Olbermann Rips Bush a new arsehole

[Drake Tungsten]

Why do you think that the Geneva Conventions are some sort of moral gold standard that we have to follow lest we become monsters? The Geneva Conventions were never meant to outline the basic human rights of enemy prisoners. They are instead a rather liberal set of guidelines that states honor in the interest of having other states reciprocally treat their prisoners in the same manner. It'd be great if every enemy we would face would agree to play by the rules of Geneva, but that's simply not the case.

In cases where our enemy doesn't honor the Geneva Conventions, you can make the argument that we shouldn't honor the Geneva Conventions, in a technical sense at the very least. And we can treat detainees in a manner not-consistent with the Geneva Convention that is still not morally wrong, IMO. I don't think grabbing shirts, slapping bellys, making prisoners stand for long periods and other CIA "torture" techniques are morally wrong, for example. Neither do most Americans, when you put the question to them clearly.

we pride ourselves on being just, equitable, and good examples to all.

Is it really just to treat enemies who have no respect for the Geneva Conventions and the lives of our soldiers in the same way that we treat enemies who make the effort to treat our soldiers with respect? Is that really a good example to set, that you will treat every enemy the same way, no matter how honorable or terrible their actions may be?

[MRT144]

its just in our worldview. I dont really how terrible people are when I have no control over them, or where they fight, or why they fight. I do care when Im controlling the influx of money to our military and they are a representation of our values.

[Ramo]

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.

Since the state that we were at war with doesn't exist, this is a moot point.

And this is a lazy taxonomy that doesn't explain much. Again, the key difference is the magnitude of the conflict (partialy due to differences in the magnitude of power of the actors).

As for the definition of terrorism, I'd say the intrinsic part is whether or not the actor attacks of civilians (which the insurgency does, as do the Shia militias), and whether or not the actor is a state is irrelevant.

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.

Not really. The Sunni Arab insurgency, at its core, was always based on their attempt to maintain power in the state wrt the Shia and Kurds. From the gov't's of Chalabi to Allawi to Ja'afari to Malaki, this has been a constant. Besides the very beginning, this is what we have been dealing with.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Is it really just to treat enemies who have no respect for the Geneva Conventions and the lives of our soldiers in the same way that we treat enemies who make the effort to treat our soldiers with respect? Is that really a good example to set, that you will treat every enemy the same way, no matter how honorable or terrible their actions may be?

Yes. Note that the phrase is "human rights," not "human privileges." To take them away for any reason is suspect; to take them away for interrogation procedures of dubious utility and the entertainment of sadists is grotesque. This really ought to be common knowledge. This kind of brutish retaliatory thinking is exactly what we're supposedly fighting in this "war on terror."

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Why do you think that the Geneva Conventions are some sort of moral gold standard that we have to follow lest we become monsters? The Geneva Conventions were never meant to outline the basic human rights of enemy prisoners. They are instead a rather liberal set of guidelines that states honor in the interest of having other states reciprocally treat their prisoners in the same manner. It'd be great if every enemy we would face would agree to play by the rules of Geneva, but that's simply not the case.

In cases where our enemy doesn't honor the Geneva Conventions, you can make the argument that we shouldn't honor the Geneva Conventions, in a technical sense at the very least. And we can treat detainees in a manner not-consistent with the Geneva Convention that is still not morally wrong, IMO. I don't think grabbing shirts, slapping bellys, making prisoners stand for long periods and other CIA "torture" techniques are morally wrong, for example. Neither do most Americans, when you put the question to them clearly.

we pride ourselves on being just, equitable, and good examples to all.

Is it really just to treat enemies who have no respect for the Geneva Conventions and the lives of our soldiers in the same way that we treat enemies who make the effort to treat our soldiers with respect? Is that really a good example to set, that you will treat every enemy the same way, no matter how honorable or terrible their actions may be?

That's because most americans haven't had it or anything similiar done to them.

JM

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

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.

I'm surprised, Drake. I thought you were among the few who "got it."

There is no other way to "manage" a just occupation (that is, one that does not seek to annex/colonize the conquered territory). Either the populace accepts the defeat of the regime and rebuilds or they do not. Germany and Japan chose to rebuild peacefully after WW2. These morons wallow in the sewage of their hate and force everyone around them to suffer for it.

[RGBVideo]

These morons wallow in the sewage of their hate and force everyone around them to suffer for it.

"They hate us because they're morons". That's an original thought...

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Elok
Yes. Note that the phrase is "human rights," not "human privileges." To take them away for any reason is suspect; to take them away for interrogation procedures of dubious utility and the entertainment of sadists is grotesque. This really ought to be common knowledge. This kind of brutish retaliatory thinking is exactly what we're supposedly fighting in this "war on terror."

Sorry, Elok, you've made a fundamental mistake here. The phrase "human rights" has expanded to included "priveleges" of all sorts in the modern political lexicon.

