart, I would trust them, but from everything I've seen, they want little more than to remake the world in their little neocon image.
Too bad they never bothered actually studying the people they try to conquer.
-
It's called taking the high road
The high road hit a dead end shortly after 9/11.
In the past, conservatives believed in governmental openness. They fully supported the Geneva Convention not because they had any real concern about treating enemy combatants well, but because they wanted to see their own soldiers afforded the same benefits. If there was any doubt, the erred on the side of giving more rights than the combatants might have been entitled to. Bush runs the most closed-off executive branch ever. He refuses to release any info on those held at Gitmo unless the law forces him to. His contempt for The International Court of Justice is expressed openly. Maybe if the neo-cons could actually give me a reason to believe they have the nation's best interests at heart, I would trust them, but from everything I've seen, they want little more than to remake the world in their little neocon image.
Too bad they never bothered actually studying the people they try to conquer.
As I said, our own troops have to fear having their heads cut off on a terrorist propaganda video tape. The idea that we have to follow these rules while our enemies don't is just an excuse to undermine the war. That's all it is. You can hide behind the other arguments but that's what it boils down to. You are basically sending a fighter into the ring with one hand tied behind his back and then complaining that he's not winning.
-
I justify it by the fact that we agreed that we would hold our troops to those standards.
To me, we have two choices:
1) Follow our agreements(including geneva which explicitly states at the begining of each convention that if only one side of a conflict is a signatory of the conventions, they are still responsable for following the provisions laid out by it). Ignoring it like as has been done only hurts us in the long run on the international stage.
2) Withdraw from the conventions and our international agreements and give up the privlages that we garner from being signatories and then do whatever we want to who we want.
Im sorry, but I come from a line of people who still beleive that if you give your word on something, then you follow through with it. It's the mindset that you are promoting that has so many people across the world so pissed off at our country.
-
I justify it by the fact that we agreed that we would hold our troops to those standards.
We agreed with the other countries that signed it, yes. Please show me Osama's signature on it and then you can say we entered that treaty with Al-Queda.
-
Which goes back to the 'Even if only one party is a signatory, that party is bound by the convention' part.
-
The problem is this, Brugdor:
If they are lawful combatants, they should be treated as indicated in the Geneva convention. I don't think they are lawful combatants. And you can keep them until the war is over.
If they are unlawful combatants, they are entitled to a civilian trial in the country where the offense occurred.
Yet, you claim they shouldn't have a trial and that you keep them until the war of terror is over. I just don't see any shred of logic except "They're all evil terrorists and they deserve to suffer".
Like I said earlier, if you're going to use the Geneva convention as an excuse, you better actually follow it. Strangely, you can't just pick the parts you like.
-
*nods* Ive been looking all over and have yet to find any magic loophole for these people to fall through. Even the provisions being pointed to to justify the actions being taken lay out basic rights that have been denied.(5th article of GC IV, for example).
There is no magical 'third' option of classification. Either they are lawful combatants, thus subject to the provisions of the Third conventions, or they are unlawful combatants and subject to the provisions of the fourth.
-
Bottom line is that they will be held, they will be tortured and they will give up information that saves the lives of people like you who would rather they succeed just so you can say, "Bushitler's war" is failing.
The individuals and countries that don't like it don't matter to me. Their stances will make them irrelevant in near future since militant Islam will see their weakness and pounce.
There is absolutely zero justification for tying the hands of our troops and our government when they are trying to deal with these animals (Yes, someone who beheads a captured civilian on video is an animal. Deal with it.) If you people are going to keep throwing the Geneva Convention in our faces then you need to apply it equally to our enemies. But of course you never will. It's my opinion that we should simply tell everyone that we are dropping the treaty since our enemies don't abide by it anyway.
-
Pfft. Just assume "Take no quarter" and deal with the problem.
As long as you don't say it, it should be fine. >.>
<.<
Or maybe I'm just psycho. That works too.
-
The problem there, brug, is that you are taking a very short sighted stance.
Willfully ignoring our international agreements will and does have far reaching consaquences. Both in the stability of our stance on these issues and the fact that it undermines our credibility when it comes to working out and making deals.
So, sure, we can save a few lives now but in the long run we could be saving many more lives by holding true to our agreements. Should I bring in a Franklin quote again?
