Olbermann Rips Bush a new arsehole

[Ramo]

OBL isn't a state actor. As such, few people really care if he thinks American troops are occupying Saudi Arabia and Yemen when the actual leaders of those states don't...

What's your point? Maliki, who can actually claim to be an elected leader, supports our presence in Iraq. So did the previous elected gov't - Ja'afari's.

[Ramo]

In Iraq, several states (US, UK, etc.) invaded another state (Iraq) to overthrow its government and then occupied its territory. It's quite a bit different from the US presence in Saudi Arabia.

Yes, a pear is not exactly the same as an apple. That doesn't mean they aren't both fruits. You're focusing on random distinctions for no coherent reasons.

[Drake Tungsten]

I just think its bizarre that we are getting bent out of shape because people dont play the rules we do

Why? The rules are there for important reasons and it is a big deal when one side doesn't play by them.

then we go and contradict much of what we state we believe in as right and wrong through semantics arguements about "enemy combatants" and terrorism vs. war.

The whole enemy combatant thing is really an argument about whether we should play by the rules even if the other side doesn't. Really comes down to whether you think the "rules" are strict moral guidelines that we break at the expense of our humanity or simply a useful means of lessening the horrors of war when adopted by both sides in a conflict.

[Drake Tungsten]

The "draining the swamp" position is patently absurd without any basis in reality.

Only if you assume that a worsening in the situation in the short term automatically precludes an improvement in the situation in the long term. Why would that necessarily be the case?

What's your point? Maliki, who can actually claim to be an elected leader, supports our presence in Iraq. So did the previous elected gov't - Ja'afari's.

The Sunni-dominated insurgency predates both of them. It goes back to a time when the Sunni-dominated state government of Iraq was at war with the US invaders.

Yes, a pear is not exactly the same as an apple. That doesn't mean they aren't both fruits.

Did this sound intelligent when you wrote it?

[Ramo]

The Sunni-dominated insurgency predates both of them. It goes back to a time when the Sunni-dominated state government of Iraq was at war with the US invaders.

Who cares? You're focusing on trivial details and pretending that it's an argument.

The point is that you're looking at the motives of the insurgents attacking American targets. That the actions were taken to boot out Americans who are defending a gov't they are anathema to. The attacks on the Cole and the Khobar Towers had precisely the same motives (and the WTC for that matter).

[Ramo]

Only if you assume that a worsening in the situation in the short term automatically precludes an improvement in the situation in the long term. Why would that necessarily be the case?

It's not just a "worsening." It's a stupendous, unimaginably sharp increase in the problem. And the macro trends that this caused doesn't show any hope for improvement. By any reasonable metric, this has been a total failure in policy.

[Drake Tungsten]

You're focusing on trivial details and pretending that it's an argument.

The legitimacy of declarations of war by state actors vs. those by non-state actors is not a trivial detail. I'm a little surprised that you would even say that.

Think of it this way. If I decide today that Canada is really a huge threat to America and declare war on Canada, is my declaration of war legitimate? If I go blow up some Canadian servicemen who are on American soil, am I a terrorist or an insurgent? Is anyone really going to think my actions are justified?

Now, imagine that Canada had successfully invaded and occupied America ( ). The U.S. has declared war on Canada. Is the U.S. declaration of war legitimate? If I go blow up some Canadian servicemen who are occupying American soil, am I a terrorist or an insurgent? Will people think my actions are justified?

[Drake Tungsten]

That the actions were taken to boot out Americans who are defending a gov't they are anathema to.

The Iraqi insurgency was attacking Americans long before the new Iraqi government was even formed. They started by simply trying to boot out the occupying Americans; the opposition to the current government came later.

By any reasonable metric, this has been a total failure in policy.

I'm inclined to agree with you on this (although "total failure" is maybe too strong a term). That being said, neither of us can really predict what is going to happen in the Middle East in the next few decades or what might have happened had the occupation of Iraq been handled more competently. As such, blanket statements that the strategy of "draining the swamp" was/is doomed to failure are simply unsupportable.

[MRT144]

so do we define terrorism as attacks on our interests in theatres not of our choosing, unexpectedly, by non state actors?

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm not sure you can formulate a clear definition of terrorism, given how important subjective views on the legitimacy of grievances and methods of attack are in determining whether a person is a terrorist or an insurgent.

That being said, I don't think the theater in which the attack takes place really matters, or the expectedness. How and why the attacks happen is more important. The non-state actor requirement is good though, in my opinion.

[MRT144]

now to throw some more in the pot. if it is non state actors what about actors with state backing or sympathy such as "the hez" (and their relationship with syria and iran) or al qaeda (with afghanistan).

I think wars need rules even if only one party follows them. how noble is it to stoop to the level of the enemy when it is not neccesary but easy to do so?

[Drake Tungsten]

now to throw some more in the pot. if it is non state actors what about actors with state backing or sympathy such as "the hez" (and their relationship with syria and iran) or al qaeda (with afghanistan).

Really depends on how clear the linkages are between the groups in question and their purported state sponsors.

how noble is it to stoop to the level of the enemy

Since when is being noble a vital consideration in war? Your goal is to defeat your enemy. If they're using ignoble tactics, why shouldn't you? We aren't living in chivalric times anymore...

when it is not neccesary but easy to do so?

I don't know about you, but I definitely think easy but not necessary tactics have their place in war. It wasn't really necessary to nuke the Japs, for example, but it sure was easy and probably saved a lot of lives...

[MRT144]

so why should we not rape their women? why should we not torture them and drag them through the streets? why should be stop ourselves from killing their babies? why should we follow the geneva convention?

[Drake Tungsten]

why should we follow the geneva convention?

We follow the Geneva Convention on the assumption that the other side will also follow it, thereby protecting our troops. If the other side doesn't follow the Geneva Convention, however, there's no real incentive for us to follow it other than a sense of moral superiority...

so why should we not rape their women? why should we not torture them and drag them through the streets? why should be stop ourselves from killing their babies?

I definitely believe that there are strict moral guidelines that should govern our behavior. I just don't believe that these guidelines are necessarily the same as the rules set out in treaties like the Geneva Convention. Things like rape, real torture and baby-killing are (hopefully) viewed by almost everyone as morally wrong and things we shouldn't be doing in almost all cases.

[MRT144]

its not just moral superiority, its our humanity at stake if we do immoral things in the name of defense. we pride ourselves on being just, equitable, and good examples to all. i would hate to lose that.