"But being nice to enemies is an idea that has never worked, no matter how many times liberals make us do it. It didn’t work with the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, Hitler or the North Vietnamese ? enemies notable for being more civilized than the Islamic savages we are at war with today.
By the way, how did the Geneva Conventions work out for McCain at the Hanoi Hilton?
It doesn’t even work with the Democrats, whom Bush kept sucking up to his first year in office. No more movie nights at the White House with Teddy Kennedy these days, I’m guessing.
It was this idea (Be nice!) that fueled liberals’ rage at Reagan when he vanquished the Soviet Union with his macho “cowboy diplomacy” that was going to get us all blown up. As the Times editorial page hysterically described Reagan’s first year in office: “Mr. Reagan looked at the world through gun sights.” Yes, he did! And now the Evil Empire is no more."
It’s that adam’s apple that really attracts you, isn’t it? You want “her” to spank you and make you lick her boots. You don’t care how viciously stupid “she” is, you just want to be punished.
[quote]tme wrote:
It’s that adam’s apple that really attracts you, isn’t it? You want “her” to spank you and make you lick her boots. You don’t care how viciously stupid “she” is, you just want to be punished.
[quote]doogie wrote:
At least you addressed her point. Or not.
[/quote]
Her “point” seems to be that the US should stoop to what ever level the “Islamic savages” use against us, which is too ignorant and stupid to bother addressing. “They’re scum, so why can’t we be scum too?” Gee, that’s something to be proud of.
[quote]tme wrote:
doogie wrote:
At least you addressed her point. Or not.
Her “point” seems to be that the US should stoop to what ever level the “Islamic savages” use against us, which is too ignorant and stupid to bother addressing. “They’re scum, so why can’t we be scum too?” Gee, that’s something to be proud of.
[/quote]
Her point is that no country we’ve ever fought actually adhered to the Geneva Conventions, so what purpose do they serve beyond hamstringing the U.S.?
[quote]doogie wrote:
tme wrote:
doogie wrote:
At least you addressed her point. Or not.
Her “point” seems to be that the US should stoop to what ever level the “Islamic savages” use against us, which is too ignorant and stupid to bother addressing. “They’re scum, so why can’t we be scum too?” Gee, that’s something to be proud of.
Her point is that no country we’ve ever fought actually adhered to the Geneva Conventions, so what purpose do they serve beyond hamstringing the U.S.?[/quote]
This means you want to get rid of the Geneva Convention tenents? When did being the bad guy become the cool thing to do?
I’m no expet on the Geneva rules…ok, I actually don’t know anything about them. However, for those familiar with them, do you see religious fanatics (martyr personalities)being successfully interrogated under Geneva rules? In otherwords, just how effective can interrogations, following Geneva to the letter, be against martyr type personalities?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
When did being the bad guy become the cool thing to do? [/quote]
Haven’t you kept up with world opinion of the past 50 years? We are always the bad guy. Must be true. The whole world and all of those really smart college professors in the U.S. say so.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
“Mr. Reagan looked at the world through gun sights.” Yes, he did! And now the Evil Empire is no more."[/quote]
The USSR had been in slow decline for decades already. It couldn’t keep up with the US industrially or militarily and it collapsed its economy trying to do so.
Funny how someone who “looked at world thru gunsights” thought the best way to get back hostages from Iran was to sell them the gun. One hell of a cowboy, that Ronnie.
[quote]— Annie Coulter (nobody does it better!)
[/quote]
Quite fitting that your avatar has a hole in his head.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You’re equivocating sawing off a guy’s head (for the broadcast audience yet), with playing loud music or making a terrorist dance around naked?[/quote]
You’re confusing a public execution with torture. Sawing someone’s head off is not an interrogation technique.
But hey, a confused Headhunter is par for the course.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m no expet on the Geneva rules…ok, I actually don’t know anything about them. However, for those familiar with them, do you see religious fanatics (martyr personalities)being successfully interrogated under Geneva rules? In otherwords, just how effective can interrogations, following Geneva to the letter, be against martyr type personalities?[/quote]
I don’t think so, not under the GC. I am not even convinced they can be interrogated all that effectively outside the GC, so I can’t possibly believe that the kid gloves of the GC would provide any good stuff.
The GC is a nice thought, but painfully naive. Any ‘contract’ is only as good as the signer’s intention to carry out.
And Islamists aren’t even signatories to begin with. Further, the martyr-types you speak of actually think restrictions like the GC are a sign of our weakness - they scoff at our attempts to make war more humane as a sign that we haven’t the stomach for true battle, and so they naturally exploit them as such.
