ScottSA

Wow... a quote of yours I actually agree with. But now here's the rub... what about people detained in Afghanistan who were there defending the Taliban, the seated government? If they were there as combatants and were captured as combatants (not the ones there attending terrorist training camps), and shipped of to Guantanamo, shouldn't they be afforded the same Geneva Covention rights the US gave to captured Viet Cong? How about Iraqi insurgents who, unlike the factional militias targeting civilians, are conducting (what they see as) a guerilla warfare against foreign invaders. Should they get captured, shouldn't they be entitled to Geneva Convention rights (e.g., no torture) or do they deserve Abu Ghraib? Well, that is a bit of a rub, which gets much less frictive once you start excluding all the folks who were in fact fighting for the sitting government. But here's the rub to your rub, and that's the fact that anyone shipped to Gitmo from Afghanistan is there not because they heroically defended their homeland against the big nasty invader, but because they are suspected of involvement in terrorist activity. I know that there are some unclear categories out there in the grey area between terrorist and enemy POW, but my understanding is that those prisoners are presumed to be terrorists rather than POWs, and they are the ones at Gitmo. I don't know what the situation is with Abu Griab; I don't know what the status of the inmates is, nor why they have the status they have. The US didn't bother taking a lot of POWs after the initial invasion: those are the folks with very clear POW status. What I do know is this, however. If you trace back each and every prisoner, there is a status and a reason for that status, under law. The US is a nation under rule of law, as much as some would like to think it's not.

Ah, the old appeal to group strength. Quite in keeping with a tendency to tattle. Now, lest anyone think I'm flaming gratuitously, let me make it quite clear that this personality description may have nothing to do with figleaf (where-tf did that name come from anyway?) and is merely put out there as a general description of a certain type of insipid poster: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/crybaby.htm http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorsh...iquettenazi.htm http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/weenie.htm This type of personality is usually found in kindergarten, wearing some particularly ridiculous piece of clothing...maybe earmuffs in summer or some such...that his domineering mother insisted he wear. His father is either thoroughly cowed and adept at the phrase "yes dear", or a heavy drinker usually found at the local pub buying drinks for young women to whom he is forever complaining that his wife doesn't understand him. As this type of personality grows and finds himself either ignored or worse yet; the butt of jokes; he learns that running to higher authority compensates for his personal lack of power. As he grows older, he finds that he can augment this most annoying trait with appeals to group membership: "I'm gonna tattle, and not just because I want to, but because everyone else ("we") wants me to. This appeal also serves as avoidance of responsibility for actions. Personality types like this tend to make good rank and file fascists, since their already weak self esteem and a general insipidity are suited to taking orders from higher authority. Once again, let me assure the forum that this description may have nothing to do with figleaf, and any resemblence to him/her or anyone else on the forum is entirely coinmumblemumblental.

But that's not what I'm doing Andrew. Try to calm down and look at the facts instead of letting your emotions carry you away. Let me help you with a primer in intl law, so you don't fall into this trap again: Read UNSC 1441. Look at the preamble. Note that the resolution recalls (which means "affirms"): The purpose of all these recollections is to make sure that there is no mistake in the intent of 1441 to INCLUDE previous resolutions in 1441. 1441 went even further and called for "serious consequences", even though it didn't need to do so in order to authorize war. War was authorised and was seen to be authorized by Saddam's violation of the original ceasefire resolution. It's the only authorization needed by Clinton to launch strikes against Iraq. Here's another tidbit: Each of the resolutions mentioned in 1441 specifically recalled all of the previous resolutions, including the ceasefire resolution. If there were anything remotely "illegal" about the invasion, we can bet China, Russia and France, all members of the UNSC would have said so, but they didn't. How come? That's easy...it was so legal that only an outgoing idiot in a figurehead position would think it was somehow illegal. Let me head off your next objection, which is no doubt to argue that Clinton's cruise missile attack was on a smaller scale than Bush's invasion. I would challenge you to show me where in the body of intl law there are gradations made between acts of war, but I'll save you time by telling you there aren't. Under the eyes of what passes for intl law, an act of war is an act of war is an act of war. Your argument of appealing to Chapter I (glad you took the time to read it btw) doesn't work BECAUSE of the resolutions. You'll note that Chapt VII is all about exceptions to Chapter 1, which is there only to establish the primacy of sovereignty of nations as the grounding of the Charter.

It's sad that allegedly intelligent human beings can believe the most incredible things in spite of the evidence right in front of their eyes, by blithely dismissing the explanations as nothing more than the "gatekeeper" machinations of some giant plot. It surely must be a pathology.

Whining? Crying? Riiiiiight. Again, I'll point out to you that this forum has rules, and if you abide by them you have nothing to worry about in that regard., I'm sure it's just a coincidence that your deep concern with abiding by the rules is at its height when you or one of your philosophical soulmates is being intellectually thrashed and backed into a corner by someone. Have you, for example, ever piously trotted off to report CB or anyone else who is philosophical agreement with you? I'll hazard a guess not, but no doubt you're otherwise occupied every single time that happens...probably trying to keep your head above water in another thread. Yet they use pottymouth and toilet words with at least as much abandon as anyone else here. See, that's the problem with little bespeckled class monitors...they tend to use their itsy little bit of power to disrupt, while pretending that they are on the path of shining sweetness and light. Or should I say the Shining Path? Morris and I have personally watched a forum get torn apart because of this kind of incessant whining about "rules", and the majority of the damage is caused by little martinets just exactly like you.

