I wonder how Americans would feel if their soldiers were kept like the Al Qaeda POW's

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
*Pssst* You might try reading the thread before making such a presumptuous statement.

You are not saying you are contending this *IS* an International Conflict?

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Viper2263
I'm only justifying our actions and since the Koran also has the Ten Commandments it is also wrong by them. As fanatics have a tendancy to do they leave out those aspects of faith they do not like.

So the 10 commandments only apply when self-defense is not an issue? If your going to ignore aspects of Christian faith when it suits you, well, see your quote...

Animal's act on instinct not reason. Therefore these men are animals. They instinctfully hate that which stives to be better. They are ultimately jealous, but are do damned lazy to stop farming opium and make a productive society.

Sometimes I think it must be quite interesting to be so blinded by ignorant bigotry as to be unable to see facts

[Comrade Tribune]

Actually the Taliban stopped farming Opium. Under the Northern Alliance the farming has started again...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
You are not saying you are contending this *IS* an International Conflict?

I'll presume that you meant to say isn't an international conflict.

No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that being in an international conflict doesn't automatically qualify you for PW status.

[Comrade Tribune]

Either that, or civilian. The Geneva Convention doesn´t recognize a third status.

[Roland]

Dan:

"Roland is a skeptic on military action, especially American military action..."

Depended on what action. The support of the Taliban's enemies, yes - a ground invasion, no. For military and political reasons.

"I went on to do a more complete psychoanalysis of Roland but on second thought don't think it's fair to do it in this thread..."

Why not ?

Chris:

"I would have to search long and hard for a larger mis-interpretaion of Bush then this."

LOL!

"The people of the USA elect officals, not cronies."

And through the primaries, there won dubya, son of Bush I, and Al, son of senator Gore. And your characterization of the Cheney policies are funnily naive, to put it mildly. You really want to say you are not trolling here ?

"Allied bombing in WWII was morally unethical, yet a key ingrediant to victory."

Bombing of civilian targets ? That was ineffective at best.

"Wasted effort, a fanatic won't listen."

You still refuse or are unable to read and comprehend.

"We show them their is a terrible price to pay for their behavior"

Chris to suicide bomber: "We'll kill you. That'll show you! You still wanna attack us?"

"and that ultimatly, they will be defeated and their cause will end in failure."

That is about as clear as the outcome of the football match French national team vs the one-legged veterans of the war of 1871 with one leg tied up behind their back. As I say, you lack faith.

"Your speaking of insurgency..."

I'm taking about terrorism. Take ETA, RAF, IRA, GIA...

"Go right ahead, as if i had something to fear from that."

Good. When this stuff is available again, show me support for this:

"Why don't you tell us how this war has no chance of being won again?"

That would be a matter of fun rather than fear.

"You know perfectly weel USA action was both correct and justified."

Yes. And I just said so. Again. For you to understand: YES! Are you with me ? YES! Y-E-S.

"The circus has already begun, the Walker family is claiming that their son was denied a lawyer, and wouldn't hurt a fly."

What do you expect from the defendant's side? "I'm guilty of crimes against the People's Republic of X and the Party ?"

[DanS]

"Why not ?"

Because you're in a vulnerable situation.

OK, if you insist, it mainly has to do with your perception of the American people, their politics and their institutions. You don't have a good tactile feel for any of these things. There's really no reason why you should have a good tactile feel--you aren't steeped in these things, after all! But some of your opinions sound odd when you try to pull an "expert" tone based on these perceptions.

Consider your recent fondness for the term "crony capitalism". Now, I think this is a downright silly notion to attach to the US. True, there is even some corruption, especially at the local level. And the relationship is close at all levels. But the primary aspect of the crony capitalism term is a sort of persistent built-in preference for one person or group's capital over another's--this preference sustained through politics. On the whole, this preference doesn't exist. If you think politicians are going to protect your capital unduly (from the courts, from competitors, from the market, from yourself), you've got another thing coming!

This lack of tactile feel shows up in your opinions about Bush as well. To date, his foreign policy has been first rate. His domestic priorities are fairly middle-of-the-road and have been adopted. Not bad for one year in office coming off a constitutional crisis and a congress that is split nearly down the middle. Bush has proven to be an excellent deal-maker, the highest praise to which any American president should aspire (we're making sausage, not mona lisas!).

Anyway, this extends to other areas, which sometimes has Americans shaking our heads. Go to the GDP thread, ask about it, and I'll tell you more.

[Roland]

"OK, if you insist..."

Hey, I asked "why not" - I didn't ask for the analysis...

Took it to the nasdaq/GDP thread...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
"Your speaking of insurgency..."

I'm taking about terrorism. Take IRA,...

I wouldn't exactly use the IRA as a model for the faliure of military action against a terrorist organization. There was profound anti-Republican sentiment in Ireland after the IRA had been crush militarially in 1916.

