Fighting Un-Conventional Wars

[bradco]

"Rogue state is a term applied by some international theorists to states considered threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria such as being ruled by AUTHORITARIAN regimes severely restricting human rights, accused of SPONSORING terrorism, and SEEKING TO PROLIFERATE weapons of mass destruction.

In the last six months of the Clinton administration, the term "rogue state" was temporarily replaced with the term "state of concern," however, the Bush administration has returned to the earlier term. The U.S. government perceives the threat posed by these states as justifying its foreign policy and military initiatives, as in the case of anti-ballistic missile programs, which are held to be grounded in the concern that these states will not be deterred by the certainty of retaliation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue%5Fstate

hmm a discrepancy. I was referring to the useage of rogue state that I have come across in various scholarly articles. The Wikipedia article is on "rogue state" as a term constructed by the US and other governments as a propaganda tool. This term is mostly used in popular media. Note, at the top of the link you provided it has said that the "neutrality of this article is disputed"

"Like many other terms of political discourse, the term "rogue state" has two uses: a propagandistic use, applied to assorted enemies, and a literal use that applies to states that do not regard themselves as bound by international norms." (Noam Chomsky, Rogue States, page 1 [2])

I refer to the literal meaning of the term

[betsy]

hmm a discrepancy. I was referring to the useage of rogue state that I have come across in various scholarly articles. The Wikipedia article is on "rogue state" as a term constructed by the US and other governments as a propaganda tool. This term is mostly used in popular media. Note, at the top of the link you provided it has said that the "neutrality of this article is disputed"

Yes the term is used in popular media.

But who uses the expression "rogue states" that we read in the media...the US! Therefore it is the US' definition that we talk about!

The definition depends on who uses it.

The very idea that the US is a rogue state is quite ludicrous. If it is a rogue state...we wouldn't be having this problem with the middle east at all. The US with all its might could've just as easily wiped them all out!

And who are these so-called critics? Those who are against the US foreign policy!

I take it then that Chomsky's definition is also propagandist because here's what they say about Chomsky:

"He is generally considered to be a KEY intellectual figure within the lLEFT WING of United States politics. According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between 1980 and 1992 Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar, and the eighth most cited scholar overall.[3][4][5] Chomsky is widely known for his political activism, and for his CRITICISM of the FOREIGN POLICY of the UNITED STATES and other governments. Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism (he is a member of the IWW).

Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism which focuses on the labour movement. Syndicalisme is a French word meaning "trade unionism" – hence, the "syndicalism" qualification. Anarcho-syndicalists view labour unions as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the State with a new society democratically self-managed by workers. Anarcho-syndicalists seek to abolish the wage system and private ownership of the means of production, which they believe lead to class divisions. Anarcho-syndicalism is viewed as an anachronism by many contemporary anarchists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

[bradco]

I think the definition I used isnt really propagandist....it just takes the literal meanings of "rogue"and "state" and combines them to form a term. The "rogue state" definition used by governments and popular media doesnt share the real meaning of the words "rogue"or "state". It just sounds a little spooky so when a leader can get up and accuse a state of being "rogue" people get all riled up.

"I take it then that Chomsky's definition"

-its not really "his" definition. It is used by a lot more people than just him. It is just the ordinary meaning of the word as seen in any dictionary.

[Borg]

Lots of discussion about moral high ground.

Moral high ground does not win battles.

In the end history will be written by the victors and the losers will be dead.

Borg

[betsy]

I think the definition I used isnt really propagandist....it just takes the literal meanings of "rogue"and "state" and combines them to form a term. The "rogue state" definition used by governments and popular media doesnt share the real meaning of the words "rogue"or "state". It just sounds a little spooky so when a leader can get up and accuse a state of being "rogue" people get all riled up.

"I take it then that Chomsky's definition"

-its not really "his" definition. It is used by a lot more people than just him. It is just the ordinary meaning of the word as seen in any dictionary.

Yes, used by a lot of people! What people? The same kind of people who changed the definition of "terrorist" by saying Bush is a terrorist!

[betsy]

I think the definition I used isnt really propagandist....it just takes the literal meanings of "rogue"and "state" and combines them to form a term. The "rogue state" definition used by governments and popular media doesnt share the real meaning of the words "rogue"or "state". It just sounds a little spooky so when a leader can get up and accuse a state of being "rogue" people get all riled up.

Actually, the US and media's definition is more defining!

Whereas this literal definition, ".....a literal use that applies to states that do not regard themselves as bound by international norms." (Noam Chomsky), is too loose!

What is international "norm" in your definition?

Anyway, you said something about "abandoning" the geneva conventions. I hope you don't think you got that from me! I never said anything about abandoning! I mentioned, "revising."

The Geneva Conventions was in placed to prevent atrocities from happening. And I approve of that!

My question is what do we do with those who do not want to follow those rules at all, like the terrorists who had broken practically every rule. Having rules and laws is one thing...but enforcing it is another.

[bradco]

I think the definition I used isnt really propagandist....it just takes the literal meanings of "rogue"and "state" and combines them to form a term. The "rogue state" definition used by governments and popular media doesnt share the real meaning of the words "rogue"or "state". It just sounds a little spooky so when a leader can get up and accuse a state of being "rogue" people get all riled up.