When we're talking about the Geneva Conventions, it is entailed within them that certain peoples fall outside their protections. That is why their protections and the restraints upon those who wish to be protected are carefully ennumerated.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by VJ

These morons wallow in the sewage of their hate and force everyone around them to suffer for it.

"They hate us because they're morons". That's an original thought...

Amazing... You can't even honestly quote and respond to anything I write.

Your winnner!1!!

[RGBVideo]

that is a direct quote. full context here (emphasis mine) :

There is no other way to "manage" a just occupation (that is, one that does not seek to annex/colonize the conquered territory). Either the populace accepts the defeat of the regime and rebuilds or they do not. Germany and Japan chose to rebuild peacefully after WW2. These morons wallow in the sewage of their hate and force everyone around them to suffer for it.

the reasons for hatred and insults are fear and insecurity

[Straybow]

Originally posted by VJ
the reasons for hatred and insults are fear and insecurity

Very good! The first step to receiving help is admitting you need it. The next step is up to you.

I know this whole terrorism and war topic makes some people feel very insecure, and so they stoop to insulting those who hold opposite views. I confine my sarcasm to specific "points" (I use the term loosely) that people make in the discussion. They are free to interpret such mocking as insults, but only at the expense of understanding the truth.

I will explain my statement. Now, do try to understand before you launch off another round of insults. A statement has a predicate and a subject. The predicate explains something about the subject. So to properly understand my statement, diagram the sentence and place the subject and predicate in their proper position.

If you do this, you will clearly see that I call the terrorists "morons" because:

1. they "wallow in the sewage of their hate and"
2. they "force everyone around them to suffer for it."

Now, you can also understand what I write by the "context" of the statement. That means the parts before and after the snippet you quoted and misininterpreted. I made a direct comparison to people who chose to accept military defeat and focus their energies on constructive things that make life better for everyone around them. These people, by contrast, do not focus their energies on improving the living conditions of their country and instead focus their energies on with hatred and destruction.

The first people, exemplified in Germany and Japan, were revealed through their actions as being "smart" (although I left that conclusion for the reader to make, rather than spelling it out as I did here). The second group I called "morons."

Of course, you can ignore what I actually write and go back to projecting your insecurities and hatred back on me. If so, then please pardon this interruption and go about your venting.

[Drake Tungsten]

There is no other way to "manage" a just occupation (that is, one that does not seek to annex/colonize the conquered territory). Either the populace accepts the defeat of the regime and rebuilds or they do not. Germany and Japan chose to rebuild peacefully after WW2. These morons wallow in the sewage of their hate and force everyone around them to suffer for it.

And that means the occupation of Iraq is not a failure because...?

[Dinner]

It could have turned out very well dispit the falsification of evidence which brought us to invade Iraq. For the first year after the invasion the Iraqi people pretty much supported us or at least gave us the benifet of the doubt and what they wanted in return was for the promise to help rebuild to be kept. After a year of seeing virtually nothing but empty promises out of the administration they grew frustrated and the insurgency began.

There is only so much people can put up with lawlessness, out of control crime, not seeing destroyed bridges replaced, having the water not work, nor the electricity, etc... before they decide anything would be better. We've lost virtually all of our creditability and it has turned into a major embarrassment. I forgot how many times Iraqis asked me "America is the most powerful country in the world. Why can't you guys get the electricity to work?"

It basically boils down to the administration thought they could dribble out bits of money over 10 years or even just not spend much on rebuilding like they did in Afghanistan. What little they did spend often went into bloated no bid contracts to politically favored corporations who had no incentive to actually provide the services they were hired to provide in a reasonable time frame. If you have a fat cut plus contract then you want to milk it for all it is worth and not rush out and finish the contract as quickly as possible. You want to make it last a year or two since that means your profits are many times larger then if you just did it and got it over with. In the future all contracts should have a defined limit for both time and money and failure to reach either should result in progressively harsher penalties for the company and the executives personally depending upon how badly they screwed the poach. That it is now almost four years since the invasion and companies haven't even started the power plants they were paid for starting in 2003 is a joke.

[Dinner]

Another thing. We've gone WAAAAAYYYY to far with out sourcing. If a contractor is hired to build a power plant then they can legally have a million and one reasons why it is to dangerous in a war zone and all the costs must be inflated by 1000% but if we went back to the WW2 way of having the Army Corp of Engineers do the work then the OIC just has to give the order and the work is done. If it isn't done then the OIC has full power to immediately make any changes he needs to get things back on track.

In a time critical project in a war zone that is invaluable. We wouldn't have any where near the problems we're having now if we had cut out the worthless nonperformers and just did things directly. Of course the administration didn't want to do that because they rely upon those worthless middlemen to give them fat campaign contributions.

[chequita guevara]

The Iraqi people told us we had a year to make good on our promises. Today, 80% of the Iraqi people want us out and 60% support attacks on our forces.

Time to go is now.