Again, I gave you the options we have. The reason we have to tie our troops hands in this situation is that we agreed with the world that we would tie our hands in this situation. Is it fair? Hell no but ultimately that is what we said we would do.. so either we hold to our agreements and tie our hands.. or we withdraw from our agreements and do whatever we want, willingly giving up the perks and privlages we get from those agreements.
-
Hell no but ultimately that is what we said we would do.. so either we hold to our agreements and tie our hands.. or we withdraw from our agreements and do whatever we want, willingly giving up the perks and privlages we get from those agreements.
and those are what exactly?
As far as I can tell the GC is just an excuse for people to whine at this point. If it doesn't apply to the people we are fighting then what's the friggin point?
-
Welcome to the world of Neo-Conservatism Brug.
-
Welcome to the world of Neo-Conservatism Brug.
What on earth does that mean? Are you saying I'm a Neo-Conservative? Are you saying that Neo-Conservatism somehow created the issue of the GC only applying to us? I have no idea what you are talking about.
-
Nope, but that the idea that we should do whatever we want militarily, consaquences be damned is pretty damn Neo-Conservative.
-
Oh, and just so you know where Im coming from on this:
You are only looking at the immediate problem. This is the kind of thinking that has gotten us into this situation in the first place. This is why Al-Queda became so strong with US support, this is why Iraq was able to get so many chem and biological weapons. This is why Iran became an Islamic republic, this is why we supported a brutal dictator in Vietnam, guaranteeing our efforts there would fail.
It is this boneheaded idea that we should only deal with the problem right infront of us with no thought towards what that means to the future that we are currently in the mess that we, as a country, are in... and this idea that our agreements are only valid when it's convenient to us is why we are so hated across so much of the world.
Open your eyes and look ahead for once and consider, for once, that our actions now does have an impact on the future and that while right now, we might be able to save a few more lives by doing whatever by whatever means possible... but that carries a very real possability of costing more lives in the future, much like how Reagans decisions in the 80's are costing us so many lives today.
-
Oh, and just so you know where Im coming from on this:
You are only looking at the immediate problem. This is the kind of thinking that has gotten us into this situation in the first place. This is why Al-Queda became so strong with US support, this is why Iraq was able to get so many chem and biological weapons. This is why Iran became an Islamic republic, this is why we supported a brutal dictator in Vietnam, guaranteeing our efforts there would fail.
It is this boneheaded idea that we should only deal with the problem right infront of us with no thought towards what that means to the future that we are currently in the mess that we, as a country, are in... and this idea that our agreements are only valid when it's convenient to us is why we are so hated across so much of the world.
Open your eyes and look ahead for once and consider, for once, that our actions now does have an impact on the future and that while right now, we might be able to save a few more lives by doing whatever by whatever means possible... but that carries a very real possability of costing more lives in the future, much like how Reagans decisions in the 80's are costing us so many lives today.
Yes, Ronald Reagan created teh terrorism. ::)
-
Lets see.. turning Al-Quada from a fairly disorgonized 'freedom fighter' force to what it is (not to mention that it's arguable that the funding and weapons from the CIA was pivotal to the foundation of the group).
Not to mention that we actively assisted it in recruiting fighters from across the world, even allowing Abul Rahman to come to the US to recruit. If you dont remember who he is, he was one of the ones responsable for the '93 bombing on the WTC. Oh, that is also ignoring that we willfully funded and supplied the group with arms and allowed them to obtain the streingth that they were able to gain before they started attacking us.
So yes, Reagan, the CIA and a few other groups of the US government in the 80's is responsable for what al-Quada has done to us ever since and responsable for the position we are in.
-
Lets see.. turning Al-Quada from a fairly disorgonized 'freedom fighter' force to what it is (not to mention that it's arguable that the funding and weapons from the CIA was pivotal to the foundation of the group).
Not to mention that we actively assisted it in recruiting fighters from across the world, even allowing Abul Rahman to come to the US to recruit. If you dont remember who he is, he was one of the ones responsable for the '93 bombing on the WTC. Oh, that is also ignoring that we willfully funded and supplied the group with arms and allowed them to obtain the streingth that they were able to gain before they started attacking us.
So yes, Reagan, the CIA and a few other groups of the US government in the 80's is responsable for what al-Quada has done to us ever since and responsable for the position we are in.
Umm...it's more like that these groups have been against us ever since we started backing Israel. Whether or not we should have meddled as much as we did over there after that point I really don't know. I don't know the history of what was going on and what our interests were each time we intervened. Surely some were good decision and some were bad though.