But that's the way the world works, Andrew. People make laws, and then actions are judged against those laws. One of the laws says that combatants attacking other combatants is an act of war, and that combatants attacking civilians is an act of terrorism. There's a funtional and legal difference between me attacking a biker who is trying to kill me and my family, and me laying about a 90 year old lady with a tire iron because I'd like her purse, don't you agree? It's not a great leap to expand that analogy into armed combatants vs unarmed civilians, and in any event that's what greater minds than ours have already done. Things are a bit more complicated out there in the big wide world than they may seem to people sitting in dorm, smoking a doob and pontificating that "that's not cool, man".

That means nothing. Maybe not, but we both know Christianity predated Islam on the Iberian peninsula, so let's stop any nonsense about Islamic claims there in their tracks. And to address Jerry's post, he's absolutely right that it has been open season on Europeans for a few decades. And let's call a...errrr...spade a spade, as it were: it's really open season on white folks in the climate of postcolonial revisionism that swept western academia in the 50s and 60s. It's quite alright for leftists to spew hatred and vituperation at anything Bwana has ever done or is every likely to do, and it terms that would have them frogmarched to the nearest "human rights tribunal" if the protagonists in their rant were anyone of a different hue. All of which is fine and dandy, except that what is always left unsaid is what would have happened had Bwana NOT shown up to "subjugate" the land. Would India have suddenly discovered representative government and railways in the wake of a decayed Moghul empire and the ruins of already decayed previous empires? Would China have ever dragged itself out of warlordism after the demise of the Ching (oh, excuse me, "Qing" in postcolonial pinyin. Far by it for me to use the colonial "orientalist" Wade Giles, even though it's phonetically correct) dynasty? Would Japan have ever developed a navy capable of defeating Russia? It's almost certain that sub-saharan Africa would still be chasing each other and dinner all over the continent had it not been colonized...when the first Dutchmen showed up there, the entire lower half of the continent was almost empty of humans after the Mtabele and Zulus had ministered to the local populations in the time honored tradition of radical genocide. It's easy to point at the post-colonial problems, most of which have more to do with the resident populations than the former overlords, and blame Bwana, but what exactly would the alternative have been? It's time Europe started being proud of its achievements and stopped focussing on its failings.

So, we get a treatise on genetics, followed by a ramble on how it doesn't matter whether words make sense because we use words to describe something that doesn't exist but makes no sense anyway because they mean the same thing as what doesn't exist but means something else so we should use words to mean what they don't mean because it means the same and we should get over it. Very concise. Very stimulating. Is there an English translation available or does this only make sense in the original Bafflgabia?

Woody, this is why you're not ever taken seriously by anyone. You start off with wild-eyed pronouncements using ridiculously over the top language and terminology, proceed to indefensible statements and conclusions based on nothing more than emotion, and then wrap up the lot with a return to more wild-eyed trumpeting. "Holocaust museum"? Do you ever cringe in abject shame when you read back over your posts?

As I believe it was speculation that those British soldiers were in Iraqi waters. Even if there is a shred of evidence that Pelosi had helped in the negotiations, it is still a shred more that what Bush and Blair had to offer. Yeah yeah, those dumb lefties always getting in trouble like that. Neither you nor I have the slightest idea of what went on behind the scenes to secure the release. If it was something Bush and Blair did, fine. If it was something Pelosi did, shame on her, since she allowed herself to be used as stupidly as Jane Fonda a few decades back.

First, it's pure speculation that Pelosi had anything at all to do with the release. Second, if she did, it's a national outrage having opposition politicians cynically manipulated by the enemy. Third, negotiation has a long history in cases of hostagetaking. In fact, it makes it all worthwhile to take hostages.

Ok, I'll bite on this snippy little exercize in lightweight snideness and ad hominem. Explain to me what precisely is wrong with his demographic projections for Europe. What, for instance, is your disagreement with the numbers or experts he cites? If you have read the book, you'll know that Steyn doesn't even attempt to put his own numbers forth...he cites "experts". Not that this is brain surgery or anything...when replacement value of a given population segment is in decline while another segment is in ascendancy AND the immigration floodgates are open, almost exclusively feeding the latter segment, only the most turgidly dense among us would argue against the hardly startling conclusion that the latter segment will sooner or later outnumber the former. Since you have chosen to be among that group, please feel free to explain, all ad hominem aside, what in particular you see as faulty in the book. You haven't even read the book, have you?

I would like to point out that the major disruptions here seem to be figleaf whining and crying about every slip of the tongue. It has the effect of poisoning the debate, since he/it invariably reports his betters opponents and gives his buddies in ignorance a pass. Shouldn't there be a penalty of some sort to curb gratuitous snivelling?

