War - What The Hell Is It Good For

You are the one that wants to now twist the rules. The rules are on the books and now you want to change Geneva so that terrorists will be protected. That's insane - the point of Geneva is to protect true soldiers - Geneva becomes irrelevant if you get your way and in future wars real soldiers will stopped being protected.

"remove Bush's cock from your mouth as he is still an ignorant SOB"

LMAO - yeah he's one ignorant genius is what you are saying or do you believe he is just the luckiest sob on the planet? Your whole argument is a contradiction - you cant have it both ways!

Bush is a very very intelligent man - had a higher IQ than Kerry according to their military entrance tests. Just because one is intelligent does not make them right though - you can disagree with Bush's vision all you want - however you only reduce your credibility when you make such ridiculous claims that are generally spouted by European elitists and leftwing extremists.

"He couldn't even NAME the leaders of Taiwan, Pakistan or India. Not exactly unimportant places."

Wrong he did name the leader of Taiwan - can you name the leader of Mexico, Chile and Indonesia? Don't cheat now and look them up - lmao.

Do you think I am ignorant and unintelligent? Honestly now - I know we often disagree but give me your appraisal. The fact is that I can not remember names at all. My memory simply has a block when it comes to names - in my last post I had to look up both Chirac and Schroeder's names because I simply couldn't remember them. I can not tell you the name of a single professor I've had in the last 3 semesters save one. I hate that I cant remember names and I try these little tricks to help me but it rarely works. At the same time I have a really good memory for events - I can tell you aspects about an event that I attended with friends and they are all shocked at the detail of my memory. So are you really going to judge me because I cant remember names worth shit?

"Wrong he did name the leader of Taiwan - can you name the leader of Mexico, Chile and Indonesia? Don't cheat now and look them up - lmao."
He gave his first name, I guess its the thought that counts.

Mexico is Vincente Fox, Chile I don't know. Indonesia has a former general in charge.

However, you know what? I'm not running for President. I expect my Presidents to know what's beyond his own navel.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

"You are the one that wants to now twist the rules. The rules are on the books and now you want to change Geneva so that terrorists will be protected. That's insane - the point of Geneva is to protect true soldiers - Geneva becomes irrelevant if you get your way and in future wars real soldiers will stopped being protected."
Define terrorist! We already had this problem! If we decide that terrorists are no better than animals and have no rights, well America has supported terrorists in the past. From the Contras to the mujahideen.

The fact is, they were fighting the USA as guerrilas and thus don't represent a government recognised by any other government. Nonetheless, SO MANY fighters fall under that category. Fighters in Vietnam, Latin America and Africa have fallen under this category. These are fighters who have been recognised as POWs in the past, now Bush has decided to degrade America and is reducing America to the sort of barbaric behaviour we are supposedly fighting.

All this based on a misinterpretation of the Geneva Conventions which clearly goes against its spirit. Do I need to remind you why we have those Conventions? Its because if we act like civilized human beings our enemies are more likely to the same. It protects our soldiers.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

"These are fighters who have been recognised as POWs in the past, now Bush has decided to degrade America and is reducing America to the sort of barbaric behaviour we are supposedly fighting. "

I don't know if that's true - even if two wrongs don't make a right.

What you want to do is equate terrorists to soldiers and I tell you such actions will only lead to the detriment of real soldiers and it also encourages more terrorists in the region as well as allows nations to encourage their citizens to fight as terrorists while maintaining a fake neutrality. Its bad law and the reason we have conventions is to help promote nations into being civilized.

Actually he gave his last name

"Mexico is Vincente Fox, Chile I don't know. Indonesia has a former general in charge.

However, you know what? I'm not running for President. I expect my Presidents to know what's beyond his own navel."

Now dont change your argument. LMAO

Your point was that because he didnt know he was an ignorant fool. You, like Bush, could only name 1 of the 3 however are you admitting to being an ignorant fool? I know you are not thus your ignorance on those 2 names are understandable. Just as it is understandable that at that moment Bush couldnt remember their names.

McCain was also asked a similar question and he refused to answer saying he would not play such stupid games

I will ignore the pointless and shallow jibe at British democracy. Not all de jure republics are de facto republics, most de jure monarchies are de facto republics.

There is no such thing as a terrorist! It is a boogified term to justify the Right's crackdown on liberties.

There are people who willingly attack civilians and there are peopel who respect civilians. That is the only difference I can discern.

There is no real definition of a terrorist, those who try to define them end up being dry, technical and ultimately fail to do anything useful. Soldiers are soldiers, terrorists are boogeymen. They are Bush's way of making our enemies bestial to trick people into thinking we are allowed to lower our moral standards, to make ourselves bestial, when we face them.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

"There is no such thing as a terrorist! It is a boogified term to justify the Right's crackdown on liberties.

There are people who willingly attack civilians and there are peopel who respect civilians. That is the only difference I can discern. "

The right made up the word terrorist? Thats a new one. However there are such a thing as terrorists and your definition proves it. Non-Iraqis fighting in Iraq that attack civilians are also terrorists. Iraqi nationals fighting the new govt are not.

