Haezed

like the rules against killiing unarmed soldures and civillians? the rules against using biological/chemical weapons? the rules about not mistreating captive soldures? in other words, all the rules that we complain about other armies for not following?

Gee, I don't recall referencing any of these rules. Care to throw out ten more strawmen?

how, for example, can you complain about the terrorists for being so 'uncivilised' and 'barbaric' as to attack and kill unarmed non-combatant civillians, whilst your own army is breaking your own human-rights rules? how dare al quaida break your rules, that you yourselfes dont follow?

Which rules are you referencing? Can you be specific?

not to mention that, from a non-military point of view, not granting fair trial is something that we also complain about foreign govournments for doing *cough* china *cough*

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?

from an international relations POV, this is definately hurting you. America isn't "the good guys" in this anymore, america is just "the less arseholish side".

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.

There can be good monarchies, and if a country can make socialism work for them, I say more power to them."

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.

Every government necessarily demands the people consent to be so governed, but that doesn't make them all "democracy." A democratic republic means formalized, egalitarian elections.

True, although not really responsive to my point.

Contrarily, most governments in history have basically been absolute monarchies, supported out of religious conviction, love of the monarch, nationalism, sincere belief that the monarch is their better, approval of the rule of order and protection the monarch provides, etc.

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.

Like ANY government, obviously, there is also an element of fear of reprisal which hold them together to a greater or lesser degree, a fear which could not exist without the consent of a large enough percentage of people to exert this power. Often it's a minority. Often not.

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.

These people were rounded up by the military, not the police. They may not even have charges against them, as they do not necessarily even have to be criminals. The military rounded some people up, threw them in a detention* center, and is trying to figure out what to do with them.

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.

I'd like to discuss camp Guantanamo with you folks, especially with the Americans among you.

First I'd like to ask you: Are you being informed about the camp by the news or by way of other information channels? What kind of information are you receiving that way?

 

Airmid.

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

There can be good monarchies, and if a country can make socialism work for them, I say more power to them.

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.

I mentioned this today and got kind of an outraged response from a democracy-worshipper. Am I as alone as it seems like I am?

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.

I agree that it really shouldn't be a legal issue at all. State-licensed marriage should be abolished altogether. If necessary, stuff like hospital visitation rights can be granted to some legally designated other person, irregardless of relationship. Kind of like power of attorney or something.

 

That said, I also agree it's a separate issue. Giving rights to heterosexual couples and not homosexual couples is still unjust, and it's not any closer either way to abolishing legal marriage entirely.

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

Are they also going to give benefits to groups of people who are in a mutual relationship? How about giving benefits to people who live together without romantic attachment (ie. flatmates)? Or is the 'American Taliban' going to try and strip these people of their rights?

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!

No, it still doesn't jibe. The contention was that Fox was exaggerating — that it was an act. That's not legitimate criticism, it's an unfounded accusation of dishonesty, especially so since Rush admits to knowing the particulars: Fox doesn't take the medication in circumstances when he is trying to educate people on the disease. Instead of covering things up, Fox is displaying the actual unvarnished truth about the disease.

 

It almost sounds like Limbaugh wants Fox to take the meds so that nobody has to be subjected to someone who doesn't act like the rest of us. That's my impression his particular slice of ideology: Conform, dammit, you're embarrassing the rest of us.

 

That the stem-cell issue falls along partisan lines is probably the least interesting aspect of the issue. Does anybody really expect otherwise?

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.

Well, at least two states have had the balls to do the right thing. I guess now we wait for the American Taliban to once again strip the rights from other Americans for the crime of being different.

 

Mokele

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

Those seeking to do as above (force their views on everyone) explicitly in the name of their religion (often while abusing their own religion's teaching to do it).

Oh, those guys. Yes, I'm against them.

The term Christian Right seems to include any Christians right of center.

Those who seek to impose their moral rules on everyone else through laws, rather than simply letting people live according to their individual beleifs (you know, that pesky thing called "freedom").

I hate those guys too!

This essentially means the Christian Right, though the same can be said for other organizations such as PETA.

And you define the "Christian Right" as... what?

The only issue here is that the American Taliban are feeling guilty... (blah blah blah)

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 could be wrong but I believe ParanoiA was referring to the typical practice of mistaking lack of support for the war as lack of support for the troops involved. I see this a great deal from Iraq war supporters, who seem to be predominantly Republican.

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.

And with the republicans challenging everyone's patriotism upon questioning, it has a strange, manipulative feeling to me. I don't have any real intellect to support any of that - just an ugly gut feeling.

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?

How bad would it be for the US to have significant competitors for world domination again?

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.