There are also other historical instances where military actions have been supremely successful in wiping out terrorist organizations. Granted they do happen to be unusually brutal in nature though.

[Roland]

Ok, make that the provisional IRA - it still has a bit of a guerilla component, but the easter uprising is exactly the thing a terrorist organisation would not muster... and the sentiment in Ireland was so anti-Republican that the (moderate) Republican movement won a bit later (in 1922 IIRC) ?

"There are also other historical instances where military actions have been supremely successful in wiping out terrorist organizations."

"Supremely" ? Unless they wiped out the entire group on which it was based, what do you have in mind ?

[DanS]

Roland: I can't access Krug's column, but I'm guessing that it's a label that is meant to chastise the establishment rather than describe reality. Sort of like saying "we're no better than a banana republic." OK, you've made your point with as much rhetorical flourish as you could muster, but as a matter of fact we are better than a banana republic.

Real crony capitalism is Indonesia of 10 years ago. China today.

Re promoting your interests by lobbying the government, I'm not going to go along with its characterization as a bad thing. It isn't bad and isn't accurately described as corruption. To start marginalizing interests by calling them "special interests" misses the point that interests big and small are fighting tooth and nail for their issues at the national level--this is good. Here's something to smoke in your pipe: labor unions give just as much to federal candidates as does business, even though less than 20% of the American private workforce is unionized.

Anyway, somehow separating politicians from these interests would be foolish. It would just make politicians less responsive.

[Roland]

Could you take it to the nasdaq thread ? Else we'll have a cross-thread-posting chaos...

Forgot about Krugman. I'll get some excerpts.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Roland
LOL!

Isn't that interesting, that was my reaction to your comment also...

And through the primaries, there won dubya, son of Bush I, and Al, son of senator Gore. And your characterization of the Cheney policies are funnily naive, to put it mildly. You really want to say you are not trolling here ?

You have a profound misunderstanding of US politics.
The canidate that is most likely to be voted in is usually backed by the party, not someone's son.
Bush's only likely adversary was John McCain for the republican nomination, and he is viewed as far to radical by many Republicans.
The Democrats backed the Vice-president, a common event is US politics when a two term president leaves (see Bush I).
It had ZERO to do with who's son they where.

Bombing of civilian targets ? That was ineffective at best.

Hah!
It ate the Reich's resources, destroyed it's fuel supplies, destroyed it's air force, and ended japan's war making potential as well.
Hardly "ineffective".

You still refuse or are unable to read and comprehend.

Chris to suicide bomber: "We'll kill you. That'll show you! You still wanna attack us?"

In case you haven't been paying attention (As your comment would indicate) 99% of them AERN'T suicide bombers.
You really must keep up with current events dear boy.

That is about as clear as the outcome of the football match French national team vs the one-legged veterans of the war of 1871 with one leg tied up behind their back. As I say, you lack faith.

I don't need to convince my side, we know we will win, as you do.
THEY have to be convinced.

I'm taking about terrorism. Take ETA, RAF, IRA, GIA...

The IRA thing has been pointed out, but most terrorism is totally ineffective, and usually produces the exact opposite of what is intended, mainly it hardens the resolve of those attacked, not weakens.

Yes. And I just said so. Again. For you to understand: YES! Are you with me ? YES! Y-E-S.

Excellent.
Glad to see your with the program.

What do you expect from the defendant's side? "I'm guilty of crimes against the People's Republic of X and the Party ?"

I expected nothing less, I always hope that people wouild take responcibility for their actions, but that is extremly unlikely.

[Comrade Tribune]

Back on topic for a change...

"Since the stockade at Guantanamo has such a small capacity to house prisoners and there wasn't enough time to build a new facility, these "detainees' are being held in animal cages that the US Army bought from the Cuban government. They're second hand circus cages that used to belong to the Cuban State Circus. They're completely out doors, completely exposed to the elements. Rumsfeld said that this was "much better than where we had found them." In other words, they're "Clueless in Guantanamo," pumped up with Thorazine and given high protein, high fiber food wafer rice cakes.

The Red Cross had complained about the situation -- using circus cages for Afghan prisoners of war. Also they're not allowing access to any independent body to see the situation first hand.

Retired General Bernard Trainor, the chief military analyst for Fox News, talked about the "detainees," who were shown lined up between two barbed wire fences, kneeling with their heads toward the ground. He pointed out that we are forcing these people to spend twelve hours a day on their knees. It's done to punish and to control them. O'Reilly then asked Trainor if this wasn't considered cruel and unusual punishment, and Trainor actually said on the air, "These are just towel heads. This isn't punishment for them. They're used to spending a lot of their time on their knees in prayer." He actually used the word "towel head" and referred to these people as if they were sub-human. And I thought to myself after he said that - and we wonder why they hate us so much?"

http://www.almartinraw.com/column47.html

[soma]

Best read the disclaimer at the top before reading this column .

Enjoy