As for your contention that teh Reaganhitler created all this mess, I seem to remember a slight problem we had with Iran before Reagan was elected. :P
-
I didnt say Reagan was responsable for Iran. I said that we, the US, was responsable for the rise of the Islamic republic of Iran. I'd suggest looking up Operation Ajax which is part of the events, carried out by the CIA and MI6 that led to the mullahs getting directly involved in the politics in Iran. It was a case where we forced the destruction of a democratic government in Iran. Before all of that, the Shah, the 'ruler' of Iran was content with letting the people choose how the government was ran via elections. After these events, the Shah took direct control of the government and actively suppressed all political parties and gatherings, to the point where the people gathered in the only place the Shah refused to suppress.. the mosques. This is why one of the most popular people in Iran was the PM that was removed by the Shah, dispite his 'pro western' leaning and his ardent support for democracy.
Also, al-Quada wouldnt have been nearly as strong had we not pumped them full of training, arms and money(the CIA is on record as saying Osama Bin Ladin was one of their biggest customers when it comes to buying arms back in the 80s). Were they around before Reagan got involved? Yes. Were they anywhere near the group they ended up being before? Not a chance.
-
I don't know the history of what was going on and what our interests were each time we intervened.
That has to be the most unintentionally funny thing I think you've ever written on the debate board (and that's saying a lot). It's damn near sigworthy. In fact, I think I'll use it.
You seem to miss the point I've made on multiple occasions that the reason we should not be involved in the Middle East is that we have no fucking clue the culture we're dealing with. Have you ever sat down and talked with an Arab? Have you ever gone outside your political circle? Just like the neocons who run this country, you sit and decide what policies we should be employing, but you admit that you have very little knowledge of the people you sit in judgement of.
To give you an idea of my background in this, my cubicle mate is a Palestinian Muslim. My girlfriend's ancestry on her father's side is Syrian Orthodox (i.e. Christian Arab). The Arabs don't hate our freedoms (contrary to the tired neocon idea), they hate the fact that the West keeps fucking around in their lands. Arabs are clannish. They always have been. What we in the west don't understand is religion is more than a belief system to them. It is an identity. All Christian Arabs are considered to be in the same clan. Although they share common ancestry with the Islamic Arabs, because they are a different religion, they are no longer "family". The Islamic Arabs feel the same way about the Christians and toward themselves (Islam being much more prevalent in that area, genetic relations also figure into the clan divisions). This is also part of the reason there is friction between the various religions. It's not merely the belief system, it's the fact that anytime there have been clans thrown into the same area, there tends to be friction. (Need I bring up the whole Anglos vs. Saxons vs. Britons thing? Or the various wars between the Scottish clans?) So we go sticking our nose in their business, and we have no right in their minds to do so, since we don't even have established family roots there. This is how clans in human history have always acted. This is something the neocons can't get through their Pliocenic skulls.
The Persians resent us for the similar reasons (though, on the whole, the Persians are a lot more "open" toward us since they aren't nearly as "clannish"). We destroyed their Democratically elected government to put the Shah back in power. Here we are, bastion of Democracy, destroying it when it suits are needs. But of course, all the resentment in the middle east happens because we're a free society and people hate freedom. The natural state of man is to be oppressed. Clearly that's why they all dislike us. Damn us and our freedoms.
-
I don't know the history of what was going on and what our interests were each time we intervened.
That has to be the most unintentionally funny thing I think you've ever written on the debate board (and that's saying a lot). It's damn near sigworthy. In fact, I think I'll use it.
You seem to miss the point I've made on multiple occasions that the reason we should not be involved in the Middle East is that we have no fucking clue the culture we're dealing with. Have you ever sat down and talked with an Arab? Have you ever gone outside your political circle? Just like the neocons who run this country, you sit and decide what policies we should be employing, but you admit that you have very little knowledge of the people you sit in judgement of.
That actually isn't what I said at all. I said I didn't know the particulars of every situation where we intervened in the region. I mean we're going back to the 50s and 60s here and I'm not going to claim I know why we did what we did back then.
But nice try anyway.
-
That actually isn't what I said at all. I said I didn't know the particulars of every situation where we intervened in the region. I mean we're going back to the 50s and 60s here and I'm not going to claim I know why we did what we did back then.
But nice try anyway.