I wasnt aware that I made a pointless and shallow jibe at British democracy???

You made it in the other thread, oh well.

"Your point was that because he didnt know he was an ignorant fool. You, like Bush, could only name 1 of the 3 however are you admitting to being an ignorant fool?"
Put it this way, someone who is running for President is expected to put some effort into learning about the world.

If he doesn't know anything about the world's hotspots then he is either:
- lazy and ignorant (I fit under here I suppose)
- stupid and ignorant

Either way he isn't fit to be CiC.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

"The right made up the word terrorist? Thats a new one. However there are such a thing as terrorists and your definition proves it. Non-Iraqis fighting in Iraq that attack civilians are also terrorists. Iraqi nationals fighting the new govt are not."

Who decides what is a nation? Is Iraq a nation? It is a British CONSTRUCT. Many Arabs would argue that there is an Arab nation. Thus Jordanian, Syria or Saudi Arabs fighting in Iraq, it might be argued, are fighting for the Arab nation and it doesn't matter whether or not they are legally part of a British construct.

What I find appaling is the double standards. Iraqi national insurgents are NOT representative of a government. Does that mean they have no rights as POWs?

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

"Put it this way, someone who is running for President is expected to put some effort into learning about the world."

Yes I agree - however you could only name 1 of the 3 and your knowledge of the world is most impressive. In fact you are probably more knowledgeable than most professors I have had and most politicians that run for office. I'm not blowing smoke up your ass - it is true that I am highly impressed by your knowledge - however there's no way I would conclude that you must now be a fool because you could only name 1 out of the 3. Furthermore I am sure you know a good deal about the world even if you cant remember certain names. Like I said early - I wouldn't have been able to name any and of the ones I asked you I would have only gotten Fox correct - however I don't think I am that stupid - do you?

Im not gonna get back into that nation argument again with you because I think we have both exhausted it and frankly I think your point is nonsensical.

"What I find appaling is the double standards. Iraqi national insurgents are NOT representative of a government. Does that mean they have no rights as POWs?"

I would disagree and find them representative of the Saddam govt and I would treat them as POWs.

However if I was caught trying to kill innocent Brits in England because Im pro-Irish and want Ulster back in Irelands hands I should be treated as a terrorist, should I not?

"Im not gonna get back into that nation argument again with you because I think we have both exhausted it and frankly I think your point is nonsensical."
Well I think its nonesensical and surprising that an Irish-American thinks Britain can define nations.

"I would disagree and find them representative of the Saddam govt and I would treat them as POWs."
What about those who want an Islamist regime? They clearly don't represent Saddam. The definition doesn't hold. Its used sporadically, whenever it suits the government's needs. That's dangerous.

"However if I was caught trying to kill innocent Brits in England because Im pro-Irish and want Ulster back in Irelands hands I should be treated as a terrorist, should I not?"
You should be treated as a criminal and handled by the legal system normally just like every other foreign national.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

I expect my president to have basic knowledge of most of the world. That usually entails knowing a place's leader. He doesn't need to know the King of Lesotho or Belgium.

But I do expect him to know the leaders of hotspots like Pakistan and Taiwan.

As we aren't running for president, we don't need to reach such high standards. But this is all besides the point... The president can be ignorant, so long as his cabinet is competent.

I don't think they're competent, they treated Iraq like post-Nazi Germany, which obviously didn't work.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

"Well I think its nonesensical and surprising that an Irish-American thinks Britain can define nations."

Good point - lol - but I'm talking about history and precedent and the fact that Iraqis, Jordanians, Saudis, Syrians and Iranians have been in control of their NATIONS for half a century.

"What about those who want an Islamist regime? They clearly don't represent Saddam. The definition doesn't hold. Its used sporadically, whenever it suits the government's needs. That's dangerous. "

Are they Iraqi nationals? Are they targeting civilians?

"You should be treated as a criminal and handled by the legal system normally just like every other foreign national."

Yes and your criminal law has specific punishments for people that engage in terrorist activities and that would clearly apply to me in that hypothetical.

"But I do expect him to know the leaders of hotspots like Pakistan and Taiwan. "

But you are proving nothing except that he couldn't remember their names. Don't you get it? Like I said in such a test I would fail miserably but that doesn't mean I would be ignorant about the region or their history.

"But I do expect him to know the leaders of hotspots like Pakistan and Taiwan."

He clearly did - he referred to him as the General and remembered Lee's name. So he wasn't completely ignorant - he revealed that he couldn't remember at that moment while being put on the spot that he couldn't remember their full names.

"I don't think they're competent, they treated Iraq like post-Nazi Germany, which obviously didn't work."

We are new at this game and the debaathification process may in hindsight have been a mistake;. HOWEVER it was a mistake urged by leading Iraqi dignitaries and dissenters who were experts in the region. Allawi admitted yesterday that HE made a mistake there too. However, I am not convinced yet it was a mistake - I think its just too soon to determine.