Get over yourself, I have no interest in you or your pipsqueekness or your stupidity or the bullshit you pretend is an argument. If you have such lack interest, then I invite you to leave the subject alone. Meanwhile, I have reported your post for it's abusive contents. And I have reported you for crybabyishness more suited to a kindergarten than a BB. I have a good place for you to visit...they even pass out free soothers: http://forums.advancode.com/index.php?act=idx

Where did I say that I want to see Ahmedinejad 'succeed'? How is Iran a backwards country? The Persian culture is far older than the so called west. How is this at all relevant? Persian culture is older than western culture? So is the stone age. What's the point? Women get beaten and raped in the US, so how is it different? Well, it's different because in the US they don't stone women for being raped. Maybe just a minor difference, but it's there. Where would you prefer to get raped? It never ceases to amaze me, the lengths to which anti-Americanism can twist logic and attack reason.

Here we find CB stumbling around attempting to see just how much egg his face will accomodate. Let's see, 19,500 reg forces and 16,000 reserves for a total of 35,500. Are you rerering to land forces only? either way, in afghanistan the 10% rule doesn't apply like it used to...many non conmabtant roles are no out sourced to private sectors so things like kitchens and latrines (my uncle was in a combat latrine unit in italy during the war, no shit, he was an engineer....) If we have 2000 in afghanistan, perhaps 50% might take the field at any given time.... If that's true, it simply makes CB's argument the more farcical. Although I have a hard time imagining a 50% sharp end... They outsource kitchens?

Here we find CB stumbling around attempting to see just how much egg his face will accomodate. Let's see, 19,500 reg forces and 16,000 reserves for a total of 35,500. Given that sharp end forces amount to 10% or so in most theatres, that means we have around 250 sharp end forces in Afghanistan at the moment, although maybe a tad more since the US is doing most of the supply tail stuff that we can't do. Sounds like we're stretched to the max. I wonder how we ever managed to raise 1.1 million to fight in WW II, when we had about a third of the population, eh wot? Then, CB attempts to perch a couple more eggs atop his nose by citing the Leopards as "unsuited" to Afghanistan. The Leopards are unsuited to the battlefield, not Afghanistan. They double as ovens in Afghanistan, just as they'd double as iceboxes in the "brutal Afghan winter", but in point of fact they are suited for nothing more than progressing in stately fashion with spiked guns down Portage Avenue in a military parade on a suitably mild day, if we every had those kinds of things anymore, or sitting outside some forgotten armoury with their guns pointed skyward in remembrance of the Beatles, who were just becoming famous as they rolled off the assembly line. The Leopards are prime examples of how previous governments have so degraded the Canadian forces that we are the laughing stock of Nato. The people standing under our helicopters in flight are in more danger than the enemy, what with a 50/50 chance of them accidentally landing terminally fast. Our submarines manage to defy physics and burn down, our planes are asked politely to sit out Nato exercizes since they are a couple generations behind everyone else, our ships should be mothballed or turned into reefs, which they often are by accident, and now our tanks are producing well done crews, but little else.

It may be possible, but it's not true.

Why am I not surprised that you folks would hold up a misrepresenting strawman rant written on the same blog whose next titles are thus: Steyn is not alone in his thoughts. Melanie Phillips and Londonistan, Sam Harris and End of Faith, Lee Harris and Civilization and Its Enemies are all high visibility books or the same nature, although Steyn is a better writer than the rest, and Steyn tends toward the demography of the situation. It's not clear why anyone would mock his points, which have nothing to do with such idiocy as "[steyn is] mocking those who oppose torture". No he's not. No he doesn't. This is pure fabrication. The only one "powned" by bafflegab like this are the people who have not read the book but like to google around to make it appear that they have.

I'm not sure. What is it? The US strode the world after WW II as an economic behemoth while Britain was faced with economic collapse. You simply can't make the stretch you're trying to make here. If you actually look to the history books, you'll find that the reason Britain became what she became in the first place was from running deficits during the Napoleonic campaigns; it allowed it to convert its economy into an industrial economy while France lagged behind precisely BECAUSE it wouldn't take the leap that Britain did.

It would be far more disturbing to you if they had. Not only would you still find it homoerotic and uncomfortably "macho", but you'd find it mysogynist as well...they left out what Leonidas wife actually said to him when he went off to battle, and what his answer was. In fact, you and the PC brigade would not doubt be storming hollywood demanding that they turn history into something you'd be more comfortable with.

I hope CB is learning to breathe under water, since he's been in over his head throughout this conversation, as usual.

If there is evidence, why can't these dudes be given a trial? Since when do enemy combatants get trials? When have they ever had trials?

This is a consolidation of three existing commands for God's sake, in an effort to streamline operations. Good grief. Did anyone notice the "host country" terminology? Kuzzad announced this as if it is an armada lying off the shore of Africa to go install satraps throughout Africa. Any more big news? Like "US troops cross Canadian border!!!!11!!!!!!" (on their way, by train, to Alaska)

Yeah, God forbid that we actually take our own side in the interpretation of history. No one else does...Islamic countries are well known for their objectivity in teaching opposing opinions in madrassas...