Yeah, but our reasons for messing around these days are no better than they were back then.
Fuck Israel. It was a nation formed because everyone felt guilty for the holocaust, but no one wanted to take in the Jewish refugees that had been displaced because of it. The U.S. didn't, the Europeans didn't, the Soviet Union didn't, and Germany was really in no position at the time to do so. So we decided to plop down a new nation in land that they really didn't have any rights to. Israel benefits way more from us than we do from them. It's been one-sided all throughout history. But the Zionists have a lot of pull and lobbying power in the U.S., and when you combine that with the Fundamentalists idea that Israel is needed to bring about the rapture, we will never have intelligent foreign policy as far as that's concerned.
It's no secret Hussein was pursuing WMD's. However, he didn't have them. His underlings were just as corrupt as he was and were skimming money. Besides, although an asshole, Hussein wasn't stupid. He would never have used them on any of the U.S. interests. He wanted to scare Iran. Just as India (our ally) wanted to scare Pakistan, and that's why they got them, in spite of acquiring them illegally. And France got them as well in violation of many international treaties, but we didn't invade them.
Oh, but it wasn't the WMD's it was Hussein's abuses of power that justify us going in. I find it amusing that the Neocons trot this out as a reason because it holds less water than the WMD argument. There are many tyrants that should be deposed under that logic. Why not take out Mugabe? Why not take out Kim? Why not invade Iran? (Oh, wait, there are people pushing for that already.)
Our reasons for being involved over there are just as bad as they always have been. And we procede to make the same mistakes over and over over. Even children are smart enough to know that when they touch the hot burner on the stove and develop a blister that touching it again would be a bad idea. Why can't politicians figure it out?
-
I don't know the history of what was going on and what our interests were each time we intervened.
That has to be the most unintentionally funny thing I think you've ever written on the debate board (and that's saying a lot). It's damn near sigworthy. In fact, I think I'll use it.
You seem to miss the point I've made on multiple occasions that the reason we should not be involved in the Middle East is that we have no fucking clue the culture we're dealing with. Have you ever sat down and talked with an Arab? Have you ever gone outside your political circle? Just like the neocons who run this country, you sit and decide what policies we should be employing, but you admit that you have very little knowledge of the people you sit in judgement of.
That actually isn't what I said at all. I said I didn't know the particulars of every situation where we intervened in the region. I mean we're going back to the 50s and 60s here and I'm not going to claim I know why we did what we did back then.
But nice try anyway.
Well, to me, that goes back to learning from History. There's a very good saying about what happens when you dont.
If you are going to make policy or atleast pass judgement on parts of a situation, then atleast take the time to study what you are talking about to make sure that you have a leg to stand on.
-
I don't know the history of what was going on and what our interests were each time we intervened.
That has to be the most unintentionally funny thing I think you've ever written on the debate board (and that's saying a lot). It's damn near sigworthy. In fact, I think I'll use it.
You seem to miss the point I've made on multiple occasions that the reason we should not be involved in the Middle East is that we have no fucking clue the culture we're dealing with. Have you ever sat down and talked with an Arab? Have you ever gone outside your political circle? Just like the neocons who run this country, you sit and decide what policies we should be employing, but you admit that you have very little knowledge of the people you sit in judgement of.
That actually isn't what I said at all. I said I didn't know the particulars of every situation where we intervened in the region. I mean we're going back to the 50s and 60s here and I'm not going to claim I know why we did what we did back then.
But nice try anyway.
Well, to me, that goes back to learning from History. There's a very good saying about what happens when you dont.
If you are going to make policy or atleast pass judgement on parts of a situation, then atleast take the time to study what you are talking about to make sure that you have a leg to stand on.
Oh please. All you know is the consequences of what we did and I'm sure they are a slanted version from wherever you found them. You don't know why we stepped into those situations and why, even though there were bad results on one side, things may have been worse had we never done anything. You automatically assume that our interference in a situation is bad. That's not always the case and I'd remind you how keen the left has been to say we should have stepped in in other recent problem areas (Somalia, Sudan, etc).
-
Oh, take Iran for example. The reason we stepped in there was because Iran nationalized their oil. That was the entire reason we destroyed their democracy.
Why did we go to Afghanistan and put so much effort into helping al Quada? Oh, that's right, because they were fighting the USSR.. the same reason we backed many 'bad people' in the past that we had to go back and 'deal with' later.