Actually, the US and media's definition is more defining!

Whereas this literal definition, ".....a literal use that applies to states that do not regard themselves as bound by international norms." (Noam Chomsky), is too loose!

What is international "norm" in your definition?

Anyway, you said something about "abandoning" the geneva conventions. I hope you don't think you got that from me! I never said anything about abandoning! I mentioned, "revising."

The Geneva Conventions was in placed to prevent atrocities from happening. And I approve of that!

My question is what do we do with those who do not want to follow those rules at all, like the terrorists who had broken practically every rule. Having rules and laws is one thing...but enforcing it is another.

-you want to say my definition is to loose but then argue for a definition that allows someone to claim anyone is "rogue" on the mere grounds they are an enemy?? does that sound logical to you??

-my international "norm" is the laws and customs that are well known and codified in law, widely available for anyone to know.

-ok so its revising of the geneva conventions. please specify what you mean. Note, I have already explained to you that terrorists, and violators of the conventions, forfeit most rights that it offers.

-seeing that you call for what many people might define as genocide, by nuking an entire city when a smaller less damaging bomb would be more than enough I would say you have actually argued for totally disregarding the geneva conventions.

[betsy]

I think the definition I used isnt really propagandist....it just takes the literal meanings of "rogue"and "state" and combines them to form a term. The "rogue state" definition used by governments and popular media doesnt share the real meaning of the words "rogue"or "state". It just sounds a little spooky so when a leader can get up and accuse a state of being "rogue" people get all riled up.

Actually, the US and media's definition is more defining!

Whereas this literal definition, ".....a literal use that applies to states that do not regard themselves as bound by international norms." (Noam Chomsky), is too loose!

-you want to say my definition is to loose but then argue for a definition that allows someone to claim anyone is "rogue" on the mere grounds they are an enemy?? does that sound logical to you??

The US' definiton is very defining. It states in exact terms what makes one a rogue state!

It says:

"Rogue state is a term applied by some international theorists to states considered threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria such as being ruled by AUTHORITARIAN regimes severely restricting human rights, accused of SPONSORING terrorism, and SEEKING TO PROLIFERATE weapons of mass destruction."

So you have to be an AUTHORITARIAN or dictatorial regime, SEVERELY restricting human rights, SPONSORING TERRORISM and SEEKING TO PROLIFERATE wmd! On top of that, you must be perceived as a threat to world's peace!

Take note of the word "SEVERELY" when it described the restriction of human rights! Practically most nations trample on human rights! In varying degrees!

Compared to your definition:

"rogue state: a state that deviates from accepted international laws and norms. Ie: Iran and North Korea"

Your definition would have easily included China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, a lot of Muslim-dominated countries, and practically all banana republics lining up from here to Timbuktoo! And some of them are under so-called democratic regimes!

Heck, it may even include Canada if you consider our on-going problem with the Natives as a violation in your definition of accepted international laws and norms!

Your definition define them all as Rogue States!

It is your definiton that can easily claim anyone is "rogue!" So yes, it is very, very, loose!

Unless of course, Women's rights, Children's Rights and Human Rights.... are not included in the definiton of your international laws and norms.

[betsy]

-my international "norm" is the laws and customs that are well known and codified in law, widely available for anyone to know.

And where do I look?

Since you made the claim, it is the norm in any mature and responsible debate...that you provide it, especially if asked....just so we know we are debating about the same thing.

[betsy]

-ok so its revising of the geneva conventions. please specify what you mean. Note, I have already explained to you that terrorists, and violators of the conventions, forfeit most rights that it offers.

For specific revisions...I have no idea since I am not pretending to know everything about the Geneva Conventions and all its addendums.

My interest was just piqued when someone mentioned (was it you?) somewhere that some nations did not want to sign to Protocol 1.

Another reason I mentioned it is the fact that I see so much onus placed on the good guys.

My question is: what do you do to the faction that wants nothing to do with the laws...would not follow the laws...and in fact, practically violates every law? And spits on it!

What do you do if on purpose they use civilians for shields...whether they may be willing or un-willing?

If you go right in there and bomb them...you get dragged before tribunals!

Just look what's happening to Rumsfeld! I am not denying that there were atrocities that happened in Abu Gharib....but to try and prosecute a man who had done nothing compared to what had been done to thousands of civilians and hostages by terrorists, under the protection and support of some nations. He's been villified more than the terrorists themselves!

The unfairness and loss of perspective stinks to high heavens.

[betsy]

-seeing that you call for what many people might define as genocide, by nuking an entire city when a smaller less damaging bomb would be more than enough I would say you have actually argued for totally disregarding the geneva conventions.

We cannot seriously debate about that scenario....simply for the reason that we do not know how one would react if there is a race for survival.

A person fighting desperately to defend himself from a Jason-like monster could pull the trigger once....while the hysterical woman may keep on shooting even long after the bullet chamber is empty.

Desperation. Survival. In a matter of hours.

Anything can happen. Sure, it may be deemed "overkill" in the end...but that conclusion can only be achieved through careful contemplation. And when you are racing for time (our scenario said the attack is happening in 24 hours)...and the stakes are this high....what do you think, one would even be worried about violations, let alone think about the Geneva Convention?