Oh sure his logic is air tight and within the rules of warfare from my perspective though that's not my point...
Well, then what are you bitchin' about Good Sir Knight? Oh, and by the way, would you mind telling me what the real text of the real Geneva Convention means to your position vis-a-vis the legality, legitimacy, and moral rectitude of the Guantanamo Bay Prison Holding Facility?
Oh and he was so politicaly correct about saying it.
http://winace.andkon.com/pics/poison_well.jpg)
I'm wondering which side this Galloway is on. The terrorists and despots of the world? (i.e. Cuba/Iraq Insurgents) or his home country?
I'm pretty sure he's on the side of his home country. As The Mad Biologist puts it: These days, you can be a good American, and you can be a good Repbulican. But not at the same time.
That's the question and that's why in my oppinion he is a traitor.
http://winace.andkon.com/pics/broad_brush.jpg)
Why must we look at things with such extreme moral relativism? Can't people judge what right and wrong is and go in that direction?
I was of the distinct impression that he did judge for himself what was right and wrong. He may have come to a conclusion that you personally find distasteful, but I hardly think you can accuse him of not taking a moral stand.
Oh and the occupation is no longer (if it ever was) de facto, the UN has recognized it and it has a presence there along with every major government around the world.
Really? Last time I checked, the UN had recognized the new Iraqi and Afghani governments, which have then legally and legitimately invited the foreign troops. Under those conditions, what we're looking at is not - legally - an occupation and a war, rather it is a pair of UN sanctioned governments asking for assistance in training their police and armed forces and policing their territories against organised criminals.
Of course, you know that's a legal fiction, I know that's a legal fiction, the UN knows that's a legal fiction, and the Iraqi government knows that's a legal fiction. As to whether the White House knows it's a legal fiction, I'm less sure. They don't seem to know much of anything about Iraq...
The terrorists would have you believe that it's defacto,
Actually, I don't really think the - uh - 'terrorists' give a good goddamn what I think about the legal status of the occupation of Afghanistan and the war against Iraq. They have to realise - unless they are terminally stupid - that the technical legal status has very little to do with actual policy making in the occupying and attacking countries. After all, if the legal status of those operations had mattered with regard to actual policymaking, there would not be US forces in Iraq at this date...
they would also advocate you shooting Blair so I think they're doing quite well.
Point the first: I do not advocate shooting Blair. Neither does Galloway, AFAIK.
Point the second: I do not appreciate being accused of supporting the shooting of Blair simply because I point out that someone employed by the Iraqi insurgents would be legally permitted to do so. That happens to be a fact that not even you and rccar question, and I happen to think that simply stating incontrovertable facts should not be held against a person.
Point the third: You can shoot the messenger all you like, but that won't make the truth untrue.
The moral relativism in here is choking me....
Would you mind telling the rest of us what you think 'moral relativism' means? Oh, and while you're at it, do enlighten us as to the consequences of the Geneva Convention on the legality of Guantanamo.
Originally Posted by Datheus
There are only dogs who purport there to be sides and the sheep that polarize against each other accordingly.
So you don't recognize that there are two different sides to the abortion issue?
No. In point of fact, I don't even acknowledge that there is an issue - save that of parochial barbarism against civilisation. But then again, that's hardly an issue - after all, secular, democratic civilisation wins hands down. Point, set, match, case closed, can we go home and drink beer now?
You don't have to tell me that, John Wayne was not deployed to the Middle East with my family.
But the wife of The Questionable Authority (
http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005_10_23_thequestionableauthority_archive.html) was. And if that's your litmus test for the legitimacy of criticism against the utterly inept, criminally incomptent (and plain criminal) conduct of the White House vis-a-vis Operation Iraqi Screwup, I suggest that you Google (
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=site%3Athequestionableauthority.blogspot.com+ira) q&btnG=Search) some of his other posts (
http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/08/more-on-iraq.html) on the topic (
http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/11/biden-on-iraq.html).
And while I'm recommending The Questionable Authority, you should check some of his posts on creationism.
Please don't speak to me like a child, I'm well aware of the gravity around these issues.
For an indepth look at why Iraq and other nations (Yugoslavia) are falling apart, you can take a look at Pat Buchanan's, The Death of the Nation-State
Recommending 'Presidential Candidate' Buchanan's drivel is hardly indicative of awarenes 'of the gravity around these issues'... Nor, for that matter, is it indicative of a developed and sensitive bull****-o-metre to consider Buchanan something worth linking to. The man is a historical revisionist (
http://mediamatters.org/items/200506020001), who favors lying to the public (
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512020011). Hardly a shining beacon of credibility...
There are lessons abound to be learned. Why aren't we doing so?
You tell me Datheus.. your post sounded very pretty but it really didn't illustrate a clear stand on anything other than refusing to believe that there are two sides to a debate, two sides to a war....
http://winace.andkon.com/pics/vader_irony.jpg)
Pics in this post courtesy of Winace (
http://winace.andkon.com/pics/), Who Shall Be Missed.
Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to explain the consequences of the Geneva Convention to your views on the moral rectitude of Guantanamo, and I'd appreciate if you'd share your definition of 'moral relativism' with us, because it sure isn't the same definition as the one the reality based community uses...
And, yes, I will keep asking you this 'till they're ice skating in hell if you don't answer.