Do I have all the super top secret documents in the government? Nope. I wont claim that I know everything about a subject but overall there is more then enough information out there on these events to get a good idea of why we were doing what we were doing.
Anyways, where did I suggest we 'do nothing'? At no point did I say 'do nothing' nor that we should have 'done nothing'. My entire point is that we need to realise that our actions have consaquences and that we should actually consider the likely consaquences of our actions and choose our course based on what will be the more favourable reaction.
Should we have faught against the USSR? Yes. Should we have done so by backing brutal dictators(Ngo Dinh Diem and Saddam Hussain) and actively help a group recruit radical muslems, provide them with funding and arms and training without alot of insight into the workings of the group outside of 'they are fighting the USSR'? It's not a problem of 'should we do something' but one of 'we should do it, but let's look at what option will be best in the long run'.
-
Oh, take Iran for example. The reason we stepped in there was because Iran nationalized their oil. That was the entire reason we destroyed their democracy.
Why did we go to Afghanistan and put so much effort into helping al Quada? Oh, that's right, because they were fighting the USSR.. the same reason we backed many 'bad people' in the past that we had to go back and 'deal with' later.
Do I have all the super top secret documents in the government? Nope. I wont claim that I know everything about a subject but overall there is more then enough information out there on these events to get a good idea of why we were doing what we were doing.
Anyways, where did I suggest we 'do nothing'? At no point did I say 'do nothing' nor that we should have 'done nothing'. My entire point is that we need to realise that our actions have consaquences and that we should actually consider the likely consaquences of our actions and choose our course based on what will be the more favourable reaction.
Should we have faught against the USSR? Yes. Should we have done so by backing brutal dictators(Ngo Dinh Diem and Saddam Hussain) and actively help a group recruit radical muslems, provide them with funding and arms and training without alot of insight into the workings of the group outside of 'they are fighting the USSR'? It's not a problem of 'should we do something' but one of 'we should do it, but let's look at what option will be best in the long run'.
Luckily neither you nor I was ever put in the position of having to decide if supporting a terrorist group to keep communism from gaining a foothold in the Middle East was our only option. I know that I wouldn't have wanted to make such a decision and there is a point where we have to let the people we elected to make such decisions make them. And no, that doesn't mean we trust them without question. It means that we have to at least trust that our leadership will make the best decision they can given the information available. We certainly don't have access to as much of it as they do.
-
Oh, and just to save you a trip for Operation Ajax, while there's more info out there, Wiki has a consolidation of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
Anyways, yes, Im glad that I dont have to be put in that position but I dont think it's too much to ask that there be a consideration for more then just the 'immediate' situation.
Deal with the immediate situation but dont do so at the cost of the future. There have been alot of things that we, as a nation, had no business doing that has cost us alot of problems. I fail to see how it is too much to ask for people to actually think ahead instead of bullheadedly rushing right at what's infront of them. That is the major problem with the 'neo-con' mindset. It's one in which we should 'flex our muscle' and force our ways now, reguardless of the rammifications of the future. That's why we are still cleaning up Reagans mess. That's why we will be cleaning up W Bush's mess for decades to come. I just wish that the GOP wasnt so succeptable to the usurption of their core ideals.. then we wouldnt be dealing with these psuedo conservative 'ideals' that is nothing more then Liberalism for those who dont agree with Democratic liberalism(well, actually taking the worst parts of conservatism and combining them with the worst parts of liberalism).
We supposedly look towards the future when we dont do things like negotiate with the terrorists. I just wish we actually applied that in our policies.. which definatly hasnt been done here(Bush's 'If you arnt with us, you're against us' statements and his rush to war, the world be damned attitude for example). Would it solve all of our problems? No but we would create alot less of our own problems, much like we have done with our current situation.. the situations that happened under Reagan and throughout the Cold War where we backed people, not because they were worthy of our support.. but simply because they were fighting the USSR.
On the note of communism, it was doomed to failure anyways.. and while Reagan did speed it's fall by ~10 years, the system itself is fundamentally flawed in that it cannot support the amount of military might it requires on it's non capitalistic systems. That's why you see China taking a more hybrid approuch with more open, capitalistic like economic policies combined with communistic social policies.
-
It means that we have to at least trust that our leadership will make the best decision they can given the information available. We certainly don't have access to as much of it as they do.
Because, of course, politicians never let their personal biases color their judgment.