Nowadays, the only nations that would respect, honor, and reciprocate the GC privileges are nations that are very unlikely to even fight one another. The race to the bottom by rogue states and terror groups has now produced yet another advantage in their information war - they can do whatever barbaric act they want, but the moment the US acts like a perceived meanie, the usual mouthpieces can shriek “look!! They don’t respect anyone!! They won’t even treat the enemy humanely!! They are creating more terrorists!!” - all to exceptional effect for the Islamists.
War is savagery. The day we tried to clean up war is the exact same day that dark forces started hatching plans to use that well-meaning desire against us.
That said, I have no truck with torture - but we must stop fighting a sissified war against our enemies.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m no expet on the Geneva rules…ok, I actually don’t know anything about them. However, for those familiar with them, do you see religious fanatics (martyr personalities)being successfully interrogated under Geneva rules? In otherwords, just how effective can interrogations, following Geneva to the letter, be against martyr type personalities?[/quote]
Exactly. We know they only hold up to about 30 seconds of waterboarding. What’s more inhumane? Years of interrogation under the Geneva conventions or 30 seconds on the waterboard?
[quote]doogie wrote:
Exactly. We know they only hold up to about 30 seconds of waterboarding. What’s more inhumane? Years of interrogation under the Geneva conventions or 30 seconds on the waterboard?[/quote]
Hell, just show me the board. What was it you wanted me to say again?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And Islamists aren’t even signatories to begin with. Further, the martyr-types you speak of actually think restrictions like the GC are a sign of our weakness - they scoff at our attempts to make war more humane as a sign that we haven’t the stomach for true battle, and so they naturally exploit them as such.[/quote]
That’s not the point. The point is that the United States IS a signatory to the GC, it is binding, and it’s how we conduct ourselves. If the GC is outdated and needs to be revised to reflect changing tactics and conduct, then the place to do that is at the UN, and not a unilateral action by Bush.
“but Mommy, she did it first!” works with 5 year olds, not in international diplomacy or conduct during a conflict.
[quote]tme wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
And Islamists aren’t even signatories to begin with. Further, the martyr-types you speak of actually think restrictions like the GC are a sign of our weakness - they scoff at our attempts to make war more humane as a sign that we haven’t the stomach for true battle, and so they naturally exploit them as such.
That’s not the point. The point is that the United States IS a signatory to the GC, it is binding, and it’s how we conduct ourselves. If the GC is outdated and needs to be revised to reflect changing tactics and conduct, then the place to do that is at the UN, and not a unilateral action by Bush.
“but Mommy, she did it first!” works with 5 year olds, not in international diplomacy or conduct during a conflict.
[/quote]
But does the GC even come into play with insurgents and terroists?
That is the argument. Not crying to mommy about who did what first.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’m no expet on the Geneva rules…ok, I actually don’t know anything about them. However, for those familiar with them, do you see religious fanatics (martyr personalities)being successfully interrogated under Geneva rules? In otherwords, just how effective can interrogations, following Geneva to the letter, be against martyr type personalities?
I don’t think so, not under the GC. I am not even convinced they can be interrogated all that effectively outside the GC, so I can’t possibly believe that the kid gloves of the GC would provide any good stuff.
The GC is a nice thought, but painfully naive. Any ‘contract’ is only as good as the signer’s intention to carry out.
And Islamists aren’t even signatories to begin with. Further, the martyr-types you speak of actually think restrictions like the GC are a sign of our weakness - they scoff at our attempts to make war more humane as a sign that we haven’t the stomach for true battle, and so they naturally exploit them as such.
Nowadays, the only nations that would respect, honor, and reciprocate the GC privileges are nations that are very unlikely to even fight one another. The race to the bottom by rogue states and terror groups has now produced yet another advantage in their information war - they can do whatever barbaric act they want, but the moment the US acts like a perceived meanie, the usual mouthpieces can shriek “look!! They don’t respect anyone!! They won’t even treat the enemy humanely!! They are creating more terrorists!!” - all to exceptional effect for the Islamists.
War is savagery. The day we tried to clean up war is the exact same day that dark forces started hatching plans to use that well-meaning desire against us.
That said, I have no truck with torture - but we must stop fighting a sissified war against our enemies.
[quote]tme wrote:
If the GC is outdated and needs to be revised to reflect changing tactics and conduct, then the place to do that is at the UN, and not a unilateral action by Bush.
[/quote]
You mean the UN where Bush got a 15 second applause for speaking of peace and friendship, while Chavez got 40 seconds of applause for calling our president Satan and that he smelled sulfur residue?