Haezed

Gee, I don't recall referencing any of these rules. Care to throw out ten more strawmen? Which rules are you referencing? Can you be specific? Enemy combatants have always been given different treatment than US citizens. In WWII we didn't give every German we captured as a POW a "fair trial." Military procedures are used necessarily in a time of war. Does Britain, France, etc do this any differently? Our image has been hurt by Abu Ghraib more than anything. That was the turning point and I wish the culprits would be tried under the harshest of laws. They did more damage to this country than any enemy has in decades. The point that I was trying to make is that we have said we are in a war and the precedents we set now will be applicable the next time we have a full scale fight on our hands. You can't give full jury trials to enemy POWs and, in a real war, spies will be shot when found in our land without full trials. This is nothing new.

This was the initial comment you made and, to me, it implied that "they," i.e. the people are making these governments work for themselves as opposed to having it rammed down their throats. True, although not really responsive to my point. People will submit to authority so in most tyrannies there are many who "love" the tyrant. OTOH, there are also those who serve and profess love out of fear of being whisked away and disappeared. Without freedom of press, association and speech, it's hard to really know what the percentage break down is in such societies. The norm for democracies is that dissent with governmental policies, even ridicule of governmental leaders, does not lead to torture and death. You will have a Nixon or a Hoover who builds enemy lists and persecution for dissent is possible, however, it is an aberrant event, not the norm.

It will be interesting to see what happens the next time we fight a "real" war, if we ever do. I can just imagine the military struggling to keep up with the rules we put in place during this era.

What news about the camp do you think we might be missing?

Who is this "them" in a monarchy or tyranical government that "makes [their preferred form of government] work for 'them'?" Your question assumes that the people are consenting to be governed in a less than democratic form of government. However, if they consent to be so governed, the country in which they live has gone a long way towards democracy. Your use of the label "democracy-worshipper" smacks of someone who is stretching to dismiss a point. Whatever the label, a fundamental distinction in governments is the degree to which they afford rights to individuals and from which they gain their right to govern from the consent of the governed. There is a proportional relationship between these two concepts.

Anyone seen this film? http://www.1049films.com

Maybe I should start a thread to consider what would be a similar phrase for American Taliban to tar the left. American Commies? American PC Police? unAmericans Americans? American Cubanists? The intellectually sloppy possibilities are endless!

Perhaps we should start by considering what is the implicit message of MJF's commercials. If MJF's point in showing how bad his disease is that a change in policy would improve his condition, why wouldn't he show his actual condition using medication produced by the present policy? If MJF's ads say, "this is what I'm like if I don't take my meds and many people are just like this every day of their lives" I can't see how anyone would say that his implicit message was dishonest. I've not seen the commercials so I don't know where this falls.

You don't think the phrase "American Taliban" is just a wee bit hyperbolic?

Oh, those guys. Yes, I'm against them. The term Christian Right seems to include any Christians right of center.

I hate those guys too! And you define the "Christian Right" as... what?

One thing we learned in the war on terror is that it is important to define the enemy. I'm wondering who you consider to be the members of the American Taliban?

I recall seeing Hanity doing this a couple of times but I do not see this as occurring a great deal. Perhaps you could find a a few cites where this tactic was used by any prominent republican office holder?

What RL said was: "He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told listeners. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting." I don't see this as a claim that MJF doesn't have Parkinsons.

You believe there is no difference between legal and illegal immigration.

Republicans challenged everyone's patriotism? I don't see this at all. It may be an over-simplification to call Murtha , for example, a "cut & runner" but that's a policy criticism, not a question of patriotism.

You believe slightly evolved apes can reason to absolute truth regarding the existence or nonexistence of God. You believe the Iraqis would be better off under Saddam. You believe democracy can be imposed.

Assuming the war is lost, did the failure occur at inception or was it the execution? If we had gone in with sufficient troops, not disbanded the Iraqi military, etc., could this have turned out differently?

I wouldn't mind if Britain or France gave us a run for our money. I'm not so keen on Iran competing with us for "world domination," as you call it.

Hello everyone. First post here for me. The big downside of the Iraq war is that we've proven the limits of American power against insurgent tactics. Of course, I would have thought we would already have appreciated those limits but I doubt Bush did too well in history in college. As far as conventional power, today we are sitting pretty but 10 years from now, who knows? It will come down to the technology and we can't take anything for granted. If one country, for example, develops a real "invisibility cloak" for its tanks or planes, that country will be the instant global superpower.