-
It means that we have to at least trust that our leadership will make the best decision they can given the information available. We certainly don't have access to as much of it as they do.
Because, of course, politicians never let their personal biases color their judgment.
I never said that either but nice second troll attempt.
-
Our reasons for being involved over there are just as bad as they always have been. And we procede to make the same mistakes over and over over. Even children are smart enough to know that when they touch the hot burner on the stove and develop a blister that touching it again would be a bad idea. Why can't politicians figure it out?
Because everything is for the short term. When Bush got elected, he cared about one thing - getting re-elected (to be fair, any politician feels this way.) Every decision made weighs this goal. Now that Bush is a lame duck, every decision made takes into account the effect of keeping the party in power.
It should be no surprise - we live in a country where almost nobody saves for tomorrow, and spends more than they make today. Stupid, short term thinking.
-
It means that we have to at least trust that our leadership will make the best decision they can given the information available. We certainly don't have access to as much of it as they do.
Because, of course, politicians never let their personal biases color their judgment.
I never said that either but nice second troll attempt.
Fine. Than why should we trust them? Why shold we not hold their feet to the flames and make them justify every decision they make?
Why should we allow them to go to war on evidence that is far from clear cut?
-
Fine. Then why should we trust them? Why shold we not hold their feet to the flames and make them justify every decision they make?
Why should we allow them to go to war on evidence that is far from clear cut?
I'm still waiting on an answer to these.
-
I justify it by the fact that we agreed that we would hold our troops to those standards.
To me, we have two choices:
1) Follow our agreements(including geneva which explicitly states at the begining of each convention that if only one side of a conflict is a signatory of the conventions, they are still responsable for following the provisions laid out by it). Ignoring it like as has been done only hurts us in the long run on the international stage.
2) Withdraw from the conventions and our international agreements and give up the privlages that we garner from being signatories and then do whatever we want to who we want.
Im sorry, but I come from a line of people who still beleive that if you give your word on something, then you follow through with it. It's the mindset that you are promoting that has so many people across the world so pissed off at our country.
Otherwise, you are just like China.
For some reason, that reminds me of the movie Jerry Mcquire. I was heartbroken for the guy when he said(to the dad of the kid who is dumping him as an agent because he dislikes blacks)something like, "Remember, our words/handshakes are stronger than any Oak?"
Oh, yeah, they have Oak in China, it's called painted plywood.
-
Fine. Then why should we trust them? Why shold we not hold their feet to the flames and make them justify every decision they make?
Why should we allow them to go to war on evidence that is far from clear cut?
I'm still waiting on an answer to these.
They should have to justify their actions but we also have to understand again that they have information that we don't have.
We should allow them to go to war when all of congress agrees to go to war which is what happened with Iraq. It wasn't one guy despite the lies that the Democrats have been telling for years now. They were presented with the evidence and acted on that evidence. The same evidence that led Bill Clinton and other Democrats to make statements about Saddam being a threat before Bush ever took power.
Now if you aren't happy with the evidence then attack the CIA who gathered and presented it. Demand that heads roll at CIA HQ.
-
Of course, we should also realise that they need more then a couple of days to read through the justifications to be used before voting on going to war as well.
Anyways, they might have info we dont have but we are morally obligated to demand to know why we should invest in a war... and to do so with actual demostratable ways as opposed to saying 'well they have a truck that could be anything but we are saying is this a bad truck'.
We are owed atleast a logical explination with points that are entirely provable before hand before we are commited to a war.
-
Of course, we should also realise that they need more then a couple of days to read through the justifications to be used before voting on going to war as well.
Yeah I know. It's almost like they already knew what was in the report because it's the same thing that had been reported all throughout the 90s that caused them to want to invade back then.
/sarcasm
-
Which still doesnt mean they have enough time to read through what the official justifications are going to be.. not to mention that only one part was 'what was there in the 90's'.
-
Which still doesnt mean they have enough time to read through what the official justifications are going to be.. not to mention that only one part was 'what was there in the 90's'.
*sigh* They already knew what they were! All you have to do is look back at all those quotes from the Democrats on Saddam prior to Bush being elected. It was Clinton's prawn to remove him and they were backing his prawn with statements about his threat to the US.
Stuff like this is why I consider you a leftist. You are completely unable to put these facts together because you REFUSE to see the Democrats at fault in any way shape or form regarding the invasion of Iraq. You don't want to believe that they had a hand in it and so you pretend that they didn't to make yourself feel better. Just like they didn't have a hand in signing the Patriot Act and just like they didn't have a hand in wiretapping (which btw, they just signed again).
Edit to add that I saw Bill Mahrer a few days ago saying that he's not a leftist and so I imagine it's just become the party line to say that now. So I can't really blame you I guess but if virtually every stance you have is to the extreme left (abortion on demand, open borders, cut and run, impeach Bush, Karl Rove and Haliburton are running the country, etc) then guess what? You're a leftist.
-
And yet you miss the point.
Just because something was common perception before hand doesnt mean they KNEW what would be in the justifications put out by Bush.
The point? You cant know what is in a document until you read it.
-
And yet you miss the point.
Just because something was common perception before hand doesnt mean they KNEW what would be in the justifications put out by Bush.
The point? You cant know what is in a document until you read it.
They had ample time to read it and the evidence was presented to the UN before we went in by Powell but thanks for proving my point.
-
Im still not too sure what point you are trying to make to be honest? Is it just that they said this stuff when they were in power? Duh. I doubt anyone here will deny that(and I certainly havent).
The point Im making, though, is that what one group stated back in the 90's doesnt constitute 'official' position and that to say 'well, they said it back in the 90's!', while pointing out hypocracy of their stance, doesnt automaticly mean they understood in great detail every justification laid out before them before even reading the 'official' justifications reports prior to the vote to give the president power. So, are they a bunch of hypocrits? Yes, but there cant be any claim that anyone outside of those directly involved in building the case would know the ins and out of the justifications used without reading it.
-
Im still not too sure what point you are trying to make to be honest? Is it just that they said this stuff when they were in power? Duh. I doubt anyone here will deny that(and I certainly havent).
The point Im making, though, is that what one group stated back in the 90's doesnt constitute 'official' position and that to say 'well, they said it back in the 90's!', while pointing out hypocracy of their stance, doesnt automaticly mean they understood in great detail every justification laid out before them before even reading the 'official' justifications reports prior to the vote to give the president power. So, are they a bunch of hypocrits? Yes, but there cant be any claim that anyone outside of those directly involved in building the case would know the ins and out of the justifications used without reading it.
Bush used the same justifications that the Democrats did years before him. Saddam was a threat, he was making WMDs including nukes, and he was supporting terrorists. So to sit there and say the Democrats didn't know is just a ludicrous argument.
-
*sigh* Again, you miss what Im saying.
Im not saying 'they didnt know!' but that until they read the official justification report, they dont know what justifications will be used. In other words, until Bush filed his case for why we should go to war and those in congress read it.. then it doesnt matter what was being said before hand.
For all you know he could have filed because Saddam kicked over his sand castle when he was a kid. My point is just because they were saying the stuff they were saying 'in the 90's, that doesnt automaticly give them insight as to what exactly will be used. Again, the Only ones who would know what is and isnt going to be used prior to those files being released to congress are those who are actually preparing them.. so just because they were saying this stuff in the past isnt tantamount to them knowing what, exactly, would be in the 'justifications for war' documents as soon as they are released.
-
*sigh* Again, you miss what Im saying.
Im not saying 'they didnt know!' but that until they read the official justification report, they dont know what justifications will be used. In other words, until Bush filed his case for why we should go to war and those in congress read it.. then it doesnt matter what was being said before hand.
For all you know he could have filed because Saddam kicked over his sand castle when he was a kid. My point is just because they were saying the stuff they were saying 'in the 90's, that doesnt automaticly give them insight as to what exactly will be used. Again, the Only ones who would know what is and isnt going to be used prior to those files being released to congress are those who are actually preparing them.. so just because they were saying this stuff in the past isnt tantamount to them knowing what, exactly, would be in the 'justifications for war' documents as soon as they are released.
Your argument makes absolutely zero sense but if the time frame the Democrats had to read over the case for the invasion is your big defense then they always could have voted not to go. So even if you had somehow managed to scrape together a valid point to defend them, that's shot to heck.
-
Im not trying to defend them though, Im just pointing out that the previous perception doesnt give automatic insight to the justifications as you have been presenting it does.
I mean, you are the ones going 'but but but they said it in the 90's so they MUST know what was in it before hand'.
My only original point was that this war was rushed from the very beginning, including the amount of time that congress was given to read the entire justification file. To expect that just because they said simular stuff meant that they knew what was in those files is a bit ludicrious and that goes for everyone, not just the democrats.
Again, the entire point of the last few points isnt to defend the democrats but to say that the idea that they KNEW what was in the report before they even read it because they said simular stuff previously is borderline idiotic because for all they knew about the justifications before reading the official position is that they could say that someone pissed in Bush's wheaties and that's why ne had to go to war.. in other words, the only way to know the 'official' position is to actaully read it and not go on 'past perception'.
Are they hypocrits? Yep but so is pretty much anyone else on capitol hill and pointing that out is just like saying 'Duh' to 2+2=4.
-
Im not trying to defend them though, Im just pointing out that the previous perception doesnt give automatic insight to the justifications as you have been presenting it does.
I mean, you are the ones going 'but but but they said it in the 90's so they MUST know what was in it before hand'.
My only original point was that this war was rushed from the very beginning, including the amount of time that congress was given to read the entire justification file. To expect that just because they said simular stuff meant that they knew what was in those files is a bit ludicrious and that goes for everyone, not just the democrats.
Again, the entire point of the last few points isnt to defend the democrats but to say that the idea that they KNEW what was in the report before they even read it because they said simular stuff previously is borderline idiotic because for all they knew about the justifications before reading the official position is that they could say that someone pissed in Bush's wheaties and that's why ne had to go to war.. in other words, the only way to know the 'official' position is to actaully read it and not go on 'past perception'.
Are they hypocrits? Yep but so is pretty much anyone else on capitol hill and pointing that out is just like saying 'Duh' to 2+2=4.
And again, if they didn't know what was in it, all they had to do was vote not to go to war and tell Bush they needed more time to look over the intelligence. But of course they DID know what was in it and they DID read it and they have been lying about it for years because people like you buy it.
-
And yet I never said I bought it.
Of course you want to ignore that ive been one of the few people who's been consistant about my stance the entire time.
Again, they are a bunch of hypocrits, along with pretty much everyone else who's in politics.
Again, the only point Ive been trying to made is against your assertation that just because they made the same arguemenst earlier ment that they should know exactly whats in a document.
-
Again, the only point Ive been trying to made is against your assertation that just because they made the same arguemenst earlier ment that they should know exactly whats in a document.
If you want to play little games saying they didn't know what the justifications were when they spent an entire decade listing them for us then go right ahead but I'm not buying it.
You keep saying you don't buy into the lies but you keep trying to find ways to defend what they did.
*throws hands up in the air*
Whatever.
-
Now if you aren't happy with the evidence then attack the CIA who gathered and presented it. Demand that heads roll at CIA HQ.
And who makes heads roll at the CIA HQ? Oh, yeah, the executive branch. See, the CIA, like the military, ultimately works for the president. The president gets the blame and the criticism because it comes with the job. He is the head of the executive branch, so any screwups from below are still his problems to deal with. I have always been against our invasion of Iraq because regardless of the justifications for removing Hussein, no one ever said how we were going to accomplish the stabilization of it when he was gone. Nothing had changed since Bush Sr. decided not to depose Saddam after Desert Storm. The power vaccuum was still there. In fact, things were worse because all the sanctions against Iraq throughout the 90's had driven one of the richest, egalitarian, and secular societies in the middle east into a nation filled with poverty. We then remove the only thing holding the country together and replace it with various incarnations of incompetence.
-
Now if you aren't happy with the evidence then attack the CIA who gathered and presented it. Demand that heads roll at CIA HQ.
And who makes heads roll at the CIA HQ? Oh, yeah, the executive branch. See, the CIA, like the military, ultimately works for the president. The president gets the blame and the criticism because it comes with the job. He is the head of the executive branch, so any screwups from below are still his problems to deal with. I have always been against our invasion of Iraq because regardless of the justifications for removing Hussein, no one ever said how we were going to accomplish the stabilization of it when he was gone. Nothing had changed since Bush Sr. decided not to depose Saddam after Desert Storm. The power vaccuum was still there. In fact, things were worse because all the sanctions against Iraq throughout the 90's had driven one of the richest, egalitarian, and secular societies in the middle east into a nation filled with poverty. We then remove the only thing holding the country together and replace it with various incarnations of incompetence.
I agree 100% about the handling of the occupation afterwards. It wasn't planned at all and the people who were telling Bush that things needed to be different